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:815] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I draw the attention of the Committee to two amendments both in the name of the Hon David Parker. The first of them is straightforwardly the new Government’s policy. It is the Government’s stated policy which is that there needs to be an equivalence between ethanol and bio-diesel in financial terms. That is the amendment that says “(5) A credit shall be allowed against the levies otherwise payable pursuant under this section”—section 24 of the principal Act—“equivalent to 42.524 cents per litre of biodiesel sold by the levy payer.” Clearly we would support such an amendment. It is not our preferred option. Our preferred option is that the entire Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill not proceed but if it is to proceed I say let us amend it to see whether we can save the people who are already involved in bio-diesel production by implementing stated Government policy. 
Does that mean that when the amendments are put the Government will vote against its own policy? I ask whether that will be the case or whether the Government may take a bit of advice to satisfy itself that the Hon David Parker’s wording is correct and decide on the floor of the Chamber that when its own policy is promoted by Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition it will support it. Those seem to me to be the two options: either a Government goes with its own policy when the Opposition has written it for the Government or it votes against its own policy because the Opposition has written it. Those seem to me to be the two propositions for the Government to decide between. 
The second amendment also in the name of the Hon David Parker is very straightforward. It simply requires the Minister of Energy and Resources by June of next year to table in Parliament a report on the financial and unemployment effects resulting from the enactment of the Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill. We remind ourselves that this Government came to office saying that it wanted to do some regulation-busting. It wanted to make sure that the steps taken by this new better-than-before Government would be ones that helped economic growth and put economic growth “front and centre”. That is what the Government said in the Speech from the Throne. 
But unfortunately because a decision was taken to pass this legislation in urgency there was no regulatory impact statement. There was none. 
Hon David Parker 
: And ACT voted for it. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: ACT’s leader “Mr Regulation-buster” voted for this legislation to proceed when the regulatory effects are known to be deleterious. They are known to be deleterious yet ACT will vote for it. It is one of only two parties that are doing that mind you. 
Hon David Parker 
: And it controls the votes. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Indeed it does control the votes. ACT is the swing party on this particular legislation. The National Party is going for it. National stated its policy and it stated it before the election. It won the election; it has the mandate. So that is what we would expect from National but not from the ACT Party. The ACT Party is going to vote for legislation that it knows will be deleterious in an economic sense. It knows that. The regulatory impact statement if it had been produced would have shown that. That is why we have regulatory impact statements. 
The amendment in the name of the Hon David Parker suggests that because there was not time to do a regulatory impact statement—the legislation having to go through in urgency—then we had better make time to do one afterwards. That is not unreasonable. 
But I ask members to wait; there is more. The Minister asserts that his decision to repeal this legislation—and I think it is sophistry—will not be damaging. He says the use of bio-diesel and biofuels in general will double over the next few years and there will not be a loss of jobs. He keeps on asserting that. He keeps on asserting that by way of interjection and he says that in his speeches. Let us just test that. If the Minister is so pleased with his assertions that he will not be doing any damage then he will not mind reporting to Parliament to prove that will he? So let us have the Minister support this amendment so that he can come to Parliament—[ 
Interruption 
] The Minister is shaking his head. We have had another bit of body language. The Minister was shaking his head. He is asserting that there will be no damage. When invited to report to Parliament to prove there has been no damage he declines to do so. I wonder whether the Minister is as sure of his facts as he asserts or whether he is telling little white thingies.