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:800] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Part 1 is the more important part of the Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill and is a part about which my colleague David Parker has asked serious questions of the Minister in the chair the Hon Gerry Brownlee. I acknowledge that the Minister attempted to reply by way of interjection but it is getting close to the time when he should take a call in order to put the National Party’s view on the record. 
A couple of major points have been made. The first regards the timing of this bill versus the timing of the introduction of the tax incentive or subsidy and the extension of the tax exemption from ethanol to biofuels and what happens in the dead period in between. I accept the Minister’s word that he intends to move in the direction of tax incentives; that could well be a logical move. That approach could well make a difference or at least neutralise the situation. What I do not accept is the chilling effect in the interim whereby a biofuel factory that is nearly built will be mothballed. The appropriate approach is to make the two changes together—to put in place the replacement provisions and then take the current provisions out—if that is in fact the direction that people want to go. I do not think that that is good policy by the Government or that it is the right approach but if the Government is heading down the path of effectively a taxpayer subsidy of biofuels for a taxation equalisation scheme then that is the approach that should be taken. 
The second point regards whether the Minister is deliberately taking the sustainability principles out of the Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Act. Every now and again Ministers make mistakes especially when legislation is slightly rushed as this legislation is. I can see no reason whatsoever to remove the principles unless it is in order to fulfil the Government’s obligation to the oil companies—or whatever we are doing at the moment. The Government probably has an obligation to the oil companies as a result of commitments made maybe a year or two ago. I am making the point that there is no need whatsoever to take the sustainability principles out of the Act in order to fulfil the policy intent of this bill. 
The principles were not in the Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Amendment Act 2008 when it originally came before the House as a bill from the Labour Government. An enormous amount of multipartisan work was done to get the principles agreed to and I acknowledge that Dr Nick Smith took a role in that work. I know that members of the Green Party and Moana Mackey were actively involved in it as well. It was quite a good example of members of Parliament working together positively in a select committee. When that occurs it is good for New Zealand’s international reputation; it was logical and coherent. Even if we go back to the old Ruth Richardson approach we should still ask what mischief we are trying to fix here. The mischief that we are trying to fix is not the sustainability principles. 
The National Party has a different view as to the proper approach to this issue and as to whether there should be regulation as far as quantities of biofuels are concerned. I think it is fair to say that it is not part of a secret agenda. National members were clear about that before the election—they were wrong but they were clear. They won the election and they have the right to bring in legislation in order to fulfil their election commitments. But as they are doing that we have to keep considering what the best way of doing it is that does the least harm. 
It is becoming increasingly clear that the approach National is taking is not well reasoned. I point to the ACT Party and in particular to Rodney Hide who has responsibility for regulatory matters. Rodney Hide has responsibility for regulatory impact statements; this bill does not even have a poor excuse for one. There are a couple of explanations for that. One is that it was so rushed that even a vague attempt at an unsatisfactory report could not be made. Last week a couple of bills before the House included very poor regulatory impact statements. They stated that a narrow group of Government departments had been consulted. In a couple of cases they gave their views—I think only where it suited the Government. I think that the Ministry of Economic Development stated that the 90-day legislation did not go far enough; that was included in the regulatory impact statement of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. 
Why is there not a regulatory impact statement in this bill? It is because if there were such a statement then the National Party would have to put on record in the bill the effect of the legislation on Mr McNicholl. A clear effect of this legislation is the confiscation of Mr McNicholl’s investment. The Government is saying to Mr McNicholl in a way that is pretty unusual for the National Party that although he has made a big private investment and he has put a lot of his family money—the vast majority of his family money I understand—into this investment it does not care. The Government is saying that that is not important that it does not respect private investment and that it does not believe in the principles of regulatory certainty. 
I think the New Zealand Parliament has got a lot better at regulatory certainty over the years. There was a period of time with Sir Robert Muldoon—and probably to be fair Sir Roger Douglas—when there was not a lot of regulatory certainty. They went off in different directions with their regulation—or lack thereof—but both of them destroyed a lot of wealth in New Zealand as a result of their lack of commitment to regulatory certainty. This bill takes away certainty for people who have made a very big investment. 
This bill will do us enormous harm internationally. The suspension of the emissions trading scheme is just an embarrassment. Maybe it is fair to set up the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee—a committee that at least some people claim will go into the science of whether climate change exists—because John Key has had two positions: believer and non-believer. Maybe he really does want a committee to tell us whether climate changes exists and whether global warming is important. If that is the case why can he not be honest about it? If he is really still a doubter about climate change—if the Prime Minister of New Zealand is standing almost alone amongst world leaders in doubting climate change—why can he not front up and say that that is the case? That would be a better explanation for this legislation and for National’s pandering to ACT in the setting up of the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee. The Prime Minister says it is a high-level select committee. Is that not embarrassing for every other select committee in Parliament? It is not a high-level committee at all; it is a committee of members of Parliament nominated by their parties in a very normal way. I do not think there is an excess—other than from the Labour and Greens side—of intellectual power on that particular committee. 
The point I am trying to make is that that select committee along with this bill and along with the suspension of the emissions trading scheme makes New Zealand look like a country that is absolutely in reverse on its climate change policy. 
Hon Member 
: And forestry. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The forestry area is another area. 
We had the potential to lead the carbon markets in the world but John Key has stuffed that. This bill is a sad bill and we will suffer for it.