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

I am promoting an amendment, which is about to be tabled, to this part of the Energy (Fuels, Levies, and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill, because I thought a very good suggestion was made by Mr Burns earlier in this debate that this legislation should be renamed the “Bio-fools Bill”. It is absolutely nonsensical legislation, and it should be called what it is: it is foolish legislation.

This legislation causes egregious injustices, but the thing that concerns me most of all is that the Minister in the chair, the Hon Gerry Brownlee, has not read the most pertinent piece of correspondence that has come to his office concerning the effects of this legislation. Recalling that there is no regulatory impact statement and no select committee process, it is important that he reads or learns of information about the adverse effects of this legislation on people, on jobs, on investment, and on employers. So I will start reading this letter, and I think it is so important that this be on the record that I expect other members of this Committee might want to read the parts of the letter that I do not get to in my contribution.

This is a letter dated 2 December 2008 from BioDiesel Oils (NZ) Ltd. It is addressed to the energy and communications branch of the Ministry of Economic Development, and it states: “Dear”—whoever—“We have received your email of 2 December, 2008 in regards to the ‘state of play’ of the New Zealand biofuel industry in the context of a National party pre-election indication of its intention to repeal the biofuel obligation.

We have considered the implications this will have on our existing operations thoroughly and append our response below.

1. Biodiesel Oils NZ Ltd (BDO) was until 1998 a major solvent recycling and collector of used cooking oil. It was exporting UCO which was also referred to as tallow.

In 1999 the company commenced research and development in the manufacture of biodiesel with UCO and later progressed to using animal fats in particular, tallow.

The company continued investing heavily in improving its production and chemical technology for converting tallow as a result of the government’s indication to promote greater use of renewable energy across the economy as part of the National Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy (NEECS).

Around August 2005 when the company became aware that the government had in principle agreed to a Biofuel Sales Obligation it took further steps to invest in ramping up production output of its R&D plant in East Tamaki to 10,000,000 litres a year.

When it became evident that the government was going to legislate the compulsory use of biofuel the company went ahead with its plans to construct a new 60,000,000 litres plant at Waharoa which is well underway.

The company only uses locally sourced tallow that is now being exported for other purposes as its feedstock. This raw material complies with sustainable standards. With the combined capacities of both plants (East Tamaki and Waharoa) BDO is well positioned to satisfy the biofuels obligation for at least the next two years.

BDO was very conscious and still is that the biofuel obligation introduced on 1st October, 2008 is the single most important driver to sustain biodiesel production, demand and consumer use. Without this the business case for BDO would have been extremely weak right from the start and investments decisions in R&D and production facilities would not have won approval from the shareholders and Board of Directors.

It is therefore pertinent for the government to realise that our investments in biodiesel was primarily in response to legislating the biofuel obligation.

2. Any change to the biofuel obligation will result in an immediate order to ‘stop work’ on all 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) or ceased since BDO supplies its biodiesel only to Shell and BP. 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.

I will continue to read the letter: “Stop work will also be issued to the various supply partners to whom BDO has outsourced the fabrication of tanks, vessels, and process equipment for the new plant. This will invite cancellation fees from our supply partners and their material suppliers which could be detrimental to the bottom line in this troubled time. The company will also have to lay off two full time stainless steel tradesmen employed at the East Tamaki site.

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.

3. It must be noted that oil companies (BP and Shell NZ) are vital partners in the upstream supply chain of biofuels as they possess the expertise and facilities for blending and control the infrastructure for distribution and retail to the market.

It is however our contention that the oil companies are against retailing both biodiesel and ethanol as this will have direct implications on their sales volume of mineral diesel and gasoline and monopoly.

Some two and a half years ago we wrote to the oil companies pointing out that preparations be made for blending biodiesel with mineral diesel at their terminals. This suggestion was ignored to the extent that the oil companies have now requested us to undertake the blending at our site. This has imposed an additional $20,000 on us to install a storage tank for mineral diesel at our East Tamaki site. We complied with this request as we realised that we were at the oil companies’ mercy to ensure the continued sales of our biodiesel. This proves our point that the oil companies had never been serious in retailing biofuels.

The government must take notice of the consumers’ mindset in that they would not buy a new product such as blended biodiesel or ethanol unless there are cost savings compared to conventional fuels. In this regards the biofuel obligation would be a valuable aid to change the behaviour.

