Garrett David: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Garrett David: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:851] 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the third reading of the Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill. As members of the House clearly know ACT is committed to supporting National’s first 100-day plan as laid out in the document  
My key commitments to you.  
The caucus and I intend to honour that pledge. Having said that I say I have listened to the contributions from the Opposition members with interest. As a new member of the House I was not involved in the debate surrounding biofuels last year. During the debate over this last day I have personally come to see some considerable sense in what has been said by members on the opposite side of the House. I stress that that is my personal position and view and that the ACT Party is committed to supporting the Government. 
I am glad to hear that Labour members recognise that some biofuels would dramatically increase fuel prices worldwide particularly hurting the 1 billion people who survive on less than $1 a day. I hear Ms Fitzsimons’ distinction—and I hear it loud and clear—between various biofuels and I hear her point that not all biofuels are alike. I am pleased to hear that both Labour and the Greens recognise the negative impacts of some biofuels—in particular those produced from corn and rapeseed which have been shown to contribute higher levels of greenhouse gases than fossil fuels. Certainly from my personal perspective bio-diesel produced from tallow in New Zealand appears to provide a number of benefits over the use of fossil fuels or fuels produced from what were once food crops. 
It is clear to me from listening to the debate that biofuels warrant further investigation and my hope is that over the next 3 years the Government with help from its support partners my party and the Maori Party can come up with a common-sense approach to this issue: a common-sense approach that will allow the development of biofuels that contribute to lower levels of pollutants in our environment but do not cause unintended consequences. It should be an approach that will allow the development of biofuels that will not lead to further price rises being imposed on those who can least afford that and most important an approach that will allow the development of a biofuels industry in New Zealand based on good science and good economic sense. That I am afraid is where I and my colleagues opposite diverge. Their feeling and it seems to be shared wholeheartedly by the Greens is that biofuels in order to be viable require regulation and compulsion. ACT agrees with the Government view that using compulsion to create a captive pool of customers is a bad idea. 
With regard to the letter from Mr McNicholl I read it with considerable interest and I noticed a couple of things. I think that maybe it was not very well expressed. He says that without the biofuel obligation the business case for BioDiesel Oils (NZ) would have been weak from the start. But BioDiesel Oils (NZ) appears to have been set up in 1998 so I assume he means the project to produce bio-diesel from tallow. The other point is that Mr McNicholl—understandably—has some concerns. He has relied on a captive market being delivered to him which is now going to be removed. Well I am afraid that is business. 
Mr Brownlee has made the point very well that the bio-diesel that is produced now is being sold somewhere and that it has been sold for some time. And we are not talking about a couple of truckloads; 10 million litres is a huge amount. ACT does not agree that mandatory limits need to be put in place. One point that has not been made is that if bio-diesel is a sustainable product at a good price all the supporters of the Green Party will flock to buy it. They have sincerely held philosophical beliefs in sustainability so if bio-diesel is available they will buy it. I am prepared to admit that I have learnt something and have refined my knowledge which was limited in this area. I would hope that the members opposite might learn something and see that mandatory levels are not a particularly good way to go. Clearly there is merit in tallow-based biofuels and that is an option that New Zealand companies should be taking seriously. 
One point that Ms Fitzsimons made your Honour—I am sorry Mr Assistant Speaker; it is a long habit and is hard to break—was that oil companies will not develop this industry because they do not need to. In the short term that is right of course; they have a vested interest in protecting their mineral oil market. But one crucial thing is that oil companies are not stupid. I heard Ms Mackey say she had worked for one. Well I worked for 10 years of my life in the oil industry and I think she would probably agree with me that the one thing the oil companies are not is stupid. They all know that we will eventually run short of oil. It is becoming more and more expensive. Peak oil is not going to happen in 2010 or 2020 but it will happen. And if the oil companies do not go down the route of supplying biofuels their competitors will. We have already seen—and it is a minor marketing point perhaps—that BP changed its identity some years ago from British Petroleum to Beyond Petroleum. All right that is a marketing ploy but it illustrates that the company recognises that diversity will have to happen and it will have to source liquid fuels from sources other than 10000 feet below the ground. 
Having said all of that as I said my personal view is that work needs to be done on biofuels. I think much of merit has been said by members on the other side of the House but ACT remains in support of this bill. Thank you.