Responses — Richard Prosser—Statements by Hon Dr Nick Smith

Honourable members, I have received a letter from Richard Prosser raising with me the misrepresentation of statements he has made in the House by the Hon Dr Nick Smith. I have determined that Mr Prosser should have the opportunity to respond to misrepresentation under Standing Order 359. I now call on Richard Prosser to respond to the misrepresentation.

I wish to make a statement in accordance with Standing Order 359 in response to my words in the House being misrepresented by the Hon Nick Smith. On 9 February 2017 during the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement, I stated that New Zealand First “is saying that when water is exported from this country it should command a royalty, paid to the Crown on behalf of the people who own it.” In reply to a response from the Hon David Bennett, I then gave an example of the comparative value of a royalty paid on a standard barrel of oil relative to a royalty charged at the rate of 10c per litre on an equivalent volume of water.

However, in reply to my supplementary question No. 3 to question No. 5 during question time on 24 May 2017, which read “Will he support New Zealand First’s policy of any potential charge that is applied volumetrically to consented water takes being confined to a royalty only on the export only of water as water only; if not, why not?”, Dr Smith replied: “I have seen New Zealand First proposals for a 10c-per-litre charge on all commercial water users. That would cost our dairy industry $600 billion a year, and effectively destroy New Zealand’s largest export industry.”

In this statement, and on three other occasions, Dr Smith has falsely portrayed New Zealand First’s policy of a royalty only on the export only of water as water only as being a charge on all commercial water users—in particular, the dairy industry—which it is not and which it has never been, and he has stated that he has seen proposals to that effect from New Zealand First that he has not seen, because they do not exist and have never existed.

My words have been knowingly and deliberately misrepresented by Dr Smith. This is unacceptable conduct on the part of a senior Government Minister and a member of this House of considerable experience. I thank you for granting this opportunity for the record to be corrected. Thank you.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just ask you to reflect on that statement. My submission to you is that it was not in the nature of a personal reflection made by the Hon Dr Nick Smith at all, and what we had there was really a matter of debate and general debate on party political matters.

No, no. I refer the member to Standing Order 359. It is an opportunity for members who consider that they have been misrepresented to consider a breach of privilege. It has become a lesser means of dealing with the matter. I looked very carefully at the statements that were made, the allegations that were made. I determined that, in fact, Mr Prosser had been misrepresented. He is then, therefore, given the opportunity to clarify that in this House, and he has done so.