Appropriation (2026/27 Estimates) Bill

Thank you, Madam Chair. There were a number of areas that were covered off with the Minister for Energy when he came to the select committee to talk about Vote Energy. One of the first areas that I’d just like to ask the Minister around is around liquefied natural gas (LNG) and the LNG procurement that is going ahead. We heard the Prime Minister and Winston Peters saying quite different things in the House today in terms of the future of the LNG terminal, but the first thing to ascertain from the Minister is to see if there’s any change in his position around whether or not it is the intention that the Government will sign a commercial contract with a provider before the election.

The procurement is going through a procurement process at the moment. Of course, that is well under way. The Government’s intention is to sign a contract as soon as possible in order to ensure that we provide the energy security that New Zealand needs. We’re not going to leave this country high and dry like the previous Government did, which let New Zealand have the energy crisis 2024 with wholesale prices going through the roof, businesses shutting down—we’re not going to let that happen.

Sorry, will the Minister for Energy be taking the finalised procurement details back to Cabinet before the contract is signed?

Significant decisions such as this will of course go through Cabinet.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was interested that the Minister for Energy seemed to be indicating that this decision around liquefied natural gas (LNG) was in the best interests of New Zealanders and our energy system. Of course, that is not what anybody else, really, except this Government or the oil and gas sector have claimed is the case. We saw only recently that the Ombudsman forced the Government to release modelling and advice that it had received that it had withheld, but they were forced to release it. What that showed was that the LNG terminal could increase gas and electricity prices and may not even maintain security of supply. This was the advice that the Government had received. What we’re clearly seeing when it comes to energy really is that New Zealanders cannot afford another three years of this Government’s inability to do anything in the interests of New Zealand’s energy system.

What advice has the Minister received that counters the arguments that were put up in the advice that was commissioned for him and advisers from Concept Consulting that said that LNG wasn’t going to lower prices for New Zealanders in terms of electricity or gas, necessarily? The Minister told us that these were only some of the components they looked at, but what we haven’t heard either in the Estimates hearing or subsequently is what other advice is the Minister relying on and who did it, when did he receive it, and will he release it?

Thank you, Madam Chair. As the chair of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, I was going to provide a very quick summary of the hearing that we had with two Ministers in the select committee. In my calendar, the debate was going to start at 5 o’clock, but it started earlier, which is not a bad thing.

The energy appropriations are worth $457.78 million in 2026-2027. These appropriations fund the work of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority and the Electricity Authority. We were very pleased to have the Minister, the Hon Simeon Brown, and his officials from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, the Electricity Authority, and the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority to discuss the appropriations.

We discussed managing dry-year energy risks and the liquefied natural gas (LNG) import terminal to support energy security options that were analysed to decide to build an LNG import terminal. We also talked about the electricity generators and retailers to fund the LNG import terminal. There were other topics discussed, which included warm, dry homes, solar power for schools, and the powers of the Electricity Authority within this appropriation.

Then moving on to the resources appropriation, the Minister for Resources is responsible for appropriations within the Vote, totalling $26.9 billion in 2026-2027. The single significant appropriation is $22.6 million for management of the Crown mineral estate. This funds the allocation, management, and compliance of the Crown on petroleum and mineral resources under the Crown Minerals Act 1991.

The resources portfolio is also supported by just over $163 million from mineral royalties and $10 million from levies. We were pleased to have Minister Shane Jones and his officials to discuss the appropriations. We discussed potential mining of critical minerals, possible mining of the conservation estate, the gas security fund, and risks linked to gas extraction projects. I say this: anybody interested in more information should read the select committee report, and I look forward to this debate. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. One of the questions that we talked about with the Minister when he came to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee is what mechanisms he was receiving advice on for putting in place to ensure that gentailers wouldn’t simply pass on the cost of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to their consumers. Of course, the Government has backed down on the gas tax and are now saying that they are going to ask the gentailers to pay it, which really is code for passing it on to consumers and consumers picking that up.

When he came to the select committee, the Minister couldn’t point to any work that he was doing that was going to be put in place to ensure that gentailers simply didn’t pass on the costs of the LNG terminal. Given that he’s had advice that this doesn’t necessarily lower gas or electricity bills for New Zealanders and, indeed, could raise them if they’re passed on and isn’t going to increase our security of supply, I just wonder if the Minister has asked for some advice so that New Zealanders aren’t going to end up paying the price of an LNG terminal that only himself and the oil and gas industry seem to want.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is to the Minister. Because we’re in an energy crisis that’s deeper and wider than the 1970s, why has the Minister rejected work on a bipartisan national energy strategy when we know that the sector and Kiwis are calling out for a national energy strategy and for some certainty and clarity on where we’re going? In addition to that, why has the Minister rejected the expertise, as we’ve heard from Concept Consulting, but also the Sapere report, the Frontier report, and the OECD? Why has the Minister rejected that expertise while seeking to invest our country in an expensive folly that is a liquefied natural gas terminal? Why has the Minister rejected all that expertise? Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to ask the Minister about the competition regulation within his appropriations. For context, on 12 August, the Electricity Authority reported that household and small business electricity prices rose an average of 6.8 percent in just the first half of the year. Previous to that in 2025, prices rose an average of 8 percent. The Minister proposes to spend $120 million in this appropriation on governing and operating a market whose statutory regulator exists for the benefit of consumers and to produce a competitive and reliable market, one that is forward-looking and deals with these challenges.

