Mackey Moana: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Mackey Moana: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:807] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I point out to the member who just moved a closure motion Chris Tremain that Part 1 is the part of the bill that repeals the mandatory obligation for oil companies to provide biofuels. It repeals the sustainability standards. I think it shows the contempt in which National holds this Committee that it would move a closure motion so early on in the Committee stage. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Before the energetic Minister even had a chance. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Before the Minister of Energy and Resources who is in the chair has even had a chance to get to his feet. I know he wants to respond; he has been itching to get up and I look forward to his contribution. 
I start by thanking the officials who worked on the original biofuels legislation. They worked incredibly hard to provide the select committee with advice under very tight time frames. I apologise to them that we are back in the Chamber undoing a lot of the good work they were involved in. 
I would like Mr Brownlee to take a call because he made a very interesting comment in either his first reading speech or his second reading speech—they were about half an hour apart so it is hard to differentiate between the two—that all the oil companies would come to him to ask to defer their first year’s obligation. I think that claim needs to be explored in the Committee. He did not of course mention that there is a 5 percent penalty for any oil company that wants to defer—it would have to add 5 percent on to the following year’s obligation. I genuinely would like the Minister to take a call to explain why he said that all the oil companies would ask to defer their first year’s obligation because I think that comment which he made in the House last night was important. 
This bill has not been to a select committee. Many members have made that point and it is important to make it again. The Minister in the chair does not seem to care about Mr McNicholl the jobs at that plant that will go and the loss of the $10 million investment. Mr Tau Henare said “So what?” I believe when that was raised. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: He said “Whatever!” 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Oh “Whatever!”. I am sorry; I would hate to misquote the member. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: He’s cool. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Quite. I think it is important that the Minister who did not allow this legislation to go to a select committee takes some calls in the Committee stage. National should appreciate that the Committee stage is very important when a bill has not been to a select committee because it is the only opportunity that members on this side of the Chamber—and through us members of the public—get to question the Government on what is in this case a terrible piece of legislation. I would urge National to think seriously about this bill. 
I congratulate the Leader of the House Gerry Brownlee on his 100 percent success rate so far in not having bills go to a select committee under his watch—100 percent of bills have gone straight through the House with no select committee process and no public accountability. I am sure Mr Brownlee is very proud of that record. I note that even in the current urgency motion the only bills that he is sending to a select committee are the previous Labour Government’s bills that have been carried over from the previous Parliament. All the bright new ideas that National members have come up with themselves are just being forced through. I think they are a little bit scared of what the public might say if they got to have their say at a select committee. 
Labour members of the Local Government and Environment Committee worked very hard on Part 3A of the Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Act—the part that is now being repealed. It was at about the time that a lot of information was coming out from the United Nations from the OECD and from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment about the dangers of biofuel. We took all that on board which is why Part 3A as enacted is considerably different from what was in the bill that was referred to the select committee. Members of the select committee worked incredibly hard to develop the sustainability standards that we now find in the legislation. One of the submitters told the select committee that that submitter had joined the United States federation of biofuel producers—or whatever it was called—which is predominantly made up of the oil companies and in the time that the submitter had been in that group it had spent US$118 million on discrediting biofuels. In comparison a much smaller amount had been spent by the groups that were trying to promote biofuels. That was something we as a select committee had to consider when we were looking at the information being put before us. 
There will always be reasons for not passing environmental legislation. It does not take a brainiac to sit down and work out an argument against doing something. That is the easy part. The harder part is to say we will not throw up our hands and say it is too hard; to say we will work to develop sustainability principles that are more advanced than those anywhere else in the world and then we will send our Minister away to do some work on those standards. One of the important parts of the part that is being repealed is the obligation for the Minister to go away and develop proper standards and regulations. Repealing Part 3A means that Mr Brownlee can do nothing. Under the current Act by the middle of next year he would need to report back to Parliament with details on those regulations or reasons why they had not been developed in the time frame set for developing them. By repealing this part of the Act the National Government is washing its hands of there being any requirement in law for it to do anything about sustainability standards. We simply have to take those members’ word that that is something they want to do. 
Well I say to members of this House that we should look at their record so far in their first 1.5 weeks in Government. Let us see how much we can trust National members to do what they say they will do on sustainability standards. We have seen a stalling of the emissions trading scheme—although we are not quite sure any more whether it is a stalling.