11. Question No. 11—Energy and ResourcesJONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Energy and ResourcesQuestion No. 11—Energy and Resources11. JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What particular error or errors if any does she believe NZIER has made in its calculations of the impact of her Government's oil and gas exploration ban outside onshore Taranaki and what official advice if any has she received since the NZIER report's publication on what the actual economic impact will be?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): My concerns sheet back to the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) modelling on which the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER) report is based. As I said in answer to the member's question yesterday problems with that modelling have been very well canvassed. Some of the concerns with the data are that (1) it does not take into account the 100 square kilometres of permitted area we are honouring and the pragmatic approach we are taking with current permit holders over drill or drop provisions (2) it assumed that there would be no Government initiatives into alternative energy industries and the creation of associated jobs and (3) it takes no account of the costs of doing—as the member seems to suggest—nothing. The report is based on a report by MBIE which was based on a report by GNS Science who said their own model attempted to quantify that which is almost unquantifiable. I also pointed out yesterday that the report does not consider new jobs that may be created via the transition of our economy and growth of new industries. A number of studies point out that renewable energy sources create more jobs than fossil fuels. For example a Pure Advantage report found that with proper investment almost 30000 jobs could be created in areas such as the geothermal and bioenergy industries. A third report from Business and Economic Research (BERL) said that developing a bioenergy sector could generate up to 27000 jobs. In answer to the second part of the question none.Jonathan Young: Is NZIER—Hon Gerry Brownlee: It's all rubbish.SPEAKER: Order!Hon Gerry Brownlee: I was spoken to by Dr Webb.SPEAKER: But the member's response was delayed until his colleague was speaking.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I was bullied.SPEAKER: It is your fault and you'll be more careful in the future.Jonathan Young: Is NZIER incorrect to conclude that her Government's exploration ban will result in a $20774 fall in household incomes each year for the next 30 years for every household in Taranaki; and if so why?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Yes because I believe the calculations that the NZIER report have produced are based on a flawed model that was in the original regulatory impact statement. I've just gone through in my primary answer all the reasons why I think there is a flawed methodology behind the data that is being used.Jonathan Young: With official data showing less than six years of proved natural gas reserves left when will the new technologies she believes will mitigate the economic impact or transitioning away from natural gas start to come on stream?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: First of all I don't accept the premise of that member's question. Actually the latest MBIE projections are that we have 10 years of confirmed gas supplies in New Zealand which has been the case for decades. It simply moves out. And in fact industry are making commercial decisions based on their own comfort with the level of gas we will have in New Zealand. We've had a $500 million investment from OMV in Taranaki. We've had Todd invest $100 million in a peaking plant. I don't think they concur with that member's view that the sky is about to fall in.Jonathan Young: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did quote from the departmental report from the officials to the Environment Committee when I worded the question of proved natural gas reserves left" and the Minister's answer—SPEAKER: Well no. The member might disagree with an answer and he might even have evidence which shows that he's right but there's never been a point of order which requires a Minister to change their view in that way. Ministers believe it or not in the past have been wrong in their answers.Jonathan Young: Given that the scenarios used for NZIER's modelling are based on the Government's official analysis set out in their regulatory impact statement which accompanied the Cabinet paper prepared in support of the now enacted Crown Minerals (Petroleum) Amendment Bill is she now saying that the regulatory impact statement was incorrect; and if so how?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I said at the time the legislation was going through the House that I took issue with the data that was in the regulatory impact statement. In fact the paper that I took to Cabinet refuted a number of the findings of the regulatory impact statement. This is not news and in fact that member asked me questions about it last year in the House and I gave him the explanations then.Jonathan Young: What specific inputs to official data that NZIER has relied on does she argue is wrong?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I spelt this out in my primary answer but I'll go over it again—SPEAKER: No. The member doesn't need to—she did."