Mallard Trevor: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Mallard Trevor: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:819] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I stand to do two things; one is to support my colleague David Parker and his two amendments to Part 2 of the Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill. I note that we are yet to get a response from the Minister in charge of the bill the Hon Gerry Brownlee. We have not had the Minister on his feet in this part. It is really just a matter of politeness and tradition in Parliament that relatively early in each part—we are not saying that the Minister has to reply to every speech or to all points that are made—especially when there are amendments the Minister indicates whether the Government is going to support them and the reasons. It is not onerous; they are relatively simple matters and he has had advice from his advisers in case he was not sure of their effect. 
These are relatively simple amendments. One of them requires the Minister to report on the financial and unemployment effects of this bill on New Zealand’s tallow to biofuel industry. It is just a matter of coming back to the House before the end of June to report on how many jobs have been lost as a result and what the financial effects are on individuals. It might be called the honesty clause I think. If in fact the National Party does what it says it is going to do and does what it is going to be asked to do by way of the next amendment the Minister will be able to report positive effects—that jobs have grown within New Zealand and people have made money. That would be a good thing. 
The other amendment I think goes more directly to Government policy. I know generally Government is responsible for its own policy and implementing it but every now and again it needs a hand in turning it around. We from the Opposition are here to help as far as the Government is concerned. This amendment inserting new section 24(5) to the principal Act makes it clear that: “A credit shall be allowed against the levies otherwise payable pursuant under this section equivalent to 42.524 cents per litre of biodiesel sold by the levy payer.” This extends to bio-diesel the exemption from excise duty that is currently enjoyed by bio-ethanol. It is a levelling of the playing field. The Government says it is its policy and I think it is a matter of getting that implemented. 
The other question I want to ask and I will take a point of order at the end of my speech to table a letter is whether the Minister read the letter of 2 December from BioDiesel Oils (NZ) Ltd addressed to Joe Connell within the Energy and Communications Branch— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: No. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No he didn’t. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: It was never given to me. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: That is an outrage. It is an absolute outrage that the letter from the person who has spent $10 million on biofuel was not given to the Minister. I do not want to criticise officials but I think the nicest thing I could say is that it is waiting in the pending tray within the Minister’s office. But he has not seen it. We have a letter here to a person who was a policy analyst in the fuels and Crown resources part of the branch outlining the job losses that will occur including 22 staff in Waharoa and 24 staff in East Tamaki. The letter is from Tom McNicholl—I will make it clear that I do not have a signed copy of the letter but I am informed by a past-president of the National Party Sue Wood that this is a letter— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Sue Wood had it? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Sue Wood is the person who supplied this letter. She says it is a copy of a letter to the Ministry of Economic Development outlining the case for this plant and the Minister tells us that he has not read it. That is almost unbelievable. It is an outrage that we have in this Committee a Minister who is too damn lazy to read the mail to his ministry on this. I am very rarely almost speechless in this Chamber and I am getting very close to saying that it beggars belief that a Minister could be so lazy so indolent that he does not read the file on this bill. It is a very short file. It is a file that—because the consultation was so restricted—is tiny. The idea that this Minister can come into this Committee with legislation that wrecks a family and wrecks an industry and tell us he has not even read their letter— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I haven’t received the letter. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: If the Minister has not looked in his pending file could I make a suggestion. I suggest to the Minister that we take leave to move on to the next bill and come back again to this to give him time to read the letter so that he understands the implications. Is the Minister prepared to do that? No he is not. He is not prepared to do that. I am not saying we should delay the passing of this bill; I am just saying we should deal with it later on today or tomorrow to give the Minister time to be fully informed. I could give him a copy of the letter which I know is sitting in his pending tray but he has not got off his big chuff wandered over to the tray to pick up the files that are sitting there and read them. If Helen Clark was Prime Minister he would be in her office by now explaining because that is a sign of absolute incompetence. The very first thing that Ministers do before they take a Cabinet committee paper on a bill to Cabinet especially when it does not have a regulatory impact report is ask— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: What’s the date on the letter? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: 2 December. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Why didn’t they send it to me? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The person who asked for it was one of that Minister’s officials. That is the way things are done. Officials send out for the information it comes back and the Minister reads it. This Minister should read it. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: We were never given it. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The Minister did not go to his file and read the letter. If he had asked like any decent Minister would ask for the file on this bill he would have read it. I do not know that particular official but I know that group of officials. They worked for me on I think three separate occasions: twice when I was Acting Minister for a period and once when I was Minister of Energy. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Good officials. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: They are competent officials. That is a well-run section of the ministry. I wager they would have a file that indicates— 
Chris Tremain 
: That is nothing to do with Part 2 of the bill. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The letter relates absolutely to Part 2. This letter refers to the factory in Waharoa; Part 2 wrecks that factory. 
The Minister of Energy and Resources has told us he has not had the energy to get off his backside and read the letter. If there is one letter that he should have read it is this letter. In the Cabinet committee discussing this bill John Key would have asked: “What do the people affected by this say?”. That is a standard question asked by Prime Ministers and chairs of policy committees. They asked that in my presence during the previous Labour Government—when Helen Clark was Prime Minister. They always asked those questions—and Gerry Brownlee would have had to answer. 
I seek leave to table the letter of 2 December from Tom McNicholl to the Ministry of Economic Development. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. The letter can be tabled. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.