Energy (Fuels, Levies, and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill

I have proposed an amendment to this part of the bill to give the tax break or the subsidy that National has said it wants to give to the bio-diesel industry in order to give it competitive neutrality with ethanol so as to bring forward bio-diesel, but that National has not included in the bill. National finds it easy to draft a clause that completely ruins the biofuels industry in New Zealand, a fledgling industry, at the cost of scores of jobs. We know of one factory alone that will, as a consequence of this legislation, lose current jobs and jobs that are about to be created. It will lose at least 46 full-time jobs, plus, no doubt, some part-timers and millions of dollars of capital investment. That is, I emphasise, but one biofuel producer, and maybe, just maybe, a tax break on bio-diesel would be enough to save that company. I somehow doubt whether it will be enough to do that, because the fundamental problem is that the oil companies do not want the bother of selling biofuels. They have their existing product streams that they buy. They import product from offshore, and they do not want the hassle of having to blend in 0.5 percent of biofuels in the first year. It is easier for them not to do that, so without compulsion they probably will not do it.

But there is a chance that the oil companies might do so if the subsidy for bio-diesel—which National campaigned on and said was its policy—was put into place now. That might save those jobs. That might save the family fortune of Mr McNicholl. It might not do so, but it might, and National would at least be honouring its pre-election commitment that it would give a tax break equivalent to the tax break that ethanol gets. Ethanol gets a tax break of 42.524c per litre. That is the excise duty on petrol. Road-user charges are paid for diesel, and it is not as easy to give a break on that, but we can give the equivalent of the excise duty as a tax break to bio-diesel sellers—and National has been proposing that.

That is what my amendment does in its proposed new clause 16. It takes only three lines to meet that promise. It states that the sellers of fuel will get a credit against the levies they have to pay under the Energy (Fuels, Levies, and References) Act “equivalent to 42.524 cents per litre of biodiesel sold by the levy payer.” It is very simple; why has National not done it? I am proposing an amendment that might protect the jobs I spoke about. It is less ideal than the mandatory sales obligation, which is simpler, gives some certainty to the producer, and has a better environmental outcome as a consequence of that, but as a second-line alternative, that amendment is pretty good.

I ask the Minister in the chair, the Hon Gerry Brownlee, whether the National-led Government will vote in favour of that amendment. It does only what he said the Government would do, which is to give an effective tax incentive to bio-diesel, equivalent to 42.524c per litre of bio-diesel that is sold. It does that by way of having a credit against the levies that would otherwise be paid by the sellers of ordinary fuel. It is very simple to understand. It might protect the jobs that I spoke about or it might not, but it is more likely to do so than the current regime that is being pushed through under urgency by this National-led Government without any select committee process. I urge the Minister to consider that.

The alternative is that the National Government will do to the biofuels market what it has already done to forestry. It has cost that industry over $300 million, and probably $400 million, of inward direct investment. It has killed scores of jobs in the forestry industry through the suspension of the emissions trading scheme and the uncertainty around it. This Government has killed jobs in the service sector. We had some of the largest companies in the world that trade in carbon rights coming to New Zealand to set up business. They were to open their New Zealand offices in the week that the National Government said it would suspend the emissions trading scheme. Those businesses cancelled that, with the cost of jobs. The “Great White Trader”, John Key—we are told that he was a trader to the world and has wonderful commercial skills—has killed the carbon market.

First of all, I will just mention how disappointed I am in the member Jacqui Dean, who sought to shut down this debate so quickly. This Energy (Fuels, Levies, and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill has not been to a select committee. This is the only chance we are getting even to try to question the Government on why it is doing this, and on parts of this bill. The Minister in the chair, the Hon Gerry Brownlee, seems particularly reticent to stand up and answer any of our questions. He has answered only the questions he has wanted to answer, and then he has answered some questions we did not even ask. Well, that is not particularly useful, and I point out to the Minister, once again, that he is ramming this bill through under urgency.

