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:832] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I am waiting now for the Minister in the chair the Hon Gerry Brownlee to get on his feet because he has left us with the very very distinct impression that he is absolutely incompetent. What he has done is tell the House that he does not read his correspondence. One letter would have gone via the ministry and it would have been part of the file on the bill. Another one went directly to his office on 4 December and it was attached to another letter. What he has told us is that he did not read it. 
What has also become clear is that that Minister having not read the letter and having not understood the effects of this legislation on a New Zealand business did not indicate to the Prime Minister in the Cabinet committee that this plant would be mothballed. He did not indicate to the Prime Minister in the Cabinet committee that 46 people would not have jobs as a result of this legislation. 
It is pretty rare for me to be caught short of something to say in the House but on this occasion it just beggars belief that a Minister in charge of this legislation would not tell the Prime Minister that the direct result of it would be that an individual would lose a $10 million investment and 46 people would not have jobs. There are a few other issues as well such as the fact that New Zealand’s international reputation will be going backwards not to mention the effect on the environment as a result of this legislation—and we have tended not to focus on that issue quite as much since the Minister made his startling admission that he does not read his correspondence. 
What is becoming clear to the House is that this is not the sort of bill that should be passed under urgency. Clearly urgency in this House has meant that the ACT Party has not been able to properly consider its position. To be fair to that party it was probably misled by the Minister as well. It is a very very serious matter. I ask Mr Garrett whether that letter was shown to the ACT caucus before it agreed to support the bill. I say to the member that he does not have to take a call; he can just interrupt. Let me put it this way: we are assuming that the letter was not shown to the ACT caucus. If we are wrong then it is incumbent on the member to tell us. Are we wrong? The member is not telling us so we will take it that as well as the Cabinet committee not seeing the letter the ACT caucus did not see the letter. The vital bit of business-wrecking information was not shown to the ACT caucus. 
I ask the ACT Party whether this situation makes any difference about how it feels about the legislation now. ACT is the party that is making the difference here. I ask whether the ACT Party as one of its first real choices in this Parliament wants to go down in the history of Parliament as being the party that supported the incompetent Minister. Clearly Rodney Hide the leader of a party that was not responsible enough to do a regulatory impact statement on this bill before it was introduced should have been asking Gerry Brownlee questions at the Cabinet committee about the effect of this legislation and about the lack of a regulatory impact statement—I understand that Rodney Hide is on the policy committee through which this legislation would have had to be passed. 
Not only should John Key have been asking the questions—certainly the previous Prime Minister would have been asking questions in respect of this particular matter—but answers should have been offered by Gerry Brownlee anyway. But he could not offer the answers because he did not read the mail. That is a sign of absolute incompetence from a lazy Tory.