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:828] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
:  
I want to follow up on the Hon Trevor Mallard’s comments here. We have heard various versions from Mr Brownlee all of which—all of which—conclude that he did not read the letter— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: The letter he got twice. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: It was probably three times because it was then attached to a letter from Sue Wood. 
Further in Mr Brownlee’s last contribution when he finally got to his feet and took a call on this legislation—which kills a whole industry—he said that he had offered to meet with Sue Wood and Tom McNicholl but that they had declined. That is on the record. I find that very very hard to believe. I have had numerous conversations with Sue Wood. She tells me that she has been brushed off by the Minister’s office that she has been trying to get through to the Minister—[ 
Interruption 
]—No I do not mislead the Chamber I say to Mr Brownlee. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Yes you do. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I do not. She has told me that within the last week she has again been on to his office and that she has been brushed off by his office. So the idea that the Minister has offered to meet with Mr McNicholl and with Sue Wood the former president of the National Party is something that I invite Mr McNicholl and Sue Wood to call him on because if that is wrong then the member has egregiously misrepresented the position to this Chamber and he ought to be judged for it. 
The letter that he has not read needs to be read out to him now. There are very important passages in this letter. My call will not allow me to read all of them so I hope other members will make some of the other points but I will read a paragraph from about the third page of this letter which is very detailed: “The undersigned”—Mr McNicholl—“who owns BDO has during the last 8 years invested over $10 million in research and development and plant and equipment including the purchase of sites.” He further writes: “Repealing the mandate will also halt all on-going work and efforts in new technological innovation and development. The future value of this advancement will be completely wiped off for the investors”—that is $10 million of investment—“and shareholders as well as place New Zealand in a disadvantaged position worldwide in terms of engineering and process technology export to the rest of the world.” So there are export consequences as well as the loss of investment. 
The letter elsewhere says that the East Tamaki plant which has already been built is having “technological advancements currently being undertaken in our 10000000 litres plan at East Tamaki. The production volume will be drastically reduced (already it is at a very negligible level due to the minimal off-take by the oil companies) … The company will have no second thoughts to mothball its operation at East Tamaki and stop construction of building and site works on its new 60000000 litres plant at Waharoa to avoid any further loss.” It goes on to say: “We plan to employ 22 staff on three shifts at the Waharoa plant and 24 staff on three shifts at East Tamaki; a total of 46 full-time jobs when both plants are in full production to meet the mandate.” That would have been at the start of next year but that investment is being lost—those jobs are being lost. This is just one of many biofuel producers. 
The Minister got this letter but did not read it and we have no regulatory impact statement and we have no reference to a select committee. I invite ACT members—even at this late stage having now been provided with that letter by Labour members because they did not get it from National members—to read that letter to consider the effects of this on business and to consider whether they ought to be voting to slow down this egregious legislation rather than voting for the injustice they are about to cause Mr McNicholl a 75-year-old man. He is no highfalutin businessman; he is a very down-to-earth man. This is his life savings I expect. I do not know details of his financial position but I expect that his life savings are tied up in this investment and he is about to lose them as a consequence. 
This has all been spelt out to the Minister and it has all been spelt out to the Ministry of Economic Development. The ministry quite responsibly has made contact with this business. It is clear from Mr McNicholl’s letter of 2 December that it was written in response to a query from the ministry. The ministry was acting on behalf of the Minister. This letter no doubt went to the Minister’s office but he has not read it.