The question for the Minister is what consumer outcomes is that regulator being charged with delivering? I’m not just asking about those rising prices, although that is of critical concern not only to the Government but to all New Zealanders. I’m asking him about whether he has expectations of his regulator within that appropriation to deliver on things like lower margins and greater switching and more retail entry into the market.

Particularly on the question of greater switching, I want to ask him about the role of the tools within the market which are meant to provide greater transparency for consumers which enable that switching of providers. It seems to be that switching is going backwards in some respects in the New Zealand market and that that transparency of information that enables consumers to switch is not enough to incentivise that switching. Why is it that the Government has been talking about open electricity as the next cab off the rank for open data rights in New Zealand, but that seems to be coming at the expense of open banking, when both of those things should be able to be advanced at once.

I also want to ask him about retail entry into the market. Why is it that some of the smaller providers are going out of business and are part of the thousands of liquidations that have happened under this Government’s watch when in fact we need more of those small retailers to be able to compete in that market? They will never be bigger than the gentailers but they make up about 4 percent of the market now. That has gone down from about 5.5 percent on his watch. What is the regulator doing to ensure that there are more market entries and that those small market participants are growing?

Thank you, Madam Chair. When the Minister came to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, he told us that he had asked his Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment officials along with the National Infrastructure Funding and Financing Agency (NIFFCo) to currently negotiate a funding model with gentailers to enable them to pay for the terminal.

One of the things that I’d like an update from the Minister on and for him to expand on what he talked about when he came to the select committee is exactly what he has instructed or asked NIFFCo to do or what the group of Ministers that are working on this have asked NIFFCo to do. Are they are assessing financing? For example, are they giving advice to the Government on whether or not the taxpayer will provide an underwrite? There seemed to be an indication from the co - Prime Minister—sorry, Winston Peters—in the House earlier today that the Government would provide an underwrite on that. The Prime Minister didn’t seem to think that was the case, but there seemed to be some confusion there in whether that was the case and whether that’s something that he’s asked either his officials or NIFFCo for some advice on.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Scott Willis.

Hon Simeon Brown: Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Sorry, I had already called.

Thank you, Madam Chair. There are approximately 700 hard-working people directly involved in the Warmer Kiwi Homes delivery through member organisations delivering all around the motu. There are 34 member organisations that make up the Community Energy Network, and they are responsible for over 325,000 Healthy Homes assessments and have delivered insulation and heating to over 150,000 homes. I’ve had the privilege of working with many of these member organisations and I’ve seen the impact they make for people, whether it’s removing black mould and putting in ventilation, putting in ceiling or under-floor insulation, or just helping people move out of energy poverty. They have attracted over $150 million of philanthropic funding since 2009 to lift people out of energy poverty.

My questions to the Minister are what certainty can the Minister give to households, providers, and the sector about the continuation of the Warmer Kiwi Homes scheme, given the incredible return on investment and benefit to society that that programme delivers? How will the Minister ensure funding procurement and contracting will support that continuous delivery, and, with an estimated 140,000 homes still needing insulation, efficient heating, and practical support, will the Minister finish the job to make our homes warmer and safer? Finally, will the Minister make a commitment to ensure that the Warmer Kiwi Homes scheme funding continues beyond 30 June 2027 in order to avoid damaging delivery capability?

I thank the members for their questions. As I’ve said in relation to the liquefied natural gas terminal, that is critical for our national security. The work’s under way, there is currently a procurement process under way, and there are negotiations actively taking place with the gentailers. The Government is committed to continuing that process. We’ve been very clear in my speech to the business chamber earlier this year around the approach that we’re taking. Everything that I said in that speech stands in relation to the process, and once we have more to say, we will have more to say in relation to that.

In relation to the question about a bipartisan energy strategy, well, the reality is that we could have a bipartisan energy policy in this country if Labour and the Greens didn’t come to this House and constantly talk down our oil and gas sector, which is critical to the future of this country. It is critical to ensuring that we can keep the lights on and that we have back-up energy when the wind is not blowing, the sun is not shining, and we have a dry year. Those members are responsible wholly for destroying energy security in this country. We are trying to fix it, and until we actually have a sensible Labour Party, like Helen Clark’s Government—they would never have done that. They backed oil and gas. Helen Clark’s Government backed oil and gas, but Jacinda Ardern’s Government didn’t, and that’s the difference. With Helen Clark’s Government, that Government knew what was needed for the future of our energy needs in this country.

Hon Cameron Brewer: Oh, bring back “Auntie”!

Hon SIMEON BROWN: I say “No thanks.” to that, Mr Brewer.

But in relation to the Electricity Authority, there is a number of workstreams under way, including the competition task force with the Commerce Commission, which is looking at the level playing field. There are the non-discrimination obligations which have been included, which are critically important to levelling the playing field between the big four and the small generators and retailers, and that’s a critical step towards having a level playing field. There’s the new power comparison and switching website Billy, which is making a big difference for consumers, and we encourage people to use it. Electricity retailers now must also offer time-of-use pricing to their customers—that’s really important—and also the Electricity Authority is now requiring the electricity companies to tell their customers every year whether they’re on the most affordable plan and it is also stopping them from being able to bill for backdating more than six months. Those are all important reforms.

Of course, the work is also under way around the open electricity consumer data right, and that is critically important to the next step so that we give power back to the people so that they can make choices, using the information from their bill, so that they can be on the most affordable plan. There is a range of things under way to improve affordability, and of course there’s more work to do.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would just remind the Minister of Energy that he didn’t address funding for Warmer Kiwi Homes. Of course, we have not seen any new and additional funding go into that scheme since Budget 2023. Budgets since then have only cut the funding for Warmer Kiwi Homes. We’re currently due for that scheme to run out of funding in June of next year, and so we talked at the select committee about what assurances the Minister could give that there is a plan for a continuation of Warmer Kiwi Homes post this funding that was put in place by the Labour Government in 2023, given that we have only seen cuts. Indeed, we saw an additional cut to Warmer Kiwi Homes. Part of the reprioritisation package that was in this year’s Budget for energy saw further money going out of Warmer Kiwi Homes, and so I ask whether the Minister will give an assurance on that.

I’d also like the Minister to clarify to the committee whether or not the Crown will be providing an underwrite to the liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal, or to say what he sees is the Crown’s role in the procurement process of the LNG terminal.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Given the Minister of Energy’s comments about the non-discrimination clauses, we’ll return there. I want to ask him, given that he seems to accept the structural advantage that exists with the gentailers, why does he believe that the behavioural non-discrimination rule is sufficient, what evidence does he have at the moment that that non-discrimination obligation is working, and when might he make an assessment of whether he needs to take further action if it is not, in fact, working?

Thank you, Madam Chair. One of the questions we sought clarification from the Minister of Energy at the select committee was around the community renewable energy—so, solar power for schools. We know that this works, we know that it’s an excellent resource for schools, and we also know that it helps young people take those conversations home to their families, and some political parties have an excellent policy in the solar space, with Labour being one of them. So it’s an excellent opportunity for those conversations to happen but also for young people to talk about the potential for solar energy, which helps to lower power bills. Does the Minister have plans to continue to support the solar power for schools programme? He mentioned in one of his earlier answers about giving power back to the people, and this literally does that.

To follow on from my questions—which are short, and I invite the Minister to answer them in a brief way—how much of the operating component of the $42.543 million in his appropriations for the Electricity Authority is being spent on monitoring compliance with his new non-discrimination obligations, and how will the authority establish whether Contact, Genesis, Mercury, and Meridian are offering genuinely equivalent hedge terms?

To follow on with that line of questions, when will the Minister know whether these changes—which in his Government’s own press release were described as a structural change for the market—will actually have the effect of lowering prices? Will he investigate this, or will it be another compliance review that takes more time before New Zealanders see their prices coming down?

I’d just like to remind the Minister of Energy that the committee is still waiting to hear from the Minister what advice he has received so that he can reassure New Zealanders that they aren’t just going to see the costs of liquefied natural gas (LNG) being passed on to their households, given that we’ve now seen the advice that his Government was trying to withhold that shows that LNG is not necessarily going to lower the cost of either electricity or gas, and in a number of scenarios it will indeed increase the costs to New Zealand households and businesses. But I’d also like to know some more information and to get an update on the $450 million reserve that was in the Budget—the temporary targeted support for fuel security that sat in the Budget as a contingency—to know if there have been any drawdowns or if there are any planned drawdowns on that $450 million contingency fund, and, if there are, what specific criteria are going to be used to assess whether or not money and projects will be drawn down from that fund.

I thank members for their questions. In relation to the question around the non-discrimination obligations, the Electricity Authority will, obviously, be receiving data and will be monitoring that and providing advice to me in relation to the effectiveness of those obligations. My clear expectation of both the Commerce Commission and the Electricity Authority is that more work will need to be done because we need to make sure that these level playing field obligations deliver what they are there for.

In relation to solar, we announced in the Budget funding for Solar in Schools. We’ve delivered that. There is now a significant number of schools—500 schools—receiving Solar in Schools. It’s going to make a big difference.

There is also a significant amount of work under way. We’ve removed building consents for rooftop solar and we’ve expanded household solar’s export limits—we’ve doubled it from 5 kilowatts to 10 kilowatts. There is a requirement for providers to provide rebates for exports to the grid at peak times. We’ve launched the Solar on Farms initiative, and work is under way on plug-in solar, which is going to make a big difference, as well. There’s a huge amount happening in that space.

In relation to liquefied natural gas, ultimately the work that’s under way is designed to improve our energy security and affordability. By removing the baked-in cost which goes into electricity of a dry-year risk, we will significantly improve outcomes for consumers. On driving affordability, we’ve already seen a 35 percent reduction in wholesale prices since we made the announcement earlier this year. Our plan is working.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The Minister for Energy was just talking about the work that’s happening around the level playing field. We still haven’t seen the evidence coming out in terms of what impact that strand of work will have on pricing. But I do note that the Minister just released last week a discussion document around the large amount that we need invested in our lines companies over the coming years and how it is that we need to ensure that’s delivering value for New Zealanders and how it’s going to be paid for.

One of the things I was surprised to see, or not see, from the Minister in that document was more of an obligation on lines companies to have to quantify why they would not be looking to non-network solutions, to have to look at what was delivering way of making sure we had a secure electricity system with the least cost from a distribution network perspective. Did he consider and did he get advice on whether or not there should be a requirement on the lines companies to consider non-network solutions such as battery, solar, and things that, ultimately, will lead to lower power bills?

In terms of the advice the Minister has received around putting together that piece of work, what advice has he received about when New Zealanders would expect to see savings turn up in their power bills from the package of alternatives that he’s put there? I’ve had a lot of feedback that a lot of people see this as a reasonably watered down version of what the Government could do, are questioning when benefits will flow to them, and, really, are saying they cannot afford three more years of what this Government is delivering.

Thank you. We just heard from the Minister for Energy that liquefied natural gas (LNG) is critical to our national energy strategy. What evidence can the Minister provide to back up this statement, given that we haven’t heard that from any other expertise? I’m really interested to hear the expert opinion that the Minister has that would back up that statement, that it is critical to our national energy security, because we’ve heard from Concept Consulting, we’ve heard from the Sapere report, we’ve heard from the Frontier report, and we’ve heard from the OECD that reliance on volatile international prices of LNG will make us tied to expensive fossil fuels when we have home-grown energy available to us right here, right now, and this Government has rejected those options. What evidence has the Minister got in to back up that statement?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, my question is probably to both the Minister for Energy and the Minister for Resources, because one of the things that’s sitting here behind the price of the energy that we’ve had is that it went up spectacularly when the oil and gas ban came on, and so I’m really interested in what the trends are looking like. I also wanted to note that gas is important. I chair the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, so while the Minister goes and speaks to the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, we do have all of the energy companies in front of us as well, and they’ve been quite clear that the most important use of gas is not for electricity but for actual gas consumers.

I’d be really interested too to hear some comments on the impact of the lack of gas on those businesses which rely on gas, and also on the roughly 1 million Kiwi households which also use gas. We’ve been told that the cost of converting those will be something like $10,000 to $13,000 each, which will be a total of $10 billion to $13 billion across all of those households if they have to convert. Then you’ve got the likes of the Methanexes, the Ballances, you’ve got Glenbrook Steel Mill, and you’ve got a lot of horticulture, which all rely on that gas, so I’d be really interested in what we can do to try and make sure that they actually have a supply going forward, the opportunities that there might be to be able to find more gas, whether that’s onshore, whether that’s biogas, whether it’s offshore, whatever it might be, I’m really interested in that exploration. Then I’d like to come back also with some questions around direct mining as well, because this is energy and resources that we’re talking about here.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to make a contribution. If I can just set the scene. Technically, it is correct that when Jacinda Ardern misled Winston Peters and made that woeful decision and allowed Cabinet processes to be circumvented, it had the effect of chilling investment.

Now, it is administratively correct to say that certain entitlements were left in place. However, it took many weeks later before the Cabinet processes were tidied up. Sadly, the chilling effect of that nuclear moment meant that, throughout the world, the message went that the oil and gas industry under the Ardern regime had no future in New Zealand. Now, that probably wasn’t the intention. I want to be at least fair to the Opposition spokesperson. I don’t think, at the time, they were wanting to extinguish the New Zealand economy, and they certainly weren’t endeavouring to destroy the Taranaki economy. But I have to say, I look no further than the member behind me who shows us photos on a regular basis of empty shop fronts, of houses virtually boarded up as men and women leave because the oil and gas industry, sadly, was closed down when investment was scared away.

It’s important that Kiwis bear in mind that, after this Government reversed that scandalous ban, it has taken time for a level of confidence and optimism to be reinjected into the economy. I have to acknowledge Simeon Brown for doing a tremendous job in seeking a solution to make up for the gap. In good time, the full details of that solution under his leadership will be revealed. However, the $200 million fund, if I can respond to my colleague’s response, is an attempt to make up to the fact that we have dropped down perilously low to petajoule production hovering around 80-85. Now, matters might improve in the event that the owners of Methanex do decide to move on, but that’s a commercial decision.

This is not a Government that wants to chase any more investors out of New Zealand, as happened under the Ardern regime. What this Government wants to do with oil and gas is, actually, to skilfully use the $200 million as a way of derisking, and decisions are imminent—decisions are imminent—and it also wants to ensure that there’s a transition, and where there is a gap, we’ll wait to hear on those details. But under no circumstances whatsoever should any firm fear that we don’t have their back, which is why Nicola Willis, in the Budget, announced up to a billion dollars’ worth of an underwrite to enable firms to transition in the event they have the capacity, with access to bank debt, to move on from their reliance on gas to other forms of energy. But it will take time. But know this from me, New Zealanders: it was Jacinda Ardern and Megan Woods who destroyed our sovereign reputation when they misled Winston Peters, did not follow Cabinet process, and condemned Taranaki to penury.

Point of order. I’m really surprised that the Minister for Resources had not one but two attempts to mislead this House by using the word “mislead” in an inappropriate way, and he should know better, and quite frankly, he needs to be pulled up on that.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I’ll take it under advisement. Thank you. Scott Willis.

Steve Abel: Steve Abel.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Sorry—Steve Abel. My apologies.

That’s all right—we sit beside each other. Regarding the point just made by the Minister: in the context of his proposition that the doors are closing in Taranaki, what is his explanation for the doors closing in Dunedin, and the shopfronts closing in Wellington, and the pea-growers in the Hawke’s Bay, and all of the deindustrialisation across this country that’s happened under his watch? Are you blaming that on the actions of a Government all those years ago?

Andy Foster: Yes.

STEVE ABEL: It’s good to hear that response, because that shows just how deluded this Government is. My question for the Minister is this: given that the biggest and most powerful oil and gas explorers in the world came and searched and found nothing and left before the 2018 ban came into place, and given that our gas reserves were diminishing since 2007, how better could that $200 million Gas Security Fund have been spent? The Minister just alluded to the bank debt to assist industry in moving away from its current gas dependency. What evaluations did the Minister take and what consideration did he give to investing in solar, biogas, biomass, wind, and battery energy systems that actually take us away from the dependence on that finite resource of fossil gas, which many companies have come and looked for and not been able to find?

That’s the first question: when he evaluated that public expenditure on the forlorn hope of trying to find some more gas, what consideration did he give to the other, more effective ways that money could be spent on cheaper forms of energy and abundant forms of energy that are indigenous and locally owned with which we could be powering our system and our economy. My second question is: does he genuinely believe that the most expensive form of fossil fuel available, liquefied natural gas (LNG), is going to solve the energy cost problem of industry across this country? We are now going to be a price-taker in terms of the cost of that very expensive form of—

David MacLeod: Diesel’s more expensive.

STEVE ABEL: I can assure you, LNG is more expensive than diesel, my friend.

That contribution does deserve a response with my characteristic temperateness. The conceit which informs this predictable attack on fossil fuels—that if international or domestic investors are inclined to come to New Zealand, use our geological reservoirs of information, use their own capital, somehow their willingness to exploit our resources and manage a risk is something that we as politicians, or they on the left side, have declared is morally unacceptable in the New Zealand economy. They have no mandate to make that decision.

Kiwis should celebrate the fact that if anyone wants to come to our country, boost the supply of energy and boost the availability of energy, they are entitled to do that, providing they’re obeying the law. But, no, that side of the House wants to change the law and condemn New Zealand to a pipe dream—some kind of Camelot existence; some kind of lotus-land economic reality that, somehow, we’re going to be lotus-eaters; that we can have a secure energy system sans coal, sans gas, reliant totally on wind and solar. Nowhere in the world does that work.

What is going to happen to the firms that are marooned and reliant on gas? Nothing. They have no future. It is absurd to suggest that Kiwis can possibly trust the view that is denouncing the arrival of either Asian capital, Australian capital, or anyone who’s willing to take a risk and work with our Government to open up potential bonanza, El Dorado levels of wealth that lie in the ocean. I say, bring it on.

Now, on the question of the $200 million Gas Security Fund; The Gas Security fund was designed to de-risk the availability and accelerate the delivery of those known fields that with a bit of a helping hand, they can contribute at the margin to what is proving to be a worsening situation—as I said, about 85 petajoules and declining. It is money well spent.

I know—I can predict what’s going to be said: the Supreme Court. Sadly, I’m unable to explain to you what I really think about the Supreme Court. However, that was dealt to partly by my colleague Mr Goldsmith. But the Supreme Court did lay a certain level of obligations on politicians to go through a process in allocating pūtea, allocating capital, to boost our oil and gas. That fund is designed for gas—that fund is not designed for sun or wind—and that gas is absolutely necessary to make up for a time, as Simeon Brown has said, when neither of those resources are available. I mean, it’s extraordinary that I’m even having to explain this yet again. Naturally, there are certain people who don’t care for the sound of my voice—I’m not one of them.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My question actually is for the Minister of Resources. When the Minister of resources came to the Finance and Expenditure Committee, we asked him about whether he was doing any work to have royalties raised for mining companies to pay more for the work that they do in New Zealand. The Minister certainly has made quite a big deal about saying that he wanted a review into this. We know that New Zealand sits at the lower end internationally of the royalties that they do pay—certainly far lower than jurisdictions that the Minister often likes to point to as nirvana, like Western Australia and Queensland; certainly, much lower than that.

There has been a recent Deloitte report that shows that, actually, raising royalties over a number of years—out to 2060, I think, from memory—could actually deliver something like $758 million additionally to New Zealand and the New Zealand economy, and for New Zealanders, given that we largely have global, multinational mining companies working here. Has the Minister revisited the answer that he gave in the select committee that he had given up doing any work on raising royalties and wasn’t going to pursue any work to protect the New Zealand taxpayer and make sure that New Zealanders were receiving their fair share?

Kiwis, please, bear in mind that 80c in every dollar, we are advised, stays in our economy from those activities associated with mining. Of course, the other side of the House never count the contribution that the mining sector makes to GST, PAYE, corporate tax, ACC, and a whole variety of other levies that enterprises meet in order to remain compliant.

They never talk about the high-paying jobs; they never talk about the contributions that those firms make to the West Coast; they never talk about the engineers, the digger drivers, the geologists, the students, and God forbid the ecologists. No, they never talk about the fact of $13 million to $15 million paid by enterprises associated with mining just to go through the fast-track. But, wait—wait, mining industry: that bill is going to go down when I get back into Parliament and to this role on this side of the House after the election. That’s ridiculously expensive, but that’s another matter.

Let me come back to the business of royalties. If you are a miner in New Zealand, or if you are an investor in New Zealand, it is reasonable that your enterprise which you entered into should proceed on a basis of certainty. Now, there are two ways of looking at this. Royalties could be conceived as an ordinary part of taxation—I know that side of the House, according to Simeon Brown, are incontinent with their desire to put up taxes; that’s a debate, and he’s an expert on those matters in terms of studying their desire to put up taxes—or you could say that a royalty is a specific levy. I’ll leave that debate to people who enjoy talking about Crown revenue.

But the fact of the matter is that if you arbitrarily interfere and indiscriminately change the impost imposed on the mining sector, you can very well destroy industry. Look what has happened in Queensland. This very day, the coal mining industry in Australia, Queensland is knocking on the door of the Queensland Parliament seeking relief as a consequence of the arbitrary imposition of disproportionately high levies changed with the swipe of a pen overnight, freezing investment, chilling investment, and destroying jobs. We are not going to destroy jobs in the mining sector. We are going to massively expand the mining sector.

In fact, today, I was in Rotorua. I gave a memorable speech to the mining conference in Rotorua. Rather incongruous that it should be in Rotorua, but I’ll overlook that geographical incongruity. I promised them that the information that Cabinet asked me to release, that Cabinet mandated me to undertake, which was the Deloitte’s neutral platform of information comparing the royalties with the rest of the world—we compare favourably with the rest of the world because we want to incentivise investment. We want to turn our country into a magnet for investment. We want to encourage the growth of mining, because most of the Department of Conservation (DOC) land is overrun with weasels and rats, and it’s not even DOC land anyway. That’s going to be a key part of my campaign. Stewardship land is not DOC land. It should be opened up, possibly tomorrow, or certainly on 9, 10, 11, or 12 November for massive extractive activity. Those people will enjoy hunting, more tourism, more development. I mean, I’m just getting started.

Thank you, Madam Chair. That was a memorable contribution from the Minister for Resources, and from that, he also alluded to being in Rotorua for a miner’s conference. It’s an interesting place, the central plateau; it’s got huge geothermal resources not very far below the surface. However, I have, in my travels, met with a few people in the geothermal space—a few companies, exploration companies, people who are generating energy out of that—and I’ve heard that there’s been quite a rise in the cost of putting borewells down because of the jobs that left this country after the exploration ban was put in place for oil and gas. So, Minister, I would just like to ask you, how do you expect to keep the level of skilled and employee talent intact as we grow mining, and while we grow exploration, when we have struggled so far to maintain that after so many skilled employees and talent left New Zealand after that obscene ban on oil and gas exploration?

Look, I don’t mind admitting that no one’s career is devoid of imperfections, and there may have been one or three appearances in an earlier phase of my career with kabuki-faced expressions, but we’ll overlook those rather bleak episodes. I stand by what I said. There was a level of poor disclosure to my leader Winston Peters back there in 2018, and a forensic analysis will show a gross betrayal of full disclosure to my leader, but I’ll leave that matter in the past because I don’t want to continually rake over bleak accounts—bleak accounts—of political history.

I want us to look to the future and remind everyone that geothermal energy also has a host of mineral properties, and we have, from time to time—actually, in fact, I have to acknowledge Grant Robertson, and I’m likely to attract a few baleful glances by doing that, and David Parker; they did support me in giving pūtea towards some entrepreneurs to extract silica out in the Reporoa area—

Cameron Luxton: Yeah, they’ve got gold in there too.

Hon SHANE JONES: —yes, out of the geothermal resource, but the point remains that if we don’t keep a certain level of quality workmanship and quality human capital, it will drift to Australia and other places. Now, that’s not necessarily a bad thing because families have to earn a living, but we have learnt with the supercritical, and I have to acknowledge Megan Woods—she did start the project and I carried on with an allocation. Some people have criticised whether or not it was a worthy thing to do to carry on and allocate pūtea to what could be seen as a moonbeam shot, but surely all Governments should be willing to take a punt if it has a transformational effect in terms of energy and the level of human capital, technology, and skill required to go five to six kilometres in the earth. The skills are transferable from using oil and gas experience.

Sadly, it’s very, very much in short supply because those men and women have drifted overseas. I’m confident, however, in the event we have an opportunity to govern again and the billion-dollar fund, should it survive post-election negotiations, can be made available to boost the reservoir of information, de-risk investment, and really turbocharge the opportunities for men and women to recommit themselves to the extractive sector. It’s a brilliant and bright future because it’s posited upon us boosting our economic sovereignty and moving away from this lotus-eating false reality that somehow New Zealand, exclusively, is going to save the planet. Spare me that religious falsehood.

Thank you, Madam Chair. To the Minister for Resources: following New Zealand’s commitment to the International Energy Agency Ministerial Declaration of Critical Minerals, how will the Budget appropriated for financial year 2026-27 be used to fast track the mapping and assessment of our domestic strategic mineral deposits?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Minister for Resources, just to let you know that you’ve just got under five minutes remaining.

That will enable me to be succinct and concise. Can I respond in two ways? You have raised the importance of critical minerals. I have already referred to the fact that officials have been working with American officials as to whether there’s scope for our nation, through our Government, to form a pact with the United States of America’s Government—that remains to be seen. However, that negotiating process is still under way.

I have also spoken to you, as a Parliament in question time, about the critical mineral strategy and the list of incredibly important minerals that have the potential to boost our capacity, to join the global supply lines, and we are also dedicating additional money, which should not come as a surprise, through the recalibration of funds in the newly established science bodies. But it will require a change in culture and attitude.

The conservation estate should not exclusively be seen as some type of fairytale wilderness area that can never be opened up for development, for hunting, for tourism, and a variety of other economic purposes.

We must support Tama Potaka and the modest changes, the modest improvements, that man is seeking to develop. Amongst that is the potential of the minerals and the mining.

Now, there is a modest footprint that is left. Look no further, Mr Court, than Wharekirauponga a tiny little dot on the landscape of Coromandel—on the right side of the Dixie line. It is not on the side that excites Ms Delahunty; it is on the side where the frogs can be moved, where the moths can fly away, where the Māoris can get jobs, and the Matua can mount a helicopter and survey the mining estate which is rich with potential.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll be straight to the point. My question is to the Minister for Energy. If the liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal fails to take off—if we fail to have a solution to the critical energy crisis we are facing, Minister—would the Minister consider the development of a new, publicly owned entity to secure our energy security, to ensure we have a dry-year solution that does not rely on ministerial oversight, ministerial decisions, or Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment professionalism, but would have the expertise to choose the lowest cost, best solution for our firming problem? We could call such an entity “Kiwipower”, for example. Would the Minister get behind such an idea to make that happen to ensure we have security of supply when we hit the dry-year challenge, and will the Minister back this idea? Thank you.

I appreciate the member’s pitch. The answer to the question is that Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) went through a very rigorous process considering all of the options in relation to the dry-year risk, and the liquefied natural gas (LNG) importation terminal came out as the preferred option, as the member knows, and the papers are all online. MBIE looked at a range of different options including diesel, pumped hydro, demand response, battery technology, biomass, rooftop solar—they looked at a range of different options and considered that LNG would be able to be delivered the fastest and also provide the most cost-effective option to be able to manage the dry-year risk that New Zealand is facing and for those benefits to be passed on to consumer.

The good news is, since we made that announcement earlier this year, and because of the significant increased generation that’s coming online through fast-track and other decisions this Government is making, we’ve seen a significant reduction in wholesale electricity prices this year, which is good news. There’ still more work to do.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Listen, I know the Minister for Resources is glorious in his effusive rhetoric and his coal-blustering hyperbole, but I wonder if he’s prepared to give up harassing rare endemic frogs for a moment—

Simon Court: They’re not rare, they’re everywhere.

STEVE ABEL: —to answer a more serious question. They’re actually not everywhere; they’re in a very narrow number of places in the Waikato. All of the Archey’s frogs in the universe exist only in the Waikato.

This is a serious question I’d like the Minister to respond to. In terms of the certainty of energy costs for industry, we have had a rude awakening with the unilateral attack by the United States on Iran, which led to ongoing troubles with access to fuel and an extraordinary spike in the cost of fuel globally. The whole world has worn the consequences of that orange madman in the White House, and businesses in this country have—the cost of diesel, the cost of petrol, the cost of fuel on the whole. How, Minister, with our projections of what future fuel security looks like—fossil fuel security—in the global context, does he give industry certainty of the costs of energy when we are now moving from an indigenous gas supply, as it runs out, to an imported liquefied natural gas (LNG) supply where we are a price-taker, and we are therefore subject to the fluctuations of that price, whatever is happening in the international energy market?

That is exactly why—would it not be wiser and give greater security for that same money to be being invested in local biogas, for example, which is the same molecule and can go in the same pipes? Yes, it’s starting from a low base—we’ve got to grow it up—but we can be using the remainder of our reserves for industry now, rather than invest in a very uncertain, expensive form of gas, LNG, and be investing in local options of renewable energy, which have unlimited supply.

I thank the member for his question. We’ve had a number of questions in this House regarding the liquefied natural gas (LNG) debate about “What about this option?” or “What about that option?”. Well, we looked at all the options. We also looked at that option, and, of course, biogas is not of sufficient scale to be able to actually meet the need.

What the Green Party and Labour don’t seem to understand is that on average, we get a dry year about every four years, which means we don’t have the luxury of waiting till 2039 for a big lake at the bottom of the South Island, which was the former Minister for Energy’s solution, and we don’t have the time to wait for biogas to become of sufficient scale—

Hon Shane Jones: 6 terawatts.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: —6 terawatts is what Minister Jones is saying—and biomass we’d need to burn through Huntly, and Huntly has limited capacity of how much it can actually deliver in terms of energy needs. That would simply replace what’s being used for coal; it doesn’t actually fix the rest of the dry-year problem, which is what we need gas for, which is why LNG has become the preferred option.

Now, in terms of the price volatility, that is of course an issue that has been looked at—something which I examined very closely on becoming the Minister for Energy again following the war in Iran. But the reality is that the International Energy Agency is saying that the amount of LNG gas coming on board over the next few years is going to well outweigh what has been lost through the Strait of Hormuz, and of course, at the moment, we’re reliant on coal from one particular country. LNG would actually diversify those supply chains across different parts of the world. There are a number of reasons why the Government has made the decision. The problem with the Opposition is they don’t have a plan; they don’t have a solution; they’re simply complaining when we’re actually getting on and fixing the mess they left behind.

Thank you, Madam Chair. A question for the Minister for Energy: given that there are reports that Huntly’s 400-megawatt gas generator is currently offline because that gas has been instead allocated to Ballance to make fertiliser—

Hon Shane Jones: Food—food.

SIMON COURT: —that’s right, absolutely vital for food—how important is it that we have liquefied natural gas, not just for electricity generation, but so that the residual gas in the market can support industry?

We’re going through a procurement process, and as I outlined in my speech to the Auckland Business Chamber in relation to that decision, ultimately, we need to make sure we’ve got the backup energy first and foremost for our electricity. The funding model which we’re working through and considering is about also how do you fairly ensure that those other parties who may wish to access the gas pay their fair share?

The reality is, if we want to have an industrial base in New Zealand, if we want to have an electricity system where we’ve dealt with the dry-year risk, we need thermal backup generation in order to do that. With rapidly dwindling supply of gas here in New Zealand and the gap currently being filled by a coal stockpile filling half of it and gas needed for the other half, we need another option. That’s why the officials have advised that liquefied natural gas is the preferred option; that is why we’re pursuing it; it is critically important for the future of this country, and I am not going to do what the previous Minister for Energy Megan Woods did, which was leave the country high and dry and crash the oil and gas sector, which ultimately led to massive deindustrialisation and high energy prices in New Zealand. We are fixing the mess left behind by Labour.

Simple question: due to the closure of—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Can I just inform the member there is one minute and 57 seconds remaining.

Dr DAVID WILSON: Yeah, no problem. Due to the closure of Marsden Point, has that affected our vulnerability as a nation and, supplementary to that, our exposure to the vicissitudes of the International Energy Agency?

I can assure you, that scandalous, woeful, dangerous decision when Marsden Point was closed down with the approval of Megan Woods—not only did our Government need to ride to the rescue and spend up to $20 million re-establishing a tank to create a 100-litre buffer of diesel that she left empty; we have saved the New Zealand fuel resilience as a consequence of the closure of Marsden Point. It would never have happened if the matua and the rangatira Winston Peters had not been tossed out as a consequence of an inordinately negative campaign run and lies that were told at the time about Marsden Point. Marsden Point, sadly, no longer can fulfil its full potential, but we have rescued it by re-establishing a tank that was left bereft as a consequence of Megan’s failure to effect economic security.

Thank you. To the Minister of Energy; it’s wonderful to have you in the chair, because I’ll get a chance to ask you this question. New Zealand’s building out energy generation all over the country, but we’ve got to connect that up, and so, getting lines—how do we make sure that lines are being built in the right place and are not being overbuilt to transport energy around the country?

I thank the member for the question. Ultimately, Transpower has a long-term plan, but, also, they have to get approval from the Commerce Commission (ComCom) for their investments. The Commerce Commission scrutinises their plans to make sure that it’s proportionate and that it’s meeting the needs that New Zealanders have—because, ultimately, all of those charges end up on people’s bills, and so the ComCom has a very important role in doing that. In terms of the discussion document we released last week, particularly around distribution companies, there’s a lot of work that needs to be done to make sure that they are focused on affordability, and that’s what the discussion document is out for. I look forward to people’s feedback.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Can I just consult with the Opposition members. If there are no more questions, it’s likely to collapse the Estimates debate, so, technically, I need 30 seconds more before we can report progress on today.

Dr Tracey McLellan: Point of order. Can I just seek some clarification on that, Madam Chair, because this debate started at 4.45 p.m., which is now several minutes over the hour.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Correct, yeah.

Dr Tracey McLellan: That is correct?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Correct.

Dr Tracey McLellan: So you still need about another 30 seconds?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I need seven.

Dr Tracey McLellan: OK, thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just as this debate comes to a close, I think it’s important that New Zealanders reflect on the fact that what we’ve seen here is two Ministers that have come down to this House and misled the New Zealand public—they’ve misled the New Zealand public and they’ve withheld advice. They’ve misled the New Zealand public—

Hon Louise Upston: Point of order. You clearly can’t use language like that in this Chamber.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Speaking to the point of order—“misled” has been a phrase that has been used throughout this debate. I’m only reflecting language that Government Ministers have used during the course of this debate.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I do agree with you, but at the time there was quite a bit of to and fro in that interchange. I would just ask members to keep it parliamentary.

Hon Shane Jones: Indeed. Professional—professional!

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): That’s not helping, Mr Jones.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: We’ve had Ministers come down here and we have had them mislead the New Zealand public—we’ve had them mislead the New Zealand public and not release information, and this is going to lead to New Zealanders paying more for their electricity and for the energy. We’ve had a Minister that continually comes down here and misleads the public about Marsden Point. This was after he went to Marsden Point—went around the country proclaiming he was going to reopen it. He didn’t; he’s failed. So what does he do? He comes here and he makes things up in this House. That Minister needs to actually show the New Zealand—

Hon Shane Jones: Point of order. Thank you, Madam Chair. Could the member elaborate on how this so-called member has made things up? The member would love to hear that story.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): That’s not a point of order, Mr Jones. No.

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: That’s not a point of order. I believe we’re at time now. That’s 30 seconds.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Yes. Thank you very much.

I move, That the committee report progress on this bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): That’s a very good idea, Mr MacLeod.

Motion agreed to.

Progress to be reported.

House resumed.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Mr Speaker, the committee has further considered the Appropriation (2026/27 Estimates) Bill and reports that it has made progress. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

SPEAKER: Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House is suspended for the dinner break and will resume at 7.30 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 5.58 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.