Nicola Willis told us she did not take the decision lightly, and well, she might have said that. 

She's lucky it's only cost $60 million. We still don’t know the terms, but we need to. 

This is Golden Bay Cement, and the Government has come to their rescue. 

Without this help, allegedly, they would have closed. 

There is only one supplier in the country – this in and of itself would seem to be an issue. They produce 60% of what we use. 

Is the other 40% cheaper? And what of the climate mitigation issues Fletchers speak of? Why do we worry about the 60% and not the other 40%? 

Why is climate so important in the cement business, and is climate worth worrying about if it means the closure of business and the loss of jobs? 

That is one of the questions of the age, especially given the Europeans over the weekend signalled their intentions to pull back on climate expectation for businesses for exactly the same reasons. 

Climate versus jobs? We quite like the work, thanks. 

Fletcher Building is the owner and a company with no shortage of drama around their reputation and activities, but not a business desperate, you wouldn't have thought, for $60 million. 

But, and here is the crunchy bit, they're a company that in straightened times is perfectly entitled to pull the pin on things that aren't working. 

So, a good business decision, or blackmail? 

Is the business run as they claim? In other words, it's not workable, or are they a bit useless? 

Britain is having the same conversation currently over a nationalised steelworks involving the Chinese and a water company that’s on its knees. 

The trouble is the specifics and the precedent. Every story is unique. 

Can a government write a cheque for one-offs? Maybe. 

Does it set a potential precedent? Yes. 

Should the Government be in cement? No. 

Should we be more resilient in the basics of things like building materials? Yes. We have just had that debate by cleaning out an old tank at Marsden. Resilience is important. 

So I don’t mind this as a one off. 

But is it a bad business or is it a business hampered by dumb rules around climate? And if it’s the latter, would a change of rules fix the problem better than a bailout cheque would?