11. Question No. 11—Land InformationHon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister for Land InformationQuestion No. 11—Land Information11. Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister for Land Information: Why did she decline the application for OceanaGold in cases 20171062 and 201810122 to purchase 178 hectares at Waihi when the Associate Minister of Finance concluded the project would create substantial and identifiable benefit"?Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister for Land Information): Thank you Mr Speaker. I declined because it was my judgment that using productive rural farmland to establish a long-term tailings reservoir containing hazardous mining waste did not create a substantial and identifiable benefit for New Zealand.Hon David Bennett: When she concluded that the acquisition of the land would enable more mining and therefore more emissions which could encumber New Zealand's transition to a net zero emissions economy will this new test be applied to other applications to the Overseas Investment Office (OIO)?Hon EUGENIE SAGE: The test is one of substantial and identifiable benefit to New Zealand. I considered that in the context of what is a sustainable economic benefit. So yes potentially whether it contributes to carbon emissions and our net zero target could be considered.Hon David Bennett: When she said "It is difficult for an economic benefit to be truly substantial if it is not sustainable. The nature of the proposed investment in non-renewable resource extraction is inherently unsustainable." then has this test been applied to the over $5.2 billion worth of applications to the OIO since she has been Minister?Hon EUGENIE SAGE: I've been the decision maker in 35 applications under the Overseas Investment Act. I've approved 31 of the applications and declined four. I have applied the criteria in the Overseas Investment Act to the best of my ability.Hon David Bennett: How can the Minister determine that the application had only a moderate economic benefit when the Associate Minister of Finance found that the export value of the gold from the land would be 1610 years' worth of the dairy export value from that farm?Hon EUGENIE SAGE: The Overseas Investment Act provides for two Ministers to make separate decisions. What is a substantial and identifiable benefit to one person may not be to another. Where the two Ministers make different decisions the Act requires that the application is declined.Hon David Bennett: Is the fact that the company spent $373 million in New Zealand in 2016 a substantial and identifiable benefit to that Minister?Hon EUGENIE SAGE: It is certainly a benefit but in the context of sustainable economic development the risk of major tailings impoundments which change productive food-producing land into a permanent site for the storage of hazardous waste is not a substantial and identifiable benefit. It creates significant risks both economic and environmental.Hon David Bennett: Why did she use the Hauraki district average wage of $23000 as part of her justification for claiming that further mineral extraction would not generate a substantial and identifiable benefit when the Associate Minister of Finance said that the $120000 average mining employee's wage was evidence it would?Hon EUGENIE SAGE: The decision was about whether the purchase of the land would create a substantial and identifiable benefit. In this case it's turning productive land into a site for the long-term storage of hazardous waste—that is not a benefit."