Parker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeParker David: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 21 August 2013. Volume:692;Page:12662. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]4.Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour)to theMinister of Finance: What cost/benefit analysis was done to justify the $30 million subsidy payment to RioTinto and what would the effect have been on electricity prices had the payment not been made?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance):The Government has set out what it considers are the benefits of this one-off payment which secured agreement between Meridian Energy and New Zealand Aluminium Smelters after protracted negotiations. These benefits were greater short-term certainty for the Tīwai Point smelter workers and medium-term certainty for the business the wider Southland region and the New Zealand electricity industry. In answer to the second part of the question that depends on the response by the parties to the negotiation and more widely by the electricity market. We were not in a position and no one is to speculate on that.Hon David Parker: Why did he not request or obtain any job or employment commitments from Tīwai Point beyond a very short period before handing over $30 million of taxpayers’ money to RioTinto?Hon BILL ENGLISH: We dealt with that issue a couple of weeks ago. It was never the Government’s intention to provide an ongoing subsidy to the electricity prices or to the business and it was never the Government’s intention to try to run the business. We made a clean simple one-off payment to secure finalisation of the commercial agreement. That is what happened. It would have been a bit different I suggest if that agreement had not been completed; then the member would be telling us off for not doing enough to save the jobs.Hon David Parker: How could the Minister decide whether or not it was wise to pay a $30 million subsidy payment to RioTinto if he did not have any estimate as to what would have been the effect on electricity prices and therefore the effect on other businesses and consumers had that electricity been available on the New Zealand market?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well because the electricity price in 5 years’ time if RioTinto left was not our top consideration. I am surprised that it is his. I suggest that he go to the smelter and tell the workers that actually their jobs are much less important than the electricity price in 5 years’ time if the smelter goes. Actually no one can really know what that would be.Hon David Parker: Has the $30 million subsidy to RioTinto had the effect of facilitating the sale of the shares in Meridian Energy?Hon BILL ENGLISH: It has I am sure created more certainty where there was uncertainty among investors. That was one of the benefits of the arrangement that we came to with RioTinto but I am still a bit unclear as to whether the member is proposing that the Government did too much that the smelter should now be shut and that the 700 highly paid jobs do not matter. I am not surprised about that bit because the Labour Party—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That answer was quite sufficient for the question.Dr Russel Norman: Does the Minister stand by his previous opposition to picking winners and how is his opposition to picking winners consistent with the $30 million payment to RioTinto?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes I think Governments have to be very very careful about picking winners but at least we pick some winners. The Greens just try to pick—in fact they do not even pick out; they just stop everything. We wish they would pick something—Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was a very straight question. It was not about Green Party policy. The Minister started his answer by attacking the Greens. It has nothing to do with the Greens. He should answer the question.Mr SPEAKER: I think that the question has been answered and the Minister does not need to continue with his answer.Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can you tell me how the Minister has possibly answered the question by simply attacking the Green Party?Mr SPEAKER: Because the member asked if he would like to look at his question whether the Minister stands by his previous position of not picking winners and the Minister went on to explain why he still stands by that. He does not want to pick winners etc. but he explained why on this occasion jobs were more important.