This bill should have gone to a select committee, so that Mr McNicholl and other people who are adversely affected by the repeal of the mandatory biofuel obligation could have had the chance to have told us why. National members, who believe that Mr McNicholl is lying and is just saying what he is saying for some competitive advantage, would have had the opportunity to put those questions to him, I say to Mr Brownlee, and to challenge him at a select committee, rather than to stand up in this Chamber, where Mr McNicholl has no right of reply and no ability to defend himself, and just call him a liar and a scaremonger. I do not think that that is good for the Parliament of New Zealand. I do not think that that is good enough for this Parliament. I think that if that is the way this National Government is to continue, with 100 percent of bills so far being rammed through under urgency in this House with no select committee process, then it will be a very long 3 years for the people of New Zealand.

Jacqui Dean is probably worried about compulsion. She is the member who wanted to ban water, so I find that concern slightly difficult to take, from her. But I will support the amendment of the member David Parker. The relative tax treatment of different fuel types was something that the select committee did consider quite carefully. As the Minister will know, in the explanatory note that accompanied the Biofuel Bill that came back from the Local Government and Environment Committee, we recommended that a total review be made by 2010 in order to consider all fuel types. The review was to consider not just vehicles using biofuel and engine fuel but also electric vehicles—which, we were told during the select committee process, had to drive around with a sticker on them stating “diesel”, I think, because that was the category they fitted into most easily as current rules did not allow for them—and to consider LPG as well. Perhaps it is time to review the way in which we tax vehicles, and to apply an environmental eye to that, and not just to apply road-user charges and excise duty.

When Gull Petroleum first wanted to blend ethanol into its fuel it wanted to know what the relative tax treatment of ethanol would be. Currently ethanol is brought into New Zealand for two reasons: as drinking alcohol or for use as a chemical. Ethanol as a chemical attracts no excise; ethanol as a drink, obviously, attracts alcohol excise duty. A decision was made at that time to allow the excise treatment of ethanol as a fuel to be treated as ethanol as a chemical, which meant that it would attract no excise. The company was given a commitment that until 2012 that would be the case, and that the decision would not be reviewed. We took that very seriously at the select committee. Gull Petroleum had made all this investment in its infrastructure and in bringing in blends, and it had gone into a contract with Fonterra until 2012 to take ethanol from whey to blend into its fuels, so we did not want to say to Gull Petroleum that we would take that away at that time, through a select committee process that had been looking primarily at a mandatory biofuels obligation and not at the relative tax treatment.

But the point was that we were putting in place a mandatory biofuels obligation that addressed a number of those issues; with that being taken away, suddenly this becomes a far more pressing issue. That is why I urge the Minister in the chair, Gerry Brownlee, to support this amendment. It does what he has already said in this Chamber that he wants to do, so I do not see any issue with that. But it provides some kind of incentive, which he will be taking away with the repeal of this part of the existing legislation.

Certainly, a number of the bio-diesel producers who came before the select committee were concerned about the relative tax treatment. We know that the way in which we treat the excise on ethanol is an issue of great concern. We have seen the impact that the subsidies on ethanol in the United States have had on the world biofuel market. It has made it extraordinarily difficult, and the “splash and dash” ethanol that we have seen produced out of the United States has distorted that market. It has made it a lot harder for our producers here to be able to compete.

We believe that this is an issue that needs wider treatment than just being about ethanol and bio-diesel versus engine fuel; it needs to go beyond that. I would like the Minister in the chair to take a call on this part, because it seems to me that we are entering a real no man’s land here, and we are in real danger of ending up with absolutely nothing.

I rise to speak to Part 2 of the Energy (Fuels, Levies, and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill, and to support the amendments in the name of my colleague the Hon David Parker to insert a new clause 5A and a new clause 16.

I ask the Minister in the chair, the Hon Gerry Brownlee, why this Government is determined not to listen to the very many strong voices on this issue, and to push through this legislation under urgency. Only the National and ACT parties are supporting the bill in this House—it might be called the “Bio-fools Bill”.

The bill is contrary, in fact, to past actions by a National Government. I acknowledge the courage that a previous National Government showed on alternative fuels in the 1980s. I think all of us can remember the installation of compressed natural gas (CNG) and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) facilities around the country. LPG is still there; CNG, sadly, has gone. But that was the courage that a National Government showed, in spite of some opposition from the oil industry.

I also acknowledge the comments from the Hon Peter Dunne in expressing his disappointment that National is revisiting this legislation. When the Biofuel Bill came into Parliament earlier this year he expressed some concerns about the issue of sustainability—which the Government is promoting as it introduces this legislation—but he noted that, as that bill progressed, amendments were made to it that gave him satisfaction in terms of the final shape of it. He is now saying that this legislation will bury a tallow-based biofuel industry here in New Zealand.

I also note that a couple of years ago the National list member Nicky Wagner issued a press statement saying that the biggest potential sources of bio-diesel in New Zealand were tallow and animal fat by-product. Yet it is already on the public record that the $10 million invested by Tom McNicholl, whose firm, Biodiesel Oils, is the biggest producer of tallow-based bio-diesel, is going down the drain as a consequence of this legislation. I ask where Maurice Williamson and Pansy Wong are. They represent seats adjoining Biodiesel Oils’ East Tāmaki plant. I ask whether they are speaking out on this issue in support of their constituents whose jobs will be lost. Indeed, I ask where the member for Waikato is, because Biodiesel Oils’ Waharoa plant is being mothballed as a consequence of this legislation. That tallow-based bio-diesel industry will be going down the gurgler.

I also note that the Government has made considerable reference to the issue of biofuels perhaps pushing up the price. In fact, that is not the view of a former icon of the National Party, one Barry Leay, the secretary-general of the National Party for many years. He is a director of the Aquaflow Bionomic Corporation, which is making fuel from algae growing in sewage works in Marlborough. In response to comments made by the Hon Nick Smith, who said that biofuels would push up the price by perhaps 5c to 7c a litre, Mr Leay said that people who were saying that were “making comments without a clue about what’s [actually] happening in the biofuel industry.”, and that that sort of speculation was really just scare tactics by the National Party. That is an interesting commentary from somebody so closely associated with the National Party.

Of course, Sue Wood, a representative of Biodiesel Oils, has made commentary on behalf of her client Mr McNicholl as to the devastation this bill will mean to him. His $10 million investment in biofuels will be rendered absolutely useless, if I may use that expression, by this legislation.

I also note commentary on the Labour Government’s biofuels legislation when it was brought in earlier this year. It was referred to as being a significant step forward in the task of reducing New Zealand’s reliance on imported fuels, and as comprehensive and forward-thinking legislation. That commentary came from another producer of biofuels, a company based in Canterbury that was not in support of the mandatory minimum biofuel requirement but, in fact, wanted no limit on blends. However, it made very, very clear that it thought the biofuels legislation was comprehensive, forward-thinking legislation that therefore needed to be retained. I ask members opposite from Canterbury what they are doing to support that industry, which I am sure will also be affected by this legislation.

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.

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.

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.

I want to take up the issue about what the effects will be on the biofuel industry and the broader effects of this legislation. Tallow is a low-value by-product of the livestock processing industry. Someone once quipped to me that New Zealand has the highest tallow-to-population ratio in the world. That is true, because for a small country we raise a lot of livestock. We are rich in tallow resource—the cheapest, most environmentally sustainable source of biofuels in the world.

💬 Chris Tremain: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The member has risen to his feet to speak on Part 2, which is a reasonably tight part, but he said quite clearly that he wants to speak to the broader effects of the legislation. I think he needs to be brought back into line in that regard.

Speaking to the point of order, Mr Chairperson, I say that the effect of this part is to revoke the mandatory percentages that are set out in the schedule of the Act. What I am talking about is completely within the realms of this part of the Act. If the member does not understand that, he should read the bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Yes.

The effect of this legislation is to take out the mandatory obligation for biofuels, so there will no demand for tallow to be turned into bio-diesel. That surprises me. Tallow is a low-value by-product of the livestock processing industry in New Zealand, and the National Government is stopping value being added to that by-product for the benefit of New Zealand farmers and the New Zealand economy—value that would have been added in New Zealand. It would also substitute for expensive oil that we import. Every year in New Zealand we spend billions of dollars on imported oil, and some of that expenditure would be avoided, because biofuels would be turned into bio-diesel that would be used instead.

I have submitted two amendments to this part. The first is to give the tax break to bio-diesel producers, and I have already talked about that. I have just tabled, for your information, Mr Chairperson, and for that of your Clerk at the Table, another version of the first amendment. This version takes out the word “pursuant”, because there was a redundancy in the use of that word. It stated “pursuant under”. Both of those words are not needed, so I have taken out the word “pursuant”, leaving just the word “under”. Under this amendment bio-diesel producers would get a tax break of 42.524c per litre, which is the excise duty relief we have already given to ethanol, and that meets the policy objective of the National Government. National stands for that but did not include it in its own bill.

In respect of the second amendment, we have not had a regulatory impact statement, and I think it is absolutely scurrilous that the votes of the ACT Party will pass this legislation. This is the party that says it stands for regulatory impact assessments of all bills that pass through this House. There is no regulatory impact assessment for this legislation. We have seen the letter from Sue Wood, former president of the National Party, on behalf of Tom McNicholl, and he provided his own information to the Government on 2 December. I will also table that particular bit of information in a moment. It is known to the Government that this legislation will cause job losses and multimillion-dollar financial losses to the biofuel industry, yet there is no regulatory impact statement.

My other amendment requires the Minister to table in this House by the middle of next year a statement, or an assessment, of what the effects of this legislation are. It is not as good as having a regulatory impact statement available to the House before we determine whether legislation is passed, but it is better than nothing. So I suggest that the Committee, and particularly ACT, should vote for that. If ACT votes for that amendment it will go through, because except for National the other parties in this Chamber support it. If the ACT Party does not vote for the amendment, then it will not proceed, despite the fact that it does exactly the thing the ACT Party says is most important to it, which is that we should be looking at the effect on business of changes to the law not just on business but also on unemployment.

The ditching of this mandatory sales obligation will cause financial losses and injustice. I do not like this new Government causing injustice to anyone, and there is clearly a multimillion-dollar injustice being caused to at least one biofuel producer, and no doubt to many others, as well. The banks of these producers may well walk in tomorrow—we do not know what level of indebtedness the producers have. I am not suggesting that the banks will walk in, but they could do so if the producers are in debt in respect of these facilities. If it is not one biofuel producer in New Zealand that has levels of indebtedness it will not be able to service because of people not buying its product, it will be another one. There will be insolvencies, jobs lost, and injustices caused to people who lose their family fortune. On top of all of that, we will have an environment that is going backwards because of this legislation.

I am happy to take another call on this part in support of the amendments proposed by my colleague the Hon David Parker. I urge the Minister to take a call and tell us his thoughts on these amendments. We are trying very hard to work with the Government to come up with a compromise. We appreciate that this is a policy that the National Party campaigned on during the election campaign and that that is why this bill is now before the House. We are trying to be constructive and bring forward amendments that minimise the damage this bill will reap not only on the biofuel sector but also on jobs. I urge the Minister to take a call.

I reiterate that schedule 5 is important. The select committee did a lot of work on that year-by-year mandatory obligation. If I remember correctly, the original bill had a top point of 3.4 percent of total fuel sales by energy. Again, I reiterate that that is hardly an incredibly high, difficult-to-reach mandatory target. A target of 3.4 percent is not exactly going to break the back of those who work in this area. The legislation was about getting a domestic industry in place and supporting the development of that industry whilst at the same time doing important work to bring down greenhouse gas emissions in our transport sector, which is one of our largest areas of greenhouse gas emissions after agriculture.

The amendments the Hon David Parker has proposed will help an industry that has been starting up, while being assisted by the mandatory biofuels obligation introduced by the previous Government. It gave the industry certainty, and allowed it to know what the obligations were going to be and what kinds of sustainability standards were eventually to be put in place. It also allowed the industry to make long-term investment decisions.

I reiterate once again how important this Committee stage of the whole House is. This bill has been rammed through with no select committee process and no opportunity for those who will be disadvantaged by this legislation to come and put their case. There is no opportunity for the National Government members who disagree with them to challenge them in public to their face rather than in this Committee, where they have no right of reply and no right to correct some of the misinformation that has been spread about their position.

When the select committee members originally looked at schedule 5 and at how the mandatory biofuel obligation was going to be implemented, they saw there was a steep incline in that graph after the first few years. That was because we were expecting a large ethanol plant to come online. We had been told how much ethanol it was going to be able to produce to feed into the local domestic market, and we made those obligation points accordingly along that line. During the course of the select committee process—and again this shows just how important these select committee processes are in responding to the reality of what is out there, which might be quite different from the reality of the time at which the bill was drafted—it became clear that perhaps that information in schedule 5 did not take into account the reality, which was that this large ethanol plant we had been expecting to come online was not now going to happen.

If that points to anything, it points to the need for certainty in that sector. One of the reasons given for the plant not coming online was that the company had not been given certainty early enough that it was actually going to be able to produce this product. As well, as I pointed out before, the subsidy in the United States market had led to a lot of uncertainty here at home with the “splash and dash” ethanol that was being produced out of the United States. It really did distort the market and make it more difficult for ethanol producers here at home.

The select committee listened throughout that process and we changed the schedule. We reduced the top target from 3.4 percent to 2.5 percent. We asked officials to go away and do some work on what biofuel was already available in New Zealand and what was due to come online. They came back and told us that a 2.5 percent mandatory obligation required, I think, 5.5 petajoules of biofuel—the original 3.4 percent would have required 8 petajoules—and that already in New Zealand we had the capacity for 4 petajoules of tallow bio-diesel, I think 2 petajoules of rape seed and other bio-diesel, and I think 0.3 petajoules of ethanol. I do not know whether I have those figures exactly right, but they are from memory at a select committee.

During this process we were told at the select committee that people were making those investments because this bill was before the House and because they knew the mandatory obligation was coming on. We were told by one of the oil companies—which already had infrastructure for dealing with ethanol because the company sold it—that it was looking at bringing in the obligation earlier, because that was a market advantage and as the company was going to have to do it anyway, why not get the jump on the rest of them.

I move, That the question be now put.

I stand to do two things; one is to support my colleague David Parker and his two amendments to Part 2 of the Energy (Fuels, Levies, and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill. I note that we are yet to get a response from the Minister in charge of the bill, the Hon Gerry Brownlee. We have not had the Minister on his feet in this part. It is really just a matter of politeness and tradition in Parliament that relatively early in each part—we are not saying that the Minister has to reply to every speech or to all points that are made—especially when there are amendments, the Minister indicates whether the Government is going to support them and the reasons. It is not onerous; they are relatively simple matters and he has had advice from his advisers in case he was not sure of their effect.

These are relatively simple amendments. One of them requires the Minister to report on the financial and unemployment effects of this bill on New Zealand’s tallow to biofuel industry. It is just a matter of coming back to the House before the end of June to report on how many jobs have been lost as a result, and what the financial effects are on individuals. It might be called the honesty clause, I think. If, in fact, the National Party does what it says it is going to do, and does what it is going to be asked to do by way of the next amendment, the Minister will be able to report positive effects—that jobs have grown within New Zealand and people have made money. That would be a good thing.

The other amendment, I think, goes more directly to Government policy. I know generally Government is responsible for its own policy and implementing it, but every now and again it needs a hand in turning it around. We from the Opposition are here to help as far as the Government is concerned. This amendment, inserting new section 24(5) to the principal Act, makes it clear that: “A credit shall be allowed against the levies otherwise payable pursuant under this section equivalent to 42.524 cents per litre of biodiesel sold by the levy payer.” This extends to bio-diesel the exemption from excise duty that is currently enjoyed by bio-ethanol. It is a levelling of the playing field. The Government says it is its policy, and I think it is a matter of getting that implemented.

