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: 27 August 2013. Volume:693;Page:12934. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]1.Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to theMinister of Finance: Why is the $30 million taxpayer funded subsidy to RioTinto being managed by the “Government Share Offers Programme” in the Treasury?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The member is wrong on three counts: it was not a subsidy it was not paid to RioTinto and it is not managed by the Government share offers programme in Treasury.Hon David Parker: Why was the refusal to release the background documents justifying the $30 million subsidy to RioTinto which had been addressed to the head of Treasury responded to by the director of the Government share offers programme?Hon BILL ENGLISH: If the member is interested in the details of how Treasury is organised around these things there is a group called the commercial transactions group which has dealt with the failure of South Canterbury Finance and the buy-out of AMI and is the group within which the share float programme is managed. It is actually the commercial transactions group that is in charge of any of the significant commercial transactions that the Government does. The $30 million is paid to New Zealand Aluminium Smelters not to RioTinto.Hon David Parker: I seek leave to table the Official Information Act request that was addressed to the head of Treasury dated 21 August.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular letter. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon David Parker: I seek leave to table the reply from the director of the Government share offers programme dated 26 August 2013 which declined the request.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table the reply to that particular letter. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. It can be so tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon David Parker: How can he deny that the dominant purpose of the $30 million subsidy was to facilitate the sale of Meridian Energy given that the refusal to release information came from the Government share offers programme section of Treasury despite the fact that the request for information was not sent to it?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member is drawing a long bow. The Government has been quite transparent about the transaction. It has outlined the reasons why it entered into that transaction. One of the reasons is that it would create certainty for investors in Meridian Energy but I can assure the member that the decision was made by Ministers and how the Treasury wiring diagram flows did not make any difference to the decision.Hon David Parker: Did the $30 million smelter subsidy payment have any significant effect on the demand for electricity by the smelter?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well I am not exactly sure what the member means but the finalising of the contract means that Meridian Energy has an option to reduce the amount of electricity that it supplies to the smelter in a couple of years’ time. Whether the smelter reduces its demand would depend on how much production it wants to continue with.Hon David Parker: Does he understand that his $30 million interference in the electricity market is yet more proof that the New Zealand electricity market is uncompetitive with the consequence of higher charges for other businesses and residential consumers?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No but if we are going to talk about the smelter the member needs to explain to other Labour MPs that the biggest beneficiary of Labour’s policy on the electricity market would be New Zealand Aluminium Smelters. By far it would be the biggest beneficiary of any reduction in average electricity prices because it sources its electricity fromManapōuri dam which is probably one of the cheapest generators in the country.Hon David Parker: If the smelter subsidy would have occurred irrespective of the Meridian Energy float why is it that his Government did not offer similar subsidies toHolcim cement orNorskeSkog both high energy users to stop them laying off workers?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I did not say it would have occurred independent of the Meridian Energy float. But that member needs to explain why his policy to reduce power prices will primarily benefit New Zealand Aluminium Smelters when I have seen calculations it could be worth up to $150 million per year to New Zealand Aluminium Smelters.Hon David Parker: Is the real reason he is failing to disclose properly the facts behind the smelter subsidy from New Zealanders the same reason that he is refusing to properly discuss the effect on the electricity market and electricity prices—that is if New Zealanders knew the truth they would immediately see through the spin around the Meridian Energy sale?Hon BILL ENGLISH: There is no spin. The Government has been absolutely clear about the payment—absolutely clear about the reasons for it. What that member needs to be able to explain is why his policy to cut electricity prices will hand the biggest single benefit to the smelter and also explain whether it is Labour’s policy that no payment should have been made and the 800 workers should have been sacked because that is what that member said a number of months ago.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In a rather unusual turn of events the Minister of Finance in his answers asked David Parker a number of questions. I seek leave for David Parker to be able to answer them. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member should bone up on the Standing Orders. He cannot seek leave on behalf of someone else.Hon David Parker: I seek leave of the House to answer those questions. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I think on this occasion there were some questions so the honourable member can seek leave. I will put the leave. Leave is so sought. Is there any objection? Yes there is. [Interruption] Order!