4. The undersigned 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 firmly believes that any change contrary to the current biofuel obligation will see the instant demise of the biodiesel and biofuel industry in New Zealand. Apart from that it will destroy every dollar that has been invested in this sector by private individuals and companies like ours who believed in the government’s policies and goals for securing a better future and economy for her people and the country.

To achieve the desired outcomes in reducing the rate of carbon emission the government has to see that sufficient volumes of biofuels are consumed. And to facilitate this demand huge capital costs and cash flow is required to build and operate biodiesel plants. It will therefore be stupid for BDO to build production facilities if it is unable to recover its investment due to the lack of volume off-take.

Exempting excise tax and road user charges from biofuels act only as subsidies to fuel consumers. They do not compel the use of biodiesel unlike the biofuel obligation.

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 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.

We would urge you to recommend the retention of the mandate as laid out in the Biofuel Act. There is no sustainability issue regarding the product we produce which meets all standards.

Yours sincerely,

Tom McNicholl

Managing Director”

I say to the Minister in the chair, Gerry Brownlee, that this is the letter that he did not read. This is the letter that he said he had not seen. This is the letter that goes to the heart of what he is seeking in this legislation to undo. I say to the Minister that this letter could not put it more clearly.

I am waiting now for the Minister in the chair, the Hon Gerry Brownlee, to get on his feet, because he has left us with the very, very distinct impression that he is absolutely incompetent. What he has done is tell the House that he does not read his correspondence. One letter would have gone via the ministry, and it would have been part of the file on the bill. Another one went directly to his office on 4 December, and it was attached to another letter. What he has told us is that he did not read it.

What has also become clear is that that Minister, having not read the letter and having not understood the effects of this legislation on a New Zealand business, did not indicate to the Prime Minister in the Cabinet committee that this plant would be mothballed. He did not indicate to the Prime Minister in the Cabinet committee that 46 people would not have jobs as a result of this legislation.

It is pretty rare for me to be caught short of something to say in the House, but on this occasion it just beggars belief that a Minister in charge of this legislation would not tell the Prime Minister that the direct result of it would be that an individual would lose a $10 million investment, and 46 people would not have jobs. There are a few other issues as well, such as the fact that New Zealand’s international reputation will be going backwards, not to mention the effect on the environment as a result of this legislation—and we have tended not to focus on that issue quite as much since the Minister made his startling admission that he does not read his correspondence.

What is becoming clear to the House is that this is not the sort of bill that should be passed under urgency. Clearly, urgency in this House has meant that the ACT Party has not been able to properly consider its position. To be fair to that party, it was probably misled by the Minister, as well. It is a very, very serious matter. I ask Mr Garrett whether that letter was shown to the ACT caucus before it agreed to support the bill. I say to the member that he does not have to take a call; he can just interrupt. Let me put it this way: we are assuming that the letter was not shown to the ACT caucus. If we are wrong, then it is incumbent on the member to tell us. Are we wrong? The member is not telling us, so we will take it that as well as the Cabinet committee not seeing the letter, the ACT caucus did not see the letter. The vital bit of business-wrecking information was not shown to the ACT caucus.

I ask the ACT Party whether this situation makes any difference about how it feels about the legislation now. ACT is the party that is making the difference here. I ask whether the ACT Party, as one of its first real choices in this Parliament, wants to go down in the history of Parliament as being the party that supported the incompetent Minister. Clearly Rodney Hide, the leader of a party that was not responsible enough to do a regulatory impact statement on this bill before it was introduced, should have been asking Gerry Brownlee questions at the Cabinet committee about the effect of this legislation, and about the lack of a regulatory impact statement—I understand that Rodney Hide is on the policy committee through which this legislation would have had to be passed.

Not only should John Key have been asking the questions—certainly the previous Prime Minister would have been asking questions in respect of this particular matter—but answers should have been offered by Gerry Brownlee anyway. But he could not offer the answers because he did not read the mail. That is a sign of absolute incompetence from a lazy Tory.

