Parker David: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Parker David: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:816] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I want to take up the issue about what the effects will be on the biofuel industry and the broader effects of this legislation. Tallow is a low-value by-product of the livestock processing industry. Someone once quipped to me that New Zealand has the highest tallow-to-population ratio in the world. That is true because for a small country we raise a lot of livestock. We are rich in tallow resource—the cheapest most environmentally sustainable source of biofuels in the world. 
Chris Tremain 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The member has risen to his feet to speak on Part 2 which is a reasonably tight part but he said quite clearly that he wants to speak to the broader effects of the legislation. I think he needs to be brought back into line in that regard. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Speaking to the point of order Mr Chairperson I say that the effect of this part is to revoke the mandatory percentages that are set out in the schedule of the Act. What I am talking about is completely within the realms of this part of the Act. If the member does not understand that he should read the bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Yes. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The effect of this legislation is to take out the mandatory obligation for biofuels so there will no demand for tallow to be turned into bio-diesel. That surprises me. Tallow is a low-value by-product of the livestock processing industry in New Zealand and the National Government is stopping value being added to that by-product for the benefit of New Zealand farmers and the New Zealand economy—value that would have been added in New Zealand. It would also substitute for expensive oil that we import. Every year in New Zealand we spend billions of dollars on imported oil and some of that expenditure would be avoided because biofuels would be turned into bio-diesel that would be used instead. 
I have submitted two amendments to this part. The first is to give the tax break to bio-diesel producers and I have already talked about that. I have just tabled for your information Mr Chairperson and for that of your Clerk at the Table another version of the first amendment. This version takes out the word “pursuant” because there was a redundancy in the use of that word. It stated “pursuant under”. Both of those words are not needed so I have taken out the word “pursuant” leaving just the word “under”. Under this amendment bio-diesel producers would get a tax break of 42.524c per litre which is the excise duty relief we have already given to ethanol and that meets the policy objective of the National Government. National stands for that but did not include it in its own bill. 
In respect of the second amendment we have not had a regulatory impact statement and I think it is absolutely scurrilous that the votes of the ACT Party will pass this legislation. This is the party that says it stands for regulatory impact assessments of all bills that pass through this House. There is no regulatory impact assessment for this legislation. We have seen the letter from Sue Wood former president of the National Party on behalf of Tom McNicholl and he provided his own information to the Government on 2 December. I will also table that particular bit of information in a moment. It is known to the Government that this legislation will cause job losses and multimillion-dollar financial losses to the biofuel industry yet there is no regulatory impact statement. 
My other amendment requires the Minister to table in this House by the middle of next year a statement or an assessment of what the effects of this legislation are. It is not as good as having a regulatory impact statement available to the House before we determine whether legislation is passed but it is better than nothing. So I suggest that the Committee and particularly ACT should vote for that. If ACT votes for that amendment it will go through because except for National the other parties in this Chamber support it. If the ACT Party does not vote for the amendment then it will not proceed despite the fact that it does exactly the thing the ACT Party says is most important to it which is that we should be looking at the effect on business of changes to the law not just on business but also on unemployment. 
The ditching of this mandatory sales obligation will cause financial losses and injustice. I do not like this new Government causing injustice to anyone and there is clearly a multimillion-dollar injustice being caused to at least one biofuel producer and no doubt to many others as well. The banks of these producers may well walk in tomorrow—we do not know what level of indebtedness the producers have. I am not suggesting that the banks will walk in but they could do so if the producers are in debt in respect of these facilities. If it is not one biofuel producer in New Zealand that has levels of indebtedness it will not be able to service because of people not buying its product it will be another one. There will be insolvencies jobs lost and injustices caused to people who lose their family fortune. On top of all of that we will have an environment that is going backwards because of this legislation.