Fairbrother Russell: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Fairbrother Russell: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 16 June 2004. Volume:618;Page:13639. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
12.  
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Energy 
: What initiatives has the Government announced to meet future demand for gas in New Zealand? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Energy) 
: 
 On Monday the Government announced a package of incentives for the petroleum industry to increase exploration activity. The package comprises a reduction in the royalty regime for oil and gas discoveries made over the next 5 years a review of specific tax laws affecting exploration activity additional funding to Crown Minerals for technical data acquisition to increase knowledge of the more prospective parts of New Zealand’s petroleum basins and increased resources for targeted promotion of New Zealand to international explorers and investors. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: How much will this package cost? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: Although parts of the package have determinate costs such as a $15 million boost to fund seismic exploration the exact cost of the initiatives will be dependent on the level of gas exploration and the discoveries that are made. Revenue will be forgone only if gas fields are found. These incentives apply to production from new discoveries within the period 30 June 2004 up to 31 December 2009. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: How can the Minister be so happy to trumpet the virtues of this policy when Shell says the changes will not be enough to convince it to resume prospecting in New Zealand which it suspended this year and is this not just another example of spin over substance from the Government? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: I am afraid that the member should count to 10 once or twice before he asks questions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please come to the answer. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: Is Shell coming back or not? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: First I want to read an extract— 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: Is Shell coming back or not? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: If the member would be quiet for 30 seconds I will give him his answer. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: Is Shell coming back or not? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has asked a question three or four times. That is against Speakers’ rulings. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: Point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please be seated I am on my feet—or the member will leave the Chamber and he will not be able to raise any point of order. I ask the Minister to please be seated also. I want to say quite bluntly that making a series of similar interjections has been ruled out by Speakers from about 1903. I allowed the member three goes but that is it. The member asked the question. An answer will be given. I do not mind the odd interjection during an answer; I never have. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: I would like to read for the member an extract from a letter from Shell’s corporate communications manager which I have received today. It states: “I wanted to write to assure you that this report’’—the one the member refers to—“is inaccurate and has taken some Shell comments to a Radio New Zealand journalist out of context. It was made clear to the reporter that Shell’s decision had nothing to do with the Government’s tax or regulatory regime as it was then or is now. Shell’s decision was motivated purely by the need of the Royal Dutch / Shell Group to allocate capital for exploration projects where the group feels it has the best chance of finding large reserves of new gas and oil. I have written to the chief executive of TVNZ asking how his staff arrived at the headline ‘Shell thumbs nose at Government’. ” 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We would require the Minister to table that letter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is not an official document but the Minister may like to answer the request. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: I seek leave to table the letter from Shell’s corporate relations manager Mr Simon King. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: It’s official. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has made two mistakes in the Standing Orders in one sentence. First of all it is not an official document. Secondly he cannot require somebody to table it if he does not want to. But the member has asked for leave. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.