The Committee finds itself in an extraordinary position, with a Minister in the chair who has not read critical pieces of evidence regarding the repeal of legislation when that will severely damage New Zealand’s economy and the investment of hard-working small-business people whom National claims to care about—both small and medium sized businesses. A gentleman who has invested $10 million wrote to Mr Brownlee, asking him to please reconsider this legislation, as he had invested $10 million of his own money—as he says in the letter, if the Minister had bothered to read it—because of the biofuel obligation that had been brought in. He clearly outlined the case for why we need such an obligation, and why it is very important for that obligation to continue. What did the Minister do?

💬 Hon David Parker: He ignored it!

He did not even read the letter.

The first paragraph of the letter is a response to an official from the Ministry of Economic Development. It says: “We have received your email of 2 December, 2008 in regards to the ‘state of play’ of the New Zealand biofuel industry in the context of a National party pre-election indication of its intention to repeal the biofuel obligation.” I was on the Local Government and Environment Committee, which considered the Biofuel Bill, and the officials from that ministry were very good; I found those officials to be extremely knowledgable in this area. But it seems to me that, perhaps, the official had been asked by Mr Brownlee to send an email out to people. I find it hard to believe that of his or her own volition the official decided to send an email out to people in the industry—good on the official if he or she did—asking them to explain the “ ‘state of play’ of the New Zealand biofuel industry in the context of a National party pre-election indication”. To me, clearly, that direction came from somewhere.

I wonder whether the Minister will take a call and indicate whether that direction came from him. If it did not come from him, I ask why, because it seems a sensible thing to go out and ask the industry where it is at and whether the Energy (Fuels, Levies, and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill will have an impact on the industry, especially given that this bill has no regulatory impact statement attached to it. If the Minister did put that direction in and ask his officials to find out the state of play, why did he ignore the information that came back from Mr McNicholl of BioDiesel Oils (NZ)? It seems astonishing to me that an email would go out, presumably from the Minister, asking about the state of play, and then he would ignore all the information that came back in. Perhaps we could call the bill the “Biofuel (Ignorance is Bliss, Head in the Sand) Bill”.

💬 Hon Steve Chadwick: It’s arrogant.

It is arrogant, because this bill is not going to a select committee. Mr McNicholl had no opportunity to come a select committee and explain the kind of impact the repeal of the mandatory biofuel obligation will have on his company and on his workers. At a time when one would think that the Government of New Zealand would be wanting to create jobs and support innovative businesses like BioDiesel Oils (NZ) Ltd, Mr Brownlee comes down here to the Chamber—after bills last week that ripped the guts out of research and development—and has more legislation that will damage the very companies, industries, and entrepreneurs that we need at this time in order to bring us through the recession, given what is happening overseas at the moment.

I ask Mr Brownlee to take a call and indicate to the Committee whether he gave a direction for his officials to contact industry players and ask them where they were at. If he did, I would like to know why he ignored that very crucial letter, which he said he had not seen but now says he received and did not bother to read.

I tell the ACT Party members to read that letter, as clearly they have yet to see it. In all genuineness, I ask them to read the letter and see the kind of impact this bill is going to have. At the very least, the bill should have gone to a select committee. For a party that campaigned on having a regulatory impact statement attached to every single piece of legislation, I tell Mr Garrett that this is a very, very poor way to start. How much legislation has so far had what the ACT Party promised would be attached to every single bill, and what is ACT’s leader now the Minister of? It is those members’ votes that will pass this legislation. It will not go unnoticed out there in the New Zealand public that a party that campaigned on the basis of the need to know what the impact of this legislation would be, before it was passed, is supporting this bill being rammed through the House with no select committee process and no regulatory impact statement.

The Minister in charge of the bill has not even read the very information that he asked for. It was a smoke and mirrors request to make the sector feel that it was being consulted, when clearly the Minister’s intention was to ignore every single word it said.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this bill, but it is with some shame that I do so, and that shame is based on the subject matter we are discussing today.

I have listened with some considerable interest and deep concern to the debate on the floor of the Chamber, because this debate is all we have to go on. This is it. There is no select committee process and there is no regulatory impact statement. What we hear from members today is all we have. That is why I have listened with considerable interest to the discussion on this side of the Chamber, because I believe that it is the only side of the Chamber that is taking into account the interests of our communities, the interests of the players in this industry, the interests of the people who might have been employed in this industry, and the interests of the environment—and that is a big one.

