Burns Brendon: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Burns Brendon: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:814] 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I rise to speak to Part 2 of the Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill and to support the amendments in the name of my colleague the Hon David Parker to insert a new clause 5A and a new clause 16. 
I ask the Minister in the chair the Hon Gerry Brownlee why this Government is determined not to listen to the very many strong voices on this issue and to push through this legislation under urgency. Only the National and ACT parties are supporting the bill in this House—it might be called the “Bio-fools Bill”. 
The bill is contrary in fact to past actions by a National Government. I acknowledge the courage that a previous National Government showed on alternative fuels in the 1980s. I think all of us can remember the installation of compressed natural gas (CNG) and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) facilities around the country. LPG is still there; CNG sadly has gone. But that was the courage that a National Government showed in spite of some opposition from the oil industry. 
I also acknowledge the comments from the Hon Peter Dunne in expressing his disappointment that National is revisiting this legislation. When the Biofuel Bill came into Parliament earlier this year he expressed some concerns about the issue of sustainability—which the Government is promoting as it introduces this legislation—but he noted that as that bill progressed amendments were made to it that gave him satisfaction in terms of the final shape of it. He is now saying that this legislation will bury a tallow-based biofuel industry here in New Zealand. 
I also note that a couple of years ago the National list member Nicky Wagner issued a press statement saying that the biggest potential sources of bio-diesel in New Zealand were tallow and animal fat by-product. Yet it is already on the public record that the $10 million invested by Tom McNicholl whose firm Biodiesel Oils is the biggest producer of tallow-based bio-diesel is going down the drain as a consequence of this legislation. I ask where Maurice Williamson and Pansy Wong are. They represent seats adjoining Biodiesel Oils’ East Tamaki plant. I ask whether they are speaking out on this issue in support of their constituents whose jobs will be lost. Indeed I ask where the member for Waikato is because Biodiesel Oils’ Waharoa plant is being mothballed as a consequence of this legislation. That tallow-based bio-diesel industry will be going down the gurgler. 
I also note that the Government has made considerable reference to the issue of biofuels perhaps pushing up the price. In fact that is not the view of a former icon of the National Party one Barry Leay the secretary-general of the National Party for many years. He is a director of the Aquaflow Bionomic Corporation which is making fuel from algae growing in sewage works in Marlborough. In response to comments made by the Hon Nick Smith who said that biofuels would push up the price by perhaps 5c to 7c a litre Mr Leay said that people who were saying that were “making comments without a clue about what’s [actually] happening in the biofuel industry.” and that that sort of speculation was really just scare tactics by the National Party. That is an interesting commentary from somebody so closely associated with the National Party. 
Of course Sue Wood a representative of Biodiesel Oils has made commentary on behalf of her client Mr McNicholl as to the devastation this bill will mean to him. His $10 million investment in biofuels will be rendered absolutely useless if I may use that expression by this legislation. 
I also note commentary on the Labour Government’s biofuels legislation when it was brought in earlier this year. It was referred to as being a significant step forward in the task of reducing New Zealand’s reliance on imported fuels and as comprehensive and forward-thinking legislation. That commentary came from another producer of biofuels a company based in Canterbury that was not in support of the mandatory minimum biofuel requirement but in fact wanted no limit on blends. However it made very very clear that it thought the biofuels legislation was comprehensive forward-thinking legislation that therefore needed to be retained. I ask members opposite from Canterbury what they are doing to support that industry which I am sure will also be affected by this legislation.