The other question I want to ask, and I will take a point of order at the end of my speech to table a letter, is whether the Minister read the letter of 2 December from BioDiesel Oils (NZ) Ltd addressed to Joe Connell within the Energy and Communications Branch—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: No.

No he didn’t.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: It was never given to me.

That is an outrage. It is an absolute outrage that the letter from the person who has spent $10 million on biofuel was not given to the Minister. I do not want to criticise officials, but I think the nicest thing I could say is that it is waiting in the pending tray within the Minister’s office. But he has not seen it. We have a letter here to a person who was a policy analyst in the fuels and Crown resources part of the branch outlining the job losses that will occur, including 22 staff in Waharoa, and 24 staff in East Tāmaki. The letter is from Tom McNicholl—I will make it clear that I do not have a signed copy of the letter, but I am informed by a past-president of the National Party Sue Wood that this is a letter—

💬 Hon Steve Chadwick: Sue Wood had it?

Sue Wood is the person who supplied this letter. She says it is a copy of a letter to the Ministry of Economic Development outlining the case for this plant, and the Minister tells us that he has not read it. That is almost unbelievable. It is an outrage that we have in this Committee a Minister who is too damn lazy to read the mail to his ministry on this. I am very rarely almost speechless in this Chamber, and I am getting very close to saying that it beggars belief that a Minister could be so lazy, so indolent, that he does not read the file on this bill. It is a very short file. It is a file that—because the consultation was so restricted—is tiny. The idea that this Minister can come into this Committee with legislation that wrecks a family and wrecks an industry and tell us he has not even read their letter—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I haven’t received the letter.

If the Minister has not looked in his pending file could I make a suggestion. I suggest to the Minister that we take leave to move on to the next bill and come back again to this to give him time to read the letter so that he understands the implications. Is the Minister prepared to do that? No, he is not. He is not prepared to do that. I am not saying we should delay the passing of this bill; I am just saying we should deal with it later on today, or tomorrow, to give the Minister time to be fully informed. I could give him a copy of the letter, which I know is sitting in his pending tray, but he has not got off his big chuff, wandered over to the tray to pick up the files that are sitting there, and read them. If Helen Clark was Prime Minister, he would be in her office by now explaining, because that is a sign of absolute incompetence. The very first thing that Ministers do before they take a Cabinet committee paper on a bill to Cabinet, especially when it does not have a regulatory impact report, is ask—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: What’s the date on the letter?

2 December.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Why didn’t they send it to me?

The person who asked for it was one of that Minister’s officials. That is the way things are done. Officials send out for the information, it comes back, and the Minister reads it. This Minister should read it.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: We were never given it.

The Minister did not go to his file and read the letter. If he had asked, like any decent Minister would ask, for the file on this bill, he would have read it. I do not know that particular official but I know that group of officials. They worked for me on, I think, three separate occasions: twice when I was Acting Minister for a period and once when I was Minister of Energy.

💬 Hon Pete Hodgson: Good officials.

They are competent officials. That is a well-run section of the ministry. I wager they would have a file that indicates—

💬 Chris Tremain: That is nothing to do with Part 2 of the bill.

The letter relates absolutely to Part 2. This letter refers to the factory in Waharoa; Part 2 wrecks that factory.

The Minister of Energy and Resources has told us he has not had the energy to get off his backside and read the letter. If there is one letter that he should have read, it is this letter. In the Cabinet committee discussing this bill, John Key would have asked: “What do the people affected by this say?”. That is a standard question asked by Prime Ministers and chairs of policy committees. They asked that in my presence during the previous Labour Government—when Helen Clark was Prime Minister. They always asked those questions—and Gerry Brownlee would have had to answer.

I seek leave to table the letter of 2 December from Tom McNicholl to the Ministry of Economic Development.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. The letter can be tabled.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

I move, That the question be now put.

I rise to speak on Part 2 and to support the Hon David Parker’s amendments, because although Opposition members would much rather we were not even debating this silly, short-sighted bill, we are here trying to improve it. In particular, we are trying to help National keep one of its promises. That is quite a remarkable thing for Opposition members to do but we are here to help. We have all heard a lot about promises in the last couple of weeks. That is the main reason, apparently, that we are in urgency ramming through bill after bill, because National claims it needs to keep its promises. In reality, of course, we know that National members are doing this because they do not want to hear from the public of New Zealand about some of the legislation that National is putting through.

In particular, they do not seem to want to hear about the impact of this bill on people such as Tom McNicholl, who are making a concerted effort to build a new industry in this country. We would be able to help them do that, if we kept in place the legislation that the previous Labour Government led through the House before the election. But, no, the National Government wants to take that legislation away. The Hon David Parker has put forward an amendment that will allow bio-diesel to be extended the same tax relief as bio-ethanol.

Yesterday, the Minister of Energy and Resources, Mr Brownlee, told the Committee that we would be hearing about tax relief, about incentives to allow the industry to continue. We have seen nothing of that today. The industry will be in a vacuum when this legislation passes—a vacuum of Mr Brownlee’s making. But Labour can fill that vacuum by offering the opportunity to put in place a system whereby bio-diesel will have the same exemptions that bio-ethanol does. This is an opportunity for the Minister in the chair, Mr Brownlee, to take a call and let us know whether he is prepared to do something to honour National’s election promises. We say: honour the promise to keep this industry going.

Mr Parker’s amendment to Part 2 gives the Minister that chance. It gives him a chance to help save the 46 families who will be affected, if and when Mr McNicholl’s business is closed. That is the reality and that is what we have heard. If the Minister had received the correspondence from his ministry, he would know that that is what Tom McNicholl is saying and that is what Sue Wood is saying. They are saying that the legislation the Minister is bringing to the House will affect those 46 families in East Tamaki and Waharoa. One would have thought National would be concerned about those areas. Mr Chairperson, you might be concerned about them as well. We need to know whether the Minister is prepared to support this very good amendment from David Parker, which will actually help secure that industry.

Members on this side of the Chamber know that the mandatory obligations that Labour put in place are a far better way of ensuring that this industry continues to grow, but there is now an opportunity for the Government to stand up, and for the Minister in the chair to take a call and say that he will accept the amendment. There is also an opportunity for ACT Party members: we know that they believe in regulatory impact statements; they believe in making sure that things go through with proper scrutiny. They could vote for this amendment, too. They could vote down the whole bill and send it away to a select committee so that we have a proper process—and, goodness, a regulatory impact statement! Would that not be novel, to have a regulatory impact statement on a bill that is fundamentally changing an industry in this country—indeed, a growing industry—and fundamentally compromising the lives of 46 families that were going to be employed, and also other families in the future.

💬 Moana Mackey: One would think it would go to a select committee.

One would think it would go to a select committee; but, no, this Government wants to ram this bill through under urgency. The Government, it seems, does not even want to take the opportunity to honour one of its own election promises. This opportunity was there for the Government to do that. Mr Brownlee has not taken a call on Part 2, and I urge him to take a call and let us know what he thinks about this amendment. This amendment would actually save his hide in the long run. He may not think that, right now, but that is what this amendment does. But, much more important, this amendment ensures that the industry has some kind of future. At the moment we have a vacuum in place, because the Government has no plan to ensure that the bio-diesel industry can continue. It is an outrage to push this bill through the Parliament in a way whereby nobody who is affected out there in the community is getting an opportunity to comment on it. Part 2 is about putting in place everything that is required to repeal the very things that are needed to keep that industry going. It is an outrage.

I move, That the question be now put.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Yes, it is.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I did stop the clock when you were bringing forward the point of order.

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—

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.

That is very generous, Mr Chairperson. The fact that the Minster has—

💬 Nathan Guy: Make it good!

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.

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.

I will clear this matter up by going through a bit of an order of what happened. Firstly, on 2 December, BioDiesel Oils wrote to the Ministry of Economic Development, to a Mr Joe Connell.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Don’t mention the name.

I mentioned his name because the member did. Mr Connell was engaged—

💬 Hon Members: He did not!

He did, actually.

💬 Hon Pete Hodgson: I did not mention his name.

