Hughes Darren: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Hughes Darren: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:861] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
: 
 The Labour Party in Opposition joins with five other parties in opposing the third reading of the Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill in Parliament today because we believe this is very bad law and we believe this is a backward step for New Zealand. We do not believe there is any upside for New Zealand in this bill going through. We do not believe there is any upside for the environment we do not believe there is any upside for New Zealand industry and we certainly do not believe there is any upside for New Zealand jobs which will take an active step backwards when this bill receives its third reading if indeed that is what happens at the end of this debate. 
I would have thought that the National Government would reflect on the fact that five of Parliament’s seven parties are strongly opposed to this bill including its support party the Maori Party which is standing up for its beliefs and voting against this bill. We also heard from the ACT member who spoke David Garrett that he is against the bill as well but he will vote for it on the basis that it is part of the Government’s programme. That is not the position of course of the other support party the Maori Party which is not doing that but ACT has decided to support a bill that its individual members do not support. I acknowledge that United Future the Progressive Party the Labour Party and the Green Party are also not supporting the bill. That leaves National with only 62 votes against 59. That is a majority. It is a simple majority—a simple majority from a simple Minister. It means that the National Government will win on this but it should show those members that people are very upset about this bill going through because this is not good law for New Zealand. This is not a step forward for New Zealand industry. 
That fact is really compounded by the fact that this bill did not get a chance to go to a select committee. It is yet another bill from the inclusive Government that John Key told us he would run on which the public have not had a say. We heard from Mr Auchinvole that the reason the public did not get to have a say on this bill is that we had an election and there was a change of Government. I am sure that National’s decision to repeal the biofuel legislation was what drove tens of thousands of New Zealanders to the ballot box on 8 November! It is as though somehow anything that was ever in the National Party manifesto need never go to a select committee again because it is National Party policy. There is an arrogance in that stance that I think National will live to regret particularly when these bills cause long-term damage to our country. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: No it doesn’t. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: This bill does because this bill denies an opportunity. This bill is costing one man who has been mentioned several times during the debate—he has been the poster boy for it in a way—millions and millions of dollars in losses as a direct result of the decision this Parliament will make in 10 minutes’ time. That goes alongside other bills passed through their third readings that have also made an impact on people right down through to last week’s KiwiSaver changes which change people’s savings during their working lives. That makes a big change for people for ever. This bill makes a change that is negative and its consequences are more far-reaching than I think the Government is prepared to give us credit for discussing today in Parliament. 
My colleague Moana Mackey quoted extensively from the Minister’s speech that was given when he was the shadow Minister in this area and really I felt he was hung drawn and quartered on his own words with the bluster we have heard from him today and yesterday about why he feels the need to repeal this biofuel obligation. We know that his colleagues have not read a lot of the legislation that the Government has put before the House this week and last week; I suspect that they would not even have had a cursory debate on it in their caucus room. But what has been clear from a lot of the Government’s speakers is their total lack of understanding and failure to appreciate the fact that the obligation we are talking about is a tiny obligation out of all the oil sales in New Zealand. National is acting as if the former Government had on the books a compulsory measure by which absolutely everything had to be fuelled by biofuels; we would not even be able to spark up the lawnmower this weekend without pouring biofuel into it because the evil Labour Government in that nanny State way had insisted that only biofuel could be used. 
Paul Quinn 
: You agree—at last! 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: I want to say to the Government that if this bill did not pass then 99.5 percent of our oil would still be coming from the current sources we have—99.5 percent. In our law we had 0.5 percent as a target in order to get an industry going for biofuels. I do not know what bright ideas Mr Quinn has about climate change; I suspect that his bright ideas do not stretch all that far past dawn. But for those of us who have been trying to think about what things New Zealand can do in order to make sure that we can respond to climate change we can say we have not seen any ideas come from National. 
What has come from those members are things that have actively undermined New Zealand’s response to climate change and this bill has to be one of them. Gerry Brownlee has said that one of his first priorities as Minister of Energy and Resources in New Zealand is to take away choice from New Zealand consumers because he is taking away the ability for us to develop a proper industry in this country. He is happy to cut across private property rights and that relates to all those slogans and all that language that National members always use. But when those slogans do not suit National’s argument we never hear of them. National used to be the party of private property rights. I can see why ACT Party members privately have their views on these things but they are tottering along behind National in this respect. National is going to cancel the private property rights of somebody who has put in millions and millions of dollars of his own money into that property—his life savings. 
Paul Quinn 
: Like economic transformation closing the gaps knowledge wave? They’re slogans. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Mr Quinn in his rant yesterday told us that he would be behind the ordinary person in Parliament because he was a bloke’s bloke and that he would stand up for people yet today he is putting his vote behind a measure that will destroy millions of dollars belonging to a 75-year-old man who wanted to take the entrepreneurship— 
Paul Quinn 
: Rubbish! 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Paul Quinn says “Rubbish!” but we know that he does not have a clue about it because he started shouting out “Rubbish!” only when Gerry Brownlee said “Rubbish!”. If the member is taking his cue on research from Gerry Brownlee then that would be a very strange way to spend his parliamentary career because one of the things that came out in this debate—for a bill that did not go to a select committee—was the fact that Gerry Brownlee was so far behind on his paperwork that he had not even read a letter from Sue Wood the former president of the National Party. I know that the National Party was very— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: It is fine by me Mr Deputy Speaker; if the man wants to make a fool of himself then he can do it for 2 years 10 months and 3 weeks and his little time in Parliament can be known for that. It is fine by me. 
But Sue Wood the former president of the National Party was very active in the National Party campaign at the last election. She was busy helping Mr Guy in Otaki during that election and she would have been thinking to herself that she would have a party in Government that would listen to what she had to say. I think she has put up some good arguments in her letter. But we now know that it is not her arguments that have been dismissed by the Government; it is her envelope that has been dismissed by the Government because Gerry Brownlee has not even had the energy to do his paperwork or to read his correspondence. He now has staff who can open his envelopes for him. Of course previously Gerry Brownlee used to go to any function that involved the opening of an envelope but now he has people to do his envelopes for him and he cannot even do that. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: What about a crusade on reading? 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: A crusade on literacy—that is right. If Sue Wood is listening on the airwaves now I would say for her benefit that the problem with her letter where she does deserve to have absolute criticism levelled at her is that she wrote a 1½ page letter to Gerry Brownlee. Everybody knows that one does not go over a page with Gerry Brownlee if one wants to have one’s views taken seriously. And if one really wants to convince Mr Brownlee one should double-space the page because the amount of biofuel he spits out when work comes over the desk could have actually met our sales obligations without our needing to pass this repeal bill which is being rammed through the House under urgency by a Minister who is not on top of his portfolio. 
Hon Annette King 
: Or even under it. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Well I do not want to pursue that line of inquiry all that far. But I say that the Labour Party is strongly opposed to this bill first and foremost because of its climate change measures. We are worried about that. We are worried about our country slipping from the position we have had as an honest broker on these matters a position of being a country that is respected and listened to on a challenge that will not go away just because there was a change of Government in New Zealand on 8 November. I will tell members one other thing: that challenge will not go away just because the ACT Party has decided to have a high-level parliamentary select committee inquiry into it. As loyal as we all are to New Zealand if any member in this House honestly believes that the world is waiting for the entire debate on human-induced global warming to shift all because our Parliament has a select committee hearing on it then that member is more deluded than many who currently sit opposite. 
The other thing we are very concerned about is the fact that we are shutting the door on the opportunity to develop an industry here which means that jobs will be lost as a result of the Government’s measures. We are heading into a recession when the Government will see lots of job losses. It is already promoting that as one of its policies; it will go back to its policy of 6 percent as the natural rate of unemployment. All the right-wing language is already coming through in that respect. The Government is determined to close the door on jobs here but I think that is a crying shame. At 0.5 percent the existing legislation still left 99.5 percent for the Government’s big oil company mates that got to National as Sue Wood herself suggests. That is one of the issues here. National’s links have not been able to be explored during this debate because we have not had submissions from the oil companies but I can guarantee that had the oil companies made submissions those submissions would have very closely reflected the Minister’s arguments; I am sure. 
Hon Annette King 
: Have they been to your office Gerry? 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: The Minister would have met with them before the election and made promises to them. He nods his head at that because he has made big promises to big oil. That is absolutely fine—that is what he has done. But even if the Government had left the requirement at 0.5 percent it would not be wiping out the oil industry; it would be opening opportunities for jobs and the industry and for making sure New Zealand was still playing a role in shifting our dependence away from non-renewable sources of oil which members must agree is something we have to do. 
So as always in these matters National is showing all its imagination and flair. It is getting rid of legislation yet has nothing to replace it with. This is a whole lot of hot air and bluster from the Minister in charge of the legislation. At the end when Ministers have the privilege of representing New Zealand abroad they will have a very sad and sorry story to tell.