Mackey Moana: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Mackey Moana: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:833] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 The Committee finds itself in an extraordinary position with a Minister in the chair who has not read critical pieces of evidence regarding the repeal of legislation when that will severely damage New Zealand’s economy and the investment of hard-working small-business people whom National claims to care about—both small and medium sized businesses. A gentleman who has invested $10 million wrote to Mr Brownlee asking him to please reconsider this legislation as he had invested $10 million of his own money—as he says in the letter if the Minister had bothered to read it—because of the biofuel obligation that had been brought in. He clearly outlined the case for why we need such an obligation and why it is very important for that obligation to continue. What did the Minister do? 
Hon David Parker 
: He ignored it! 
MOANA MACKEY 
: He did not even read the letter. 
The first paragraph of the letter is a response to an official from the Ministry of Economic Development. It says: “We have received your email of 2 December 2008 in regards to the ‘state of play’ of the New Zealand biofuel industry in the context of a National party pre-election indication of its intention to repeal the biofuel obligation.” I was on the Local Government and Environment Committee which considered the Biofuel Bill and the officials from that ministry were very good; I found those officials to be extremely knowledgable in this area. But it seems to me that perhaps the official had been asked by Mr Brownlee to send an email out to people. I find it hard to believe that of his or her own volition the official decided to send an email out to people in the industry—good on the official if he or she did—asking them to explain the “ ‘state of play’ of the New Zealand biofuel industry in the context of a National party pre-election indication”. To me clearly that direction came from somewhere. 
I wonder whether the Minister will take a call and indicate whether that direction came from him. If it did not come from him I ask why because it seems a sensible thing to go out and ask the industry where it is at and whether the Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill will have an impact on the industry especially given that this bill has no regulatory impact statement attached to it. If the Minister did put that direction in and ask his officials to find out the state of play why did he ignore the information that came back from Mr McNicholl of BioDiesel Oils (NZ)? It seems astonishing to me that an email would go out presumably from the Minister asking about the state of play and then he would ignore all the information that came back in. Perhaps we could call the bill the “Biofuel (Ignorance is Bliss Head in the Sand) Bill”. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: It’s arrogant. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: It is arrogant because this bill is not going to a select committee. Mr McNicholl had no opportunity to come a select committee and explain the kind of impact the repeal of the mandatory biofuel obligation will have on his company and on his workers. At a time when one would think that the Government of New Zealand would be wanting to create jobs and support innovative businesses like BioDiesel Oils (NZ) Ltd Mr Brownlee comes down here to the Chamber—after bills last week that ripped the guts out of research and development—and has more legislation that will damage the very companies industries and entrepreneurs that we need at this time in order to bring us through the recession given what is happening overseas at the moment. 
I ask Mr Brownlee to take a call and indicate to the Committee whether he gave a direction for his officials to contact industry players and ask them where they were at. If he did I would like to know why he ignored that very crucial letter which he said he had not seen but now says he received and did not bother to read. 
I tell the ACT Party members to read that letter as clearly they have yet to see it. In all genuineness I ask them to read the letter and see the kind of impact this bill is going to have. At the very least the bill should have gone to a select committee. For a party that campaigned on having a regulatory impact statement attached to every single piece of legislation I tell Mr Garrett that this is a very very poor way to start. How much legislation has so far had what the ACT Party promised would be attached to every single bill and what is ACT’s leader now the Minister of? It is those members’ votes that will pass this legislation. It will not go unnoticed out there in the New Zealand public that a party that campaigned on the basis of the need to know what the impact of this legislation would be before it was passed is supporting this bill being rammed through the House with no select committee process and no regulatory impact statement. 
The Minister in charge of the bill has not even read the very information that he asked for. It was a smoke and mirrors request to make the sector feel that it was being consulted when clearly the Minister’s intention was to ignore every single word it said.