Members should not be silly; the Hansard record will show that.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I think I did mention it the first time; it was a mistake.

Thank you. Subsequent to that, on 4 December, BioDiesel Oils wrote to me. That letter was written by a Mr Tom McNicholl, and I am now informed that he attached to that letter the letter that had been sent some days before to the Ministry of Economic Development.

On 11 December, following our announcement, I received a further letter from Tom McNicholl, via Sue Wood. That letter will be responded to, of course, in due course, but in the interim I asked my office to make contact with Mrs Wood in order that we might have a meeting with Mr McNicholl. That meeting and that offer were rejected.

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.

I move, That the question be now put.

I want to follow up on the Hon Trevor Mallard’s comments here. We have heard various versions from Mr Brownlee, all of which—all of which—conclude that he did not read the letter—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: The letter he got twice.

It was probably three times, because it was then attached to a letter from Sue Wood.

Further, in Mr Brownlee’s last contribution, when he finally got to his feet and took a call on this legislation—which kills a whole industry—he said that he had offered to meet with Sue Wood and Tom McNicholl but that they had declined. That is on the record. I find that very, very hard to believe. I have had numerous conversations with Sue Wood. She tells me that she has been brushed off by the Minister’s office, that she has been trying to get through to the Minister—[Interruption]—No, I do not mislead the Chamber, I say to Mr Brownlee.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Yes, you do.

I do not. She has told me that within the last week she has again been on to his office and that she has been brushed off by his office. So the idea that the Minister has offered to meet with Mr McNicholl and with Sue Wood, the former president of the National Party, is something that I invite Mr McNicholl and Sue Wood to call him on, because if that is wrong, then the member has egregiously misrepresented the position to this Chamber and he ought to be judged for it.

The letter that he has not read needs to be read out to him now. There are very important passages in this letter. My call will not allow me to read all of them, so I hope other members will make some of the other points, but I will read a paragraph from about the third page of this letter, which is very detailed: “The undersigned”—Mr McNicholl—“who owns BDO has during the last 8 years invested over $10 million in research and development and plant and equipment including the purchase of sites.” He further writes: “Repealing the mandate will also halt all on-going work and efforts in new technological innovation and development. The future value of this advancement will be completely wiped off for the investors”—that is $10 million of investment—“and shareholders as well as place New Zealand in a disadvantaged position worldwide in terms of engineering and process technology export to the rest of the world.” So there are export consequences as well as the loss of investment.

The letter elsewhere says that the East Tāmaki plant, which has already been built, is having “technological advancements currently being undertaken in our 10,000,000 litres plan at East Tamaki. The production volume will be drastically reduced (already it is at a very negligible level due to the minimal off-take by the oil companies) … The company will have no second thoughts to mothball its operation at East Tamaki and stop construction of building and site works on its new 60,000,000 litres plant at Waharoa to avoid any further loss.” It goes on to say: “We plan to employ 22 staff on three shifts at the Waharoa plant and 24 staff on three shifts at East Tamaki; a total of 46 full-time jobs when both plants are in full production to meet the mandate.” That would have been at the start of next year, but that investment is being lost—those jobs are being lost. This is just one of many biofuel producers.

The Minister got this letter but did not read it, and we have no regulatory impact statement, and we have no reference to a select committee. I invite ACT members—even at this late stage, having now been provided with that letter by Labour members because they did not get it from National members—to read that letter, to consider the effects of this on business, and to consider whether they ought to be voting to slow down this egregious legislation rather than voting for the injustice they are about to cause Mr McNicholl, a 75-year-old man. He is no highfalutin businessman; he is a very down-to-earth man. This is his life savings, I expect. I do not know details of his financial position but I expect that his life savings are tied up in this investment and he is about to lose them as a consequence.

This has all been spelt out to the Minister, and it has all been spelt out to the Ministry of Economic Development. The ministry, quite responsibly, has made contact with this business. It is clear from Mr McNicholl’s letter of 2 December that it was written in response to a query from the ministry. The ministry was acting on behalf of the Minister. This letter no doubt went to the Minister’s office, but he has not read it.

I move, That the question be now put.