Hodgson Pete: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Hodgson Pete: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:822] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
:  
The revelation that the Minister has indicated that he has not seen the letter of 2 December raises two questions. The first of them goes to the Minister— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I want to make clear that my responses to the Hon Trevor Mallard were about what I thought was a new letter that was being provided to him. I have in fact received that letter referred to. A response to Mr McDonald is being prepared. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: That cannot possibly be true because I indicated to the member that the letter was dated 2 December. It cannot be a new letter. The member cannot have told the truth to the Committee. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The member cannot make allegations about missing letters. We wish to move on— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Mr Chairperson— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The Minister has made a statement that he has received a letter. He has acknowledged that to the Committee. We wish to move on. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think there are two points. One is whether you are right to allow the Minister in the chair Gerry Brownlee to correct that statement by way of point of order. He should have taken a call. The other point is that the name he said was McDonald. The letter is from McNicholl. The letter that he did not read was a letter from McNicholl not McDonald. For the Minister to say that he has a letter from McDonald now does not help at all. It was clearly stated in the Committee before that it is a letter dated 2 December from McNicholl. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: There is a mistake in the naming of the person who wrote the letter. Mr Mallard has made the point very clear— 
Hon David Parker 
: Point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am ruling at the moment. The points have been well made. The Minister has acknowledged that there is a letter. He has identified that and acknowledged it to the Committee. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am absolutely bemused as to how you know that a mistake was made by the Minister the Hon Gerry Brownlee because he has not taken a call to correct it. There is a proper procedure in this Chamber to be followed. It is not for members to cosy up to the Chairman particularly a Chairman who is in a difficult position as you are on this issue coming from the area in which this factory is located. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Mr Parker you know that you cannot bring the Chair into this. The Minister said he has received a letter. He has acknowledged that to the Committee; he has explained it and we wish to move on. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The Minister may have acknowledged a mistake privately to you. That is not on the record of the Committee and you cannot as the Chair put it on the record of the Committee. You especially cannot enter this debate when you Mr Chairperson should not be in the Chair anyway. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The Minister has not made a private comment to me about this matter. He has acknowledged it to the Committee. He said so and that is where the matter lies. These are debating points—they can be brought up in debate. I wish to move on. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Is this a new point of order Mr Mallard? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It is Mr Chairperson. It relates to what you said. You indicated to the Committee that the Minister had made a correction to the Committee. He could not possibly have corrected the name “McDonald” to “McNicholl” because he did not get to his feet. It is not possible that he made a correction to the Committee and for you to say that he did is just wrong. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The Minister made an interjection to that effect and that is what is before the Committee. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I have been paying particular attention to this debate and particular attention to this error which I heard and pointed out to my colleague Mr Mallard. I heard no such interjection from Mr Brownlee. He has not been on his feet since he made that error. He is able to take a call at any time to correct that position. This mistake is very important given that scores of jobs are at stake and millions of dollars. It is in an area close to Matamata— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: These are debating points. 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: I note Mr Chairperson that your authority is being consistently challenged by members opposite and it has included members making allegations about your unfitness to sit in the Chair. I do not think that adds anything to the debate or to the perception of the Chamber. I ask you to assert your authority Mr Chairperson because you have ruled. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Is this a new point of order? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Yes it is a new point of order. You indicated to the Committee in your last ruling that Mr Brownlee had corrected his position by way of interjection. He could not have done that in a parliamentary manner because for the entire period that we have been considering this we have been dealing with points of order. He cannot interject during a point of order and if he had interjected during a point of order I am sure that you as Chairperson would have reprimanded him for doing that and made him withdraw and apologise to the Committee. 
Chris Tremain 
: Point of order— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I am still going. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: There is a point of order in progress. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I am saying that despite the fact that I have indicated there is a conflict here I have confidence in you as the Chair and I know that you would not have let Mr Brownlee interject during a point of order. If he had done that you would have ruled him out of order and made him withdraw and apologise and that interjection would not be on the record of the Committee. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Thank you Mr Mallard. The Minister is prepared to take a call. We are just waiting for the letter. The Hon Pete Hodgson has the call at the moment. We are just waiting for the letter. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I have tabled the letter Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Yes we are just getting it now. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We have reached an unfortunate position in this debate. My recollection of events is that the Hon Trevor Mallard in his contributions to the debate got a series of responses from the Minister that were not on the record of the Committee because they were by way of interjection. The interjections were that the Minister had not received the letter that Mr Mallard was referring to. In the course of the interjections the Minister then asked what the date of the letter was and a number of us gave the Minister the date of the letter which was 2 December of this year. After that date was given the Minister continued to assert by way of interjection or by way of body language that he had not been in receipt of it. If it is OK for him to correct a person’s name by way of interjection to you Mr Chairperson then it is also OK for this Committee to say that it has been misled by the Minister who said that he had not received the letter when he knew the date but who then changed his mind when he raised a point of order as I got up to speak. I am saying to you Mr Chairperson that you have to make a decision as to whether the Minister in the chair misled the Committee. My assertion is that he has. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Two letters are involved. I have a letter here dated 12 December. We are waiting for the letter of 2 December which apparently was tabled. The Minister is prepared to take a call. We hope that that will clarify the matter. The member made a point about the Minister making a correction by way of interjection. He made a mistake about the name. He knew that he made a mistake and he will take a call. Hopefully that will clarify the matter. I would like the member to resume his speech. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The letter of 12 December to which you refer is a complete irrelevance. It is from neither a Mr McDonald nor a Mr McNicholl; it is from the former president of the National Party Sue Wood. That letter is an irrelevance. I cannot see the relevance of it to your ruling. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We are just waiting for a copy of the letter of 2 December. We do not have that. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It’s on the Table. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: It is not on the Table here and that is why I have only one letter Mr Mallard. So that is where we are at. In the meantime while we are waiting for the letter and for the Minister Gerry Brownlee to return I ask the Hon Pete Hodgson to continue. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. In order to be helpful I would like to table the letter of 2 December. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: It has already been tabled so we do not need to proceed with that. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I have raised with you a point of order regarding your view as to whether the Minister misled the Committee. I am asserting that the Minister to your right has misled the Committee and I am asserting that he has done so by way of interjection. I have asked you to tell me whether you agree with that assertion and you have not told me. If you do not agree with that assertion I ask why you do not agree with it. As it stands at the moment if an interjection is to be part of a correction or a part of the debate—as a result of your earlier remarks—I point out that these interjections were made after the Minister knew that the letter in question which he denied receipt of was dated 2 December; then having worked out that he was wrong he raised a point of order to correct himself. Therefore the question that I have for you Mr Chairperson which you have not yet answered is whether the Minister has misled the Committee. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: It is not my understanding that the Minister has misled the House. The Minister will be taking a call to clarify matters. That is my ruling; I wish to proceed. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Thank you for your ruling. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. When you were giving me the call not so long ago I think you said I had 3 minutes and 28 seconds left—that is from a 5-minute call. The words used in my contribution so far have been these: “The revelation that the Minister has indicated that he has not seen the letter of 2 December raises two questions.” That is as far as I got. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Is this still a point of order? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes it is. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I did stop the clock when you were bringing forward the point of order. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Well I am just asserting rather obviously by way of quoting verbatim that what I just said does not take 90 seconds to say; it takes about 10. I wonder whether you could recalibrate your clock Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Yes you did speak before you sought a point of order so we assumed that was part of your speech. But— 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Mr Chairperson I did not seek a point of order. The Minister called a point of order when I was one sentence into my contribution and that does not take 90 seconds. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am happy that we start the call again as a 5-minute call. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: That is very generous Mr Chairperson. The fact that the Minster has— 
Nathan Guy 
: Make it good! 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It will be good all right. The Minister’s point that he had not received the letter which he made when Mr Mallard questioned him about whether he had received it has now been reversed by the Minister who raised the point of order to say that he did receive the letter. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think it would be good to raise a point of order now to clarify this matter as people fire dates all over the show. The first point I make is that the letter of 2 December— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No that is a debating point. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Well most of what the member is about to say is totally irrelevant. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We are not getting into points of order that become debating points. The Minister may take a call following the Hon Pete Hodgson’s call. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: We of course look forward to the Minister’s explanation but the facts as they stand at the moment are these. The Hon Trevor Mallard pointed out that a letter had been set to Ministry of Economic Development officials. The Minister indicated by way of a shake of the head that he had not received it. Mr Mallard responded in dismay as one might expect because the letter says that this man’s business is going down the gurgler as a result of this legislation. Repeatedly as Mr Mallard tested whether the Minister had received the letter we were told by way of an interjection and a shake of the head—or whatever—that he had not. That caused some concern on this side of the Chamber as one might understand. The letter has been around the news media because it has been followed by another letter from none other than an earlier president of the National Party yet the Minister sat there and denied knowledge of it. It was beyond belief. 
That was the situation that we were in and repeatedly the Minister gave one point of view. He is about to change that point of view but it does beg the question as to how he could ever be in denial of the knowledge of that letter. None of the rest of us had any misgivings about whether we knew about it; it was all around the country. The Minister has in short misled the House and that is serious. It is not a minor thing. Not only did he mislead the House but he did so even though he was under some focused attention from the Hon Trevor Mallard. I do not think that that is tolerable. I think the Minister has to say to the House that he is sorry. 
He has to apologise to the House for misleading us and then he has to answer another question: did he show the letter to the ACT Party because the ACT Party stands for economic growth and it stands for getting Government out of the lives of business? This legislation is taking down that man’s business. Mr McNicholl’s business is going to the wall and his letter in very moderate moderating language—it is a very very moderate letter—spells it out. I want to know whether the swing party in this debate was aware of that letter. If it was that is fine and dandy—we know how to value the ACT Party accordingly—but if it was not made aware of that and the Minister himself has denied knowledge of it for long enough then it raises some pretty interesting questions about whether the ACT Party is making an informed choice in this debate. I think the Minister has some questions to answer and he can begin by saying he is sorry.