Carter rejects conflict of interest claims

Agriculture Minister David Carter has dismissed conflict of interest claims aimed at him in Parliament yesterday over a water consent on his Canterbury farm as "scurrilous".

Green Party co-leader Russel Norman asked Prime Minister John Key whether any Cabinet ministers declared conflicts of interest when the legislation that empowers the Government to appoint commissioners in place of Environment Canterbury's councillors was discussed. Mr Key said he couldn't recall that having happened.

Dr Norman then asked: "Is he aware that the Agriculture Minister, David Carter, owns a farm with an irrigation consent in the Hurunui district and stands to gain financially if the proposed Hurunui irrigation scheme goes ahead?"

Mr Key: "I am aware he owns a farm in that area. I'm not aware whether he would benefit because the whole matter needs to be considered by the commissioners".

Dr Norman has asked Auditor-General Lyn Provost to investigate what he said was a potential conflict of interest over Mr Carter's farming interests and a proposal to dam the Hurunui River.

The bill passed in Parliament last night removed the Environment Court from being able to decide on whether a water conservation order should be placed on the river, instead placing the decision in the hands of commissioners.

Mr Carter, who is overseas, released a statement on the issue saying: "There is an existing historical right to irrigate approximately 40 hectares of my 1700ha Cat Hill property from the Hurunui River. This consent was transferred to me when I bought the property approximately four years ago. It has not changed since and I have no intention of applying for more water in the future."

Mr Carter said if either the Hurunui water project or the Hurunui water conservation order proceeded, it would have no impact on the existing historical consent.

"The Cat Hill property is not one which would be further irrigated should the Hurunui irrigation project proceed. Therefore I do not stand to benefit financially, as the Green Party claims," Mr Carter said.

He said the claims from Dr Norman were scurrilous.

Dr Norman has also asked Ms Provost to investigate alleged comments Mr Carter is said to have made a function last September suggesting applicants for a water conservation order on the river freeze their application for 12 to 18 months, so that a negotiated agreement could be reached.

Mr Carter said that was about trying to get a collaborative approach going between the parties rather than taking the expensive Environment Court route.