We are discussing the title of this bill. I have some suggestions for the Minister, Gerry Brownlee, and I would like to throw one out there to begin with. Based on what I have heard, I propose that the title be the “National May or May Not Believe in Climate Change for Political Expediency But Will Do Nothing About It Bill”. I know that it is not too snappy, but neither is National’s policy on environmental issues.

What have we seen in the first month of this National Government? Let me give members a little refresher course. As soon as the Prime Minister made his first visit abroad, what did we have? We had the Prime Minister of the UK, Gordon Brown, throwing a tax upon us.

💬 Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I hesitate to interrupt the member, but it is impermissible for the Minister to be in the Chamber and not be sitting in the Chair. I would request that the Chairperson bring the Chamber to order

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): The member is correct. The Minister who is responsible for the bill has to be in the Chair or he has to leave the Chamber. If the Minister wishes to make a phone call, he should excuse himself.

I am happy to provide a copy of the Hansard of my speech to the Minister for him to read when he has finished his all-important phone call. I hope he is speaking with the managing director of BioDiesel Oils. That would be a worthwhile conversation.

I again reflect on what we have seen from the National Government on environmental issues. We have had the airport tax. We would hope that when a Government thrusts something like that upon us, one of the things that we would see was a robust debate about all the things that the Government is doing in response to environmental issues that might allow for some bartering, that might allow for a little bit of negotiation. What did we have? We have a select committee to question climate change, I say to Mr Brownlee. That is what we have got. We have got the repeal of the biofuels obligation. And there is the emissions trading scheme. We cannot discuss what the Government is doing with the emissions trading scheme, because I do not know whether the Government knows what it is doing—but we will come back to that. Those were our chips; that was what we had. If indeed the National Government believes in climate change, what is it going to do about it? Repeal is not the answer.

I propose another title for the bill: the “Gutting the Biofuels Industry Bill”. Aside from the environmental issues, that is the other argument that we on this side have had to put, because the National Government has not put it. The National Minister has not taken many calls on this part, so I thought I would take the liberty of sharing some of his views on the impact this bill will have on the biofuel industry. His statement to the National Business Review was: “We think that the growth of the biofuel industry will continue. A large number of biofuel companies in New Zealand, who are currently producing … have been quite positive about where we are heading”. So positive, in fact, that the first thing they do is shut up shop. The first thing one of our major players in the industry does is shut down.

For the edification of the members in this Chamber, and because there is no regulatory impact statement, I would like to share with them a little information about one of the communities that will be impacted. Waharoa is a small, rural community in the Waikato. At the last census, the unemployment rate was 23 percent. Given that we do not have a regulatory impact statement, I would like to share with the Minister the unemployment rate in that small town. For a community that does not number more than a thousand, what a boost 46 job placements would have been—massive.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: 22 jobs.

Rather, there would have been 22 job placements, which would have impacted on a number of families. What have we seen in the Waikato electorate alone since the National Government has come in? We have seen a loss of job opportunities in Waharoa. We are already facing 160 job losses in Morrinsville.

I move, That the question be now put.

I particularly want to make reference to the Hon David Parker’s two amendments that are on the Table. The first of them was the excellent idea that he picked up from my colleague Brendan Burns to rename this bill the “Bio-fools Bill”, because that is a very accurate representation of what the National Party is actually doing here today. Its members are making fools not only of themselves but also of New Zealand as a country on the world stage. I know in my time as a representative of New Zealand overseas that we were often proud to stand up—including, I might add, under a National Government with Simon Upton—to talk about New Zealand’s record on the environment and how we led the way. Unfortunately, under this “Bio-fools Bill”, along with the other measures that have already been brought in by the National Party in this short term in Government, we are not able to say that. It is not only that; it is the importance to our overall economy and to new industries that are growing here.

David Parker’s amendment to omit clause 2 is to substitute it with the following: “This Act shall not be submitted for Royal Assent until 30 days after a regulatory impact assessment and the report on the financial and unemployment effects on New Zealand’s tallow to biodiesel industry have been presented to Parliament.” That is a very, very good amendment, because at this time we are rushing through this bill without the opportunity to understand the regulatory impact, or the impact on employment or the finances and economy of New Zealand. As we have just heard, this is going to have a major impact not only on the small community of Waharoa, but also on the people of east Tāmaki. The bio-diesel industry was an industry that was growing and taking off, and this bill is gutting it. As my colleague said, we could call this the “Gutting of the Bio-diesel Industry Bill”, because that is what the bill does. I urge the Minister Gerry Brownlee to take a call and tell us whether he agrees with the Hon David Parker’s amendment. It would be an opportunity to take some time over this bill and assess its impacts on the industry.

We have already heard today, in quite a startling development, that the Minister in charge of this bill, the Hon Gerry Brownlee, did not even read the information that came to him from the industry that would be most affected by it. That is an unbelievable situation when there is no select committee process for the bill. We have a situation where the Minister in charge of the bill is also the Leader of the House and he has a 100 percent record of putting bills through this Parliament that have not been to a select committee and have been taken under urgency. Here we have an industry that will go down the gurgler on this Government’s watch—an unbelievable situation. I urge Government members to at least take a call and tell us what they think of the Hon David Parker’s amendment. I think it is an excellent amendment. It will give us the opportunity to understand the true impact of this law on the economy of New Zealand and on its industries.

I also say that at an international level, this has been a week of shame for this country in terms of its environmental record, and this bill represents that. We have been proud of that record, rightly, but it is also important to our economy. We know that, internationally, buyers for supermarkets overseas and consumers who are thinking of coming to New Zealand as tourists all look to New Zealand to see us as a sustainable country. Yet we have seen, over the last 2 weeks, the Government take steps to suspend the emissions trading scheme—we think; we are not sure about that—to get rid of the biofuels obligation, and to get rid of insulation for homes. If we had those things, then we would be able to stand up on the world stage and say proudly that New Zealand is a country that takes sustainability seriously. We could get over the tyranny of distance by saying that we are a truly clean, green country. Yet we come here today to debate a bill that will repeal the biofuels obligation and remove the opportunity not only to create an industry in this area but also to continue to show that New Zealand is a country that is serious about addressing climate change.

This bill shows that National is not serious about addressing climate change, and it is certainly not serious about listening to the concerns of the industries affected by the bill. We can read the letter from Tom McNicholl, which Mr Brownlee decided not to read, and we can also hear from Sue Wood, talking about Tom McNicholl. It is perhaps hard for Mr McNicholl to talk about how he feels about this bill, but Sue Wood has very clearly stated that her client is devastated. The person she is working for is devastated. Yet Mr Brownlee was not even prepared to read the letter, to find out what was going on behind the scenes in this industry, and to make sure that someone like Mr McNicholl could contribute to New Zealand in the way he wants to.

I move, That the question be now put.

We could call this bill the “Climate Change Denial Bill”, as some of my colleagues have suggested, because, fundamentally, this bill comes down to a question of whether we believe in human-induced climate change. But, of course, Government members are taking a balanced view on these things these days, a very balanced view! One day they think it is a hoax, and the next day they believe in it. It is a balanced view. Tomorrow they will be back to thinking it is a hoax again, or maybe that is where they are today, because this bill, effectively, is Government members standing up and saying they still think that climate change is a hoax, they still do not believe in it, and they still do not think they need to do anything about it.

Or Government members could start talking about whether they believe in the development of alternative fuel sources. Do those members believe in doing that? We have not heard very much from the Minister in the chair, the Hon Gerry Brownlee. I wondered whether the Minister wants to step out of the House again and have Mr Williamson resume the chair, because I think we were getting a bit more engagement from him when he was sitting in the chair. [Interruption] That is right; we are getting a lot more engagement from Mr Williamson over on the backbenches. He is a Minister who believes in free speech, and I am sure he wanted this bill to go to the select committee so that he could have a say on it.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: But Maurice doesn’t believe in climate change.

Yes, that is right. I am sure that Minister would like to have the opportunity, through the select committee process, to stand up and share with us his views on climate change. I think he would like to stand up and give us his views on climate change, because this is a very important bill. This is a very important issue for New Zealand; in fact, it is a defining issue for New Zealand. This bill is about whether we want to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Do we want to reduce our dependence on foreign oil? It appears that this Government does not. Do we believe that New Zealand’s clean, green image is something worth protecting? It appears that this Government does not.

💬 Hon Steve Chadwick: Well, we do.

It appears that this Government does not believe in New Zealand’s clean, green image, but we do—that is absolutely right. We in the Labour Party do; we think it is worth protecting. We will not enhance our environmentally friendly image by being fast followers. It appears that not only were we following but also we have turned around and we are going the other way. We are not turbocharging fast forward to the future, but we have hit the reverse button and we are going backwards. This bill severely undermines New Zealand’s credibility on climate change. In fact, there are members of the Government who think it is a bad idea, as well.

We are into inclusive government, so I thought I would share some of the views of members of the Government—in fact, those of Peter Dunne, who stated: “I am particularly disappointed for the domestic biofuel industry, which has for a long time signalled to me that unless Parliament enforced stiff regulatory legislation there would be no capacity to develop a domestically based tallow industry.”

That is from Peter Dunne, a member of the Government. It is quite a good statement, and I will share with members a little bit more: “As a result of National’s repeal domestic suppliers will find themselves undercut by cheap, unsustainable imports, which will eventually force them out of the industry. The environmentally conscious biofuel consumer will be faced with an imported product with all of the source sustainability uncertainties that we are all actively trying to avoid. The repeal of this legislation means there is nothing to stop the importation of biofuel from cleared South-East Asian rainforests, from land that used to grow food for the poor people of the third world or from the United States’ carbon-intensive ethanol market. While National claims its repeal is due to concerns about environmental protection and world food shortages, it is about to do the very thing that will potentially bury a 100 percent sustainable tallow-based biofuel industry right here in New Zealand.” That was from Peter Dunne, a member of the Minister’s Government.

Why does the Minister in the chair, the Hon Gerry Brownlee, not stand up and explain to us why National wants to do that? The Minister is reading his papers very intently now. Perhaps he is reading the letter, at long last. Perhaps he will stand up, take the next call, and share with us his views on the letter, which he now appears to be reading. I very much look forward to hearing from that Minister.

Let us talk about some of the other things. This bill has not gone to a select committee, so I will share with the Committee some of the other people’s views. They would like to have their voices heard. Brian Cox, the executive officer of the Bioenergy Association, stated: “New Zealand’s ability to seize the opportunity to become self-sufficient in liquid biofuels for transport will be slowed if the biofuels obligation in current legislation is removed”. He went on to state: “Investor confidence is key”. I thought investor confidence was something National believed in.

💬 Moana Mackey: No, only in theory.

Oh, that is right; those members believe in it only in theory. Or is it another one of those things they believe in until they get into Government, and then they can change their minds on things? They can believe in all those lofty things about being pro-business when they are in Opposition, but when they get into Government they say: “Oh, well, we will just change our minds; we will just do whatever we like, anyway.”

💬 Hon Steve Chadwick: Some are all right.

Some are all right; that is right.

I move, That the question be now put.

There is an amendment to clause 1 in the name of the Hon David Parker, which is ruled out of order as it is regarded as not being a serious amendment.

We now come to clause 2, and there is an amendment in the name of David Parker that seeks to change the commencement date. There are some concerns about it not setting a precise date, but on balance I think we will let the Committee decide the question.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Parker to clause 2 be agreed to:

to omit this clause and substitute the following clause:

This Act shall not be submitted for Royal Assent until 30 days after a regulatory impact assessment and the report on the financial and unemployment effects on New Zealand’s tallow to biodiesel industry have been presented to Parliament.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I bring to your notice that in the brace of votes we have just had, United Future’s party vote was consistently recorded by one of the Government whips. In an earlier phase of the Committee of the whole House stage, the United Future vote was not recorded by the Government whip. That leads to two possibilities: the first is that United Future had a view that it wanted to vote only in the latter stages of the Committee of the whole House, and the second is that United Future’s vote was not recorded even though the National Party whip was under instruction to record it. It seems to me that the latter of those two explanations is the more likely. Therefore, some of the votes recorded earlier in the Committee of the whole House stage may need to be adjusted.

That is not a point of order. The votes are matters for the whips, and it has always been the acceptance of this House that the whips are accurately recording the votes and casting the votes in accordance with a party’s wishes. What those wishes may or may not be at that time is for that party to determine, not for the House. The record stands unless the whips come back and say that they have made a mistake, and that is not the case at this point.

House resumed.

Bill reported without amendment.

I move, That the report be adopted.