Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Hide Rodney: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:670;Page:17249] 
1. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Acting Minister of Energy and Resources 
: Does she accept her ministry’s advice that the value of New Zealand’s onshore minerals excluding hydrocarbons is $194 billion overall with $80 billion estimated in schedule 4 land; if so what plans does the Government have to allow their development? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA (Acting Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 To the first part of the question I accept the Ministry of Economic Development’s advice that an estimate of the gross value of New Zealand’s in-ground onshore minerals excluding hydrocarbons is $194 billion. To the second part of the question the Government has made it clear that it does not intend to remove any land from schedule 4. However the Government is interested in seeing an increase in mineral activity on non - schedule 4 land in which there is considerable potential and it has taken a number of steps to encourage that. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Why is it that the Government thinks a simple hole in the ground is so damaging that the country should forgo $80 billion worth of wealth the jobs and the investment in growth and instead live from hand to mouth by borrowing $300 million a week? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: The member will know that the Government recognises the need to balance economic opportunities with environmental responsibility. New Zealand has had a robust debate about mining on schedule 4 land. The Government listened to the debate and has ruled out removing land from schedule 4. However like the member the Government is keen to see New Zealand’s extensive mineral wealth utilised in a responsible way for the benefit of all New Zealanders and it is taking a number of steps to encourage that. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Can the Minister share with the House the number of jobs and lost opportunities that the decision to leave that $80 billion under the ground represents; or is it in fact the case that the Government does not know? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: The Government has taken a number of steps to explore opportunities on non - schedule 4 land including undertaking a significant aeromagnetic survey in Northland and on the West Coast of the South Island to learn more about which areas have the highest concentrations of valuable minerals. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think you could anticipate my point of order. The answer did not address what was a straightforward question about schedule 4 land not the other land. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite the member to repeat his question bearing in mind that he is addressing the question to the Acting Minister of Energy and Resources. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Can the Minister share with the House the trade-off in terms of jobs and lost opportunity that leaving the $80 billion of minerals under the schedule 4 land represents or does the Minister not know? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: As I answered to the primary question the Government is focused on the $114 billion worth of mineral potential on non - schedule 4 land and that is what we are exploring. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A point of order has been called. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Again with the greatest of respect that was a perfectly fine answer to the first question but the third question was different. It was to the point. The Minister could have answered it quite simply but repeating the answer to the first question does not answer the third question which was straightforward. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I think unfortunately the member did give an alternative: whether the Government knew or did not know. I think the answer actually indicated— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I blame myself for having allowed that point of order which was not particularly helpful. I think on this occasion in fairness the member asked whether the Government had weighed up the opportunities or the cost and benefits of the opportunities against the costs of not taking action. The Minister’s reply was that the Government is focused on a certain portion of the mineral estate that was identified in the primary question. I believe that was an answer to the question. I did listen carefully and I think with this kind of question there is no particular answer to it. The Minister chose to answer it in that way and I believe that was not unreasonable. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I tread warily but that was not my question. I did not ask about the trade-off or whether the Government had considered it. I specifically asked—twice—whether the Minister could share with the House the trade-off or whether the Government did not know. Talking about what the Government is focused on in the other land definitely does not address that question. The Minister could just say the Government does not know because it did not do the work but she cannot talk about— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the member is being unreasonable. If he thinks about his question he will realise it was what I summarised in very loose terms. I do not pretend to be perfect in summarising a member’s question but the answer that the Minister gave was her reaction to that issue. She said on behalf of the Government that the Government is focused on a certain part of the land—that having weighed up the costs and benefits of the entire mineral estate the Government is focused on a certain part of it. In answering in that way I believe she did address the issue of trade-offs. But there is no specific answer to that question. That is why I am not being any harder on the Minister in trying to get a particular answer from her because there is no particular answer to that question. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Has she seen the reports valuing mineral resources and mining’s impact on tourism both by Terry Consultants which show that the actual value of the proposal outlined in the substantive question is nothing like $80 billion and more like $25 per person and that is before taking into account the tourism revenue that New Zealand would lose if the proposal proceeded? 
Hon HEKIA PARATA 
: No. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I seek leave to table for the Minister’s benefit the two reports to which I referred in my supplementary question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House.