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:827] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Is this not just a classic? Within the first fortnight of Parliament since the election we already have the first Minister who is at risk. What is absolutely clear now is that despite getting a letter twice—once via his officials and once appended to a letter to himself—he did not read it. He made it clear to the House earlier that he did not read that letter. The letter was sent to his office twice and he did not read it. [ 
Interruption 
] The Minister might have looked at the letter later on when Sue Wood sent it but he had not read it when he took it to the Cabinet committee. He did not give it to John Key and he did not brief him on the effects of the Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill on this business. 
I ask John Key what he is doing having a Minister who is so lazy that he did not read the correspondence and show it to him or who deliberately deceived the Prime Minister by not giving him the full facts at the Cabinet committee when this legislation was being debated. It is absolutely intolerable to have a Minister who is either so lazy that he did not read the material or so thick that he did not understand it or who has deceived the Prime Minister by not tabling that letter—or at least a synopsis of it—at the Cabinet committee especially in the absence of a regulatory impact report. 
There is no regulatory impact report on this bill and therefore the Minister in charge of it has extra responsibilities. He must be even clearer than he would normally be not that there is any excuse for not being clear anyway in a Cabinet committee when seeking permission to have legislation go into the House. There is an extra obligation on this Minister as a result of the lack of a regulatory impact report. And what have we heard? We have heard that he did not read the letter. That is what he told the House—that he read neither the 2 December version nor the 2 December version that was appended to the 4 December version. 
What can we say about that? We can ask the ACT Party—and I know the answer to this because if the Minister did not show the letter to the Prime Minister I bet my bottom dollar that he did not show it to the ACT Party—what it is doing supporting legislation that does not have a regulatory impact report. That is a very bad reflection on Rodney Hide. Even a skimpy little one—a quarter of one—like those we had on the bills last week would have been a start. 
 I ask the Minister whether it was deliberate. Did he deliberately not have a regulatory impact statement because of this issue? I do not think it was deliberate; I do not think he knew the issue existed. I do not think he knew the issue existed because he told us he did not read the letter. He told us he did not read the letters of 2 and 4 December. 
This matter goes to a question of the competence of a Minister. When the Minister brings his first legislation to the House—the very first legislation—if he is not sure what to do there are a lot of very good people in the Cabinet Office to ask. There are a lot of people there—good public servants—who will give him advice if he asks for it about other things he should consider. There was no regulatory impact report so checking that the legislation does not affect people would have been the first bit of advice. Checking that it does not affect people would have been the first bit of advice that he got from the Cabinet Office. I ask the Minister whether he asked the Cabinet Office for advice. No he did not. He did not ask the Cabinet Office for advice on this measure. 
So there was no regulatory impact report and an uncertain new Minister who did not know what to do. The Prime Minister was clearly deceived—we are told it was accidental—and I believe the Minister when he said it was an accident. He did not mean to deceive the Prime Minister on the effects of this bill but nevertheless he did deceive the Prime Minister on its effects by not reading the correspondence and sharing it with the Prime Minister.