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:853] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the third reading of the Energy (Fuels Levies and references) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill. It is one of the few times I regret I have only 10 minutes to speak on the third reading. There are some points that I think are important to make. 
The first is that I welcome the comment made by Mr Garrett from the ACT Party that he had a personal view that was not consistent with the ACT position— 
David Garrett 
: I didn’t say that—“differed slightly from”. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: —was slightly different from the ACT position—after listening to the arguments from the Opposition. I welcome his frankness in saying that—and saying it even before I understand he has had his maiden speech in the House. It is good to hear that someone was listening to the debate and some of the points were well made. 
I also want to say to Nick Smith that his work in the select committee—it was relatively unusual—on the development of the legislation now being repealed was valued by members from the Green Party and the Labour Party. It was good. What I think he fails to understand—maybe he did not look carefully at the detail of this bill—is that the very sustainability requirements in that legislation are being repealed by this bill. He seemed to indicate that the work would continue anyway but of course it will not be required by legislation because those standards are being repealed. 
I want to make some general comments about climate change. As a relatively small country New Zealand has the possibility of doing some pretty wonderful things. We are over-reliant on motor vehicles compared with the majority of OECD countries we have a poor public transport system and therefore having a go at transport fuels is a very good way for us to reduce emissions. I agree with Nick Smith: I think that in the longer term it is likely that battery-powered cars will make progress. 
Hon David Parker 
: The Government’s ambition. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: That was the ambition of David Parker and a lot of work has gone on—including by State-owned enterprises—in this particular area in order to make sure we stay at the front of the world. But that is a longer-term situation and it may well be that some electric cars will have to be dual-fuel and that we will still have to rely on a normal combustion engine type of arrangement at least for some of the longer routes. Therefore we have to think about the use of fossil fuels the use of ethanol bio-ethanol and bio-diesel. 
 I was lucky as Minister of Energy and Minister for Economic Development to see quite a few projects around the country. People have been looking at making fuel from gas from the smokestacks at New Zealand Steel—Stephen Tindall and his team have been working in that area. People have been looking at using algae and they are likely to make progress. But we have only one world-leading biofuel technology in New Zealand that is ready to go now and that is fuel from tallow. It has been 10 years in the making a lot of very good research has gone into it and its economic viability is essentially proven. Most important it competes really well against international biofuels most of which are not sustainable. So it is win-win: we have something sustainable—it uses what is pretty close to a waste product in New Zealand; something we have a very high proportion of per head compared with most countries—and it works price-wise vis-à-vis international prices for biofuels. 
But there is a problem and that is that the oil companies do not like it. They do not like the investment in mixing that they have to do to ensure that it can be used and if there is not an element of regulation or compulsion they will not do it. They are big economic organisations and they make decisions in their interests as individual companies. It is right that they should do that. That is the way it goes and we accept that that is the way the world works. Over the years we have made lots of decisions that have hurt oil companies. They fought like hell when we took lead out of petrol. They hated it—they absolutely hated the idea of it being taken out. A whole pile of standards have been set and I think none of us would now want to go backwards. This situation is similar. This is about the setting of a standard that is important for the planet. Shifting towards biofuels is an important part of that. 
We are really lucky in New Zealand that a man—a pioneer and I understand a 75-year-old—Mr McNicholl—has decided essentially to shift the emphasis of his company which had been involved in recycling in a number of areas; over the last 10 years his major focus and his major investment have been on research and development on and then the building of what is essentially a pilot plant and then on the building of a major plant in Waharoa for the conversion of tallow to bio-diesel. I compliment him. He was a long way ahead of the pack and he got some endorsement internationally—the product is proven. He got some support. It was not that anyone was told that Mr McNicholl’s bio-diesel had to be used rather than the imported stuff; no one said that. No one said that people at the moment have to use sustainable stuff—although people have to declare if they are not which is quite an incentive to use it. But there was no compulsion to use Mr McNicholl’s product; it would compete with the overseas products. 
Mr Assistant Speaker Roy I regret to inform you that during the Committee stage of the bill we had an admission and an interchange that I would describe as unseemly at best. It became very very clear that Gerry Brownlee who is only 5 or 6 weeks into his term as Minister of Energy and Resources is behind in his correspondence. In fact that became clear 2 weeks ago so 3 weeks into his time as Minister he was behind in his correspondence. Mr McNicholl through the Ministry of Economic Development on the 2nd and directly to Mr Brownlee on the 4th sent a letter that outlined the issues for that company and the fact that this bill would result in the mothballing of his plants. It was again sent to his office on the 12th by Sue Wood a former president of the National Party. Unfortunately Mr Brownlee did not read that letter until 17 December—today. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Rubbish! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No he made it absolutely clear in the Chamber that he had not read that letter until today. 
Hon Member 
: Ask him directly. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I ask the Minister whether he had read it before. Again he refuses to deny it. But he made it clear in the Committee stage that he had not read that letter until today. 
He made some other comments. He said that his office had offered Mr McNicholl a meeting. As of Friday last week that was being vehemently denied by Sue Wood a former president of the National Party who said that his office gave her the brush-off when she tried to set up a meeting. It may be that as this legislation was falling down around his ears he offered a meeting after the fact. 
But the point is that Gerry Brownlee by not reading his correspondence misled the Cabinet committee that approved this bill. It is absolutely incumbent on a Minister especially one proposing to take to the House legislation without a regulatory impact statement—such as this bill—to brief his Cabinet colleagues on the effects. He has told us that he did not tell either the Cabinet committee or Cabinet that a company in which $10 million had been invested would be mothballed and 46 jobs would not be available. This is from a Government that says it cares about jobs and cares about investment. He has told us that despite having the letter in his office he did not tell his Cabinet colleagues about it. Well if that occurred two or three times under a Labour Government the Minister would get the sack. If it occurred once the Minister would get a very serious reprimand. I want to know from the Prime Minister what he is going to do about his incompetent lazy behind-in-his-correspondence Minister Gerry Brownlee.