Robertson Grant: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Robertson Grant: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:821] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I rise to speak on Part 2 and to support the Hon David Parker’s amendments because although Opposition members would much rather we were not even debating this silly short-sighted bill we are here trying to improve it. In particular we are trying to help National keep one of its promises. That is quite a remarkable thing for Opposition members to do but we are here to help. We have all heard a lot about promises in the last couple of weeks. That is the main reason apparently that we are in urgency ramming through bill after bill because National claims it needs to keep its promises. In reality of course we know that National members are doing this because they do not want to hear from the public of New Zealand about some of the legislation that National is putting through. 
In particular they do not seem to want to hear about the impact of this bill on people such as Tom McNicholl who are making a concerted effort to build a new industry in this country. We would be able to help them do that if we kept in place the legislation that the previous Labour Government led through the House before the election. But no the National Government wants to take that legislation away. The Hon David Parker has put forward an amendment that will allow bio-diesel to be extended the same tax relief as bio-ethanol. 
Yesterday the Minister of Energy and Resources Mr Brownlee told the Committee that we would be hearing about tax relief about incentives to allow the industry to continue. We have seen nothing of that today. The industry will be in a vacuum when this legislation passes—a vacuum of Mr Brownlee’s making. But Labour can fill that vacuum by offering the opportunity to put in place a system whereby bio-diesel will have the same exemptions that bio-ethanol does. This is an opportunity for the Minister in the chair Mr Brownlee to take a call and let us know whether he is prepared to do something to honour National’s election promises. We say: honour the promise to keep this industry going. 
Mr Parker’s amendment to Part 2 gives the Minister that chance. It gives him a chance to help save the 46 families who will be affected if and when Mr McNicholl’s business is closed. That is the reality and that is what we have heard. If the Minister had received the correspondence from his ministry he would know that that is what Tom McNicholl is saying and that is what Sue Wood is saying. They are saying that the legislation the Minister is bringing to the House will affect those 46 families in East Tamaki and Waharoa. One would have thought National would be concerned about those areas. Mr Chairperson you might be concerned about them as well. We need to know whether the Minister is prepared to support this very good amendment from David Parker which will actually help secure that industry. 
Members on this side of the Chamber know that the mandatory obligations that Labour put in place are a far better way of ensuring that this industry continues to grow but there is now an opportunity for the Government to stand up and for the Minister in the chair to take a call and say that he will accept the amendment. There is also an opportunity for ACT Party members: we know that they believe in regulatory impact statements; they believe in making sure that things go through with proper scrutiny. They could vote for this amendment too. They could vote down the whole bill and send it away to a select committee so that we have a proper process—and goodness a regulatory impact statement! Would that not be novel to have a regulatory impact statement on a bill that is fundamentally changing an industry in this country—indeed a growing industry—and fundamentally compromising the lives of 46 families that were going to be employed and also other families in the future. 
Moana Mackey 
: One would think it would go to a select committee. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: One would think it would go to a select committee; but no this Government wants to ram this bill through under urgency. The Government it seems does not even want to take the opportunity to honour one of its own election promises. This opportunity was there for the Government to do that. Mr Brownlee has not taken a call on Part 2 and I urge him to take a call and let us know what he thinks about this amendment. This amendment would actually save his hide in the long run. He may not think that right now but that is what this amendment does. But much more important this amendment ensures that the industry has some kind of future. At the moment we have a vacuum in place because the Government has no plan to ensure that the bio-diesel industry can continue. It is an outrage to push this bill through the Parliament in a way whereby nobody who is affected out there in the community is getting an opportunity to comment on it. Part 2 is about putting in place everything that is required to repeal the very things that are needed to keep that industry going. It is an outrage.