Auchinvole Chris: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Auchinvole Chris: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:860] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast-Tasman) 
: 
 This has been a very interesting debate to listen to and I really have enjoyed the beginning of each speech that has come from the Opposition side of the House. Sadly towards the end of all of those speeches we have heard a more partisan tone and they have turned into diatribes against the National Government. We even had Mr Parker talking about energy-efficient light bulbs and saying they should be back in there. Actually we have just had an election and the people have indicated what they want. There has been such a waste of energy in the discussion of the details of this but the thrust of the original discussions was good. 
I have a few questions to ask. Where is the mountain of surplus tallow at the moment? There cannot be a big surplus without displacing the production of other products by taking the tallow away. Opposition members say we will make more money out of tallow. Yes but this is the whole argument about biofuels. Corn was a low-value product that the Mexicans used as a base food supply and now it is beyond their reach. 
Hon David Parker 
: People don’t eat tallow. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Well no they do not but they make a lot of things from tallow that keep them healthy and clean and that they can afford. And Labour members talk about capturing it and legislating by compulsion so that it has to be used in biofuels. 
Mr Parker talked about an environmental backwards step and about the use of compulsion in order to introduce changes of that nature being the environmental backwards step. I was interested in what Mr Mallard said. We nearly got there and I thought his speech was going to be good because he was talking about the need to use new technology. The biofuel legislation restricts the use of new technology because it puts a ring-fence around a particular biofuel and says that people must use that one. 
Moana Mackey 
: No it doesn’t. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: It does. It is not a mandate for change. Internationally the United Nations and the New Zealand Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment both say that compulsion for biofuels is a disaster. 
Like Moana Mackey I shared an involvement in an oil company. We had a little oil company; there were about four of us in it. We used to import fuel. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Just like the Clampetts! 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Ha ha! We changed it. It was a small business but there was enough technical knowledge amongst the partners to know that New Zealand had never had much of a go with decent petrol. We have not talked about standards that are really good for the country. That is why we have been badly served. 
Moana Mackey 
: So why didn’t it go to a select committee and all your questions would have been answered? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Well— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Moana went to forecourt school. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: There we go. But even forecourt school people know that New Zealand’s petrol has never been the very best in the world. A lot of improvement can be made without having this sort of regulated procedure. 
To conclude I say the biggest problem coming in the arguments from members on the other side of the House seems to concern the loss of the compulsory nature of the legislation. 
Moana Mackey 
: The Minister didn’t care about the compulsory nature in his first reading speech. He didn’t even mention it. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: But that is the only bit that seems to have objections to it. This is worthwhile legislation. It will set the clock straight. It will not stop the production of biofuels. It will not stop the encouragement of new technology. It will stop us walking into a backwater. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker.