Carter John: Biofuel Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Carter John: Biofuel Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 02 September 2008. Volume:649;Page:18286. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 One of the interesting things about this debate is finding out whether people genuinely believe in and support the Biofuel Bill or whether they oppose it. It is fair to say that the National Party has made it quite clear that it opposes the bill for a whole number of reasons which my colleagues have already communicated. It is probably fair to say that the Greens are genuine in their belief that the introduction of a bill of this nature may well have some benefit to New Zealand and from their perspective to the world. It is also fair to say that Peter Dunne probably thinks that Part 2 will have some positive impact from a New Zealand perspective and maybe even make a positive contribution to the world. Even New Zealand First members—although their arguments were pretty spurious I have to say—probably have genuinely reflected on the bill and think that it is worthy of support although I must say I was disturbed by Peter Brown’s explanation. But I cannot accept that the Government’s reason for supporting this bill is genuine. If the Government were genuine then we could have expected it to bring forward this bill 2 5 or a number of years ago. We might have thought that that was fair enough—that the Government had taken some time to study the topic. If the Government were 5 years or 3 years into its term of office maybe it would be reasonable to say that it was genuine in what it was doing. But when the Government is bringing forward this bill 9 years after it came to power just before the finish of this session and is asking Parliament to pass the bill under urgency we just cannot accept that it is genuine. We cannot believe that it is doing this for the right reasons. 
It is obvious that the Government is pushing this bill through for political reasons. The Prime Minister said to New Zealanders that she would pour some fuel into the tank—she did not quite know how to do that properly but it was a photo opportunity for her—and then the officials— 
Jill Pettis 
: What about Don Brash walking the plank or trying to get into that stock car? 
JOHN CARTER 
: The member over there who lost her seat and will soon go out of Parliament goes on about a lot of things. 
Allan Peachey 
: Is this her farewell speech? 
JOHN CