Hodgson Pete: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Hodgson Pete: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:805] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 We have had the first and second readings of this legislation and now the Committee stage. The second reading was a bit of a repeat of the first reading because of course there was no select committee in the interregnum. There was no report back from the select committee because there was no select committee. So we had a somewhat repetitive debate in the first two readings of this legislation which was characterised by a great deal of sophistry—by a great deal of pretence from the Government speakers. 
However through that pretence or sophistry a couple of threads emerged—for me anyway. One of them was that the technique of a mandatory sales obligation did not fit with the ideology of the new Government. That is a fair enough position—it is entitled to its ideology even if it does not make sense—but ideology it is. The second was to do with the fact that the Government was concerned—I think those concerns were manufactured—by the fact that there was no regulation in place to secure the sustainability aspects of biofuels. 
Let us take a look at these two issues. The first is the Government’s ideological resistance to a sales target. The sales target or a mandatory sales obligation is one tool that is used broadly to promote energy change. In the free market of the United States—in that great home of the greatest economy that the world has ever seen—mandatory sales obligations in energy are very widespread; they occur in many many states. It may even be that they occur in most states; I simply do not know enough detail. But it is common indeed for state Governments in the US to require mandatory sales for this or that—most particularly in renewable energy for the electricity sector. So there is nothing particularly ideologically blinkered about this or that American state but none the less we find that this Government has decided all by its little self that a mandatory sales obligation is somehow an ideologically impure act. 
The whole idea of a mandatory sales obligation is to ensure that the wholesalers—that is to say the oil companies—put in the infrastructure that they need where they want to in the parts of New Zealand they want to to begin to build a distribution system that we know this country will need sooner or later. That is what a mandatory sales obligation does; that is its function. 
But it is the second issue I want to concentrate on in this contribution. We are in Part 1 of the Committee stage and many speakers before me have pointed out that the Government cried crocodile tears over the fact that we are not fully paid up in terms of getting our regulation written for sustainability—that is correct; it is not due until 30 June next year—and that therefore we cannot do anything now. 
There are two different ways of approaching that and I would like to invite the Minister in the chair the Hon Gerry Brownlee to take a look at these two different ways. The first is to simply delay the legislation by say 6 or 12 months. A thing to do would be to come up to this Chamber with an amendment that said that because we do not have lock stock and barrel in respect of the sustainability regulations—even though we have more legislation in law than any other country in the world and even though we have mandatory transparency regulations making oil companies tell us where they get their biofuels from—because the door is still slightly ajar we could simply delay this legislation by say 6 or 12 months until that regulation is promulgated. The Minister may want to take a call and indicate why his Government is going for abolition instead of delay. The second thing however is this: the Minister’s position as I understand it—and again I would be grateful if he would clarify his position—is that the Government is of a view to promulgate sustainability regulations for the future in respect of biofuels anyway. I wonder whether the Minister could give some sort of body language indication as to whether that is the case. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: A wee wobble. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: A wee wobble. No we have wobbling going in all sorts of directions. Why do I not just repeat the question? My understanding is that the Government is of the view that this country will at some point need sustainability regulations as they affect biofuels— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: In the fullness of time. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: —in the fullness of time. I ask the Minister whether my understanding is correct. I have an affirmative ladies and gentlemen. I have an affirmative from the Minister and I thank him for that. That piece of body language tells me that the Government will promulgate sustainability regulations as they affect biofuels. It raises an interesting question: to which part of which primary legislation might these regulations attach? You see we have before us in Part 3 of the legislation that is being abolished the most advanced progress on defining sustainability for biofuels in Western legislation. And we are about to ditch it. What is sensible about that? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: We did it—that’s why. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Oh it is because the previous Government did it—the naughty old Labour nanny State Government! Is that right? The legislation being abolished is really good. It is legislation that is particularly good and we know that because it was argued by none other than Nick Smith in the select committee. We know it is multiparty; we know the Greens were deeply involved; we know the National Party had its role to play; we know people like Moana Mackey from the Labour Party were actively involved; but it was all done during the time of the dirty rotten stinking Labour Government. I ask the Minister whether that might be the reason why we have to ditch this legislation. Oh we have a negatory response! We have a negatory response from Mr Minister. I am grateful for his forward communication but I want him to take the stand if he will and please give us some indication of when we might be getting some better-than-before regulation concerning the sustainability of biofuels and to which part of which primary legislation we will attach these regulations when we have them or whether we have to come back to the House and put back in that which we are today seeking to abolish. 
We have a negatory response there too. I am confused; I am bewildered! I need the assistance of the Minister. I need the assistance of the uber-Minister and the intellectual rigour that he can present to the Committee. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Read the bill. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am being told to read the bill. The bill says: “Let’s get rid of what we’ve got. Yours sincerely.” That is what the bill says. That is the beginning and end of it so one does not need such a long time to read the bill. 
I ask these questions seriously. First of all if the issue is that we have not locked and shuttered all of the regulations that officials have not got themselves to June 2009 and that therefore we have some sort of chink in the armour why not go for say a 6 or 12-month delay? Secondly if the Government’s intention is—and I am assured by the Minister’s body language that it is—to come up with very good sustainability regulations for biofuels then where will those very good sustainability regulations for biofuels sit in the architecture of the statute of the land? I ask whether the Minister would care to take a call and answer either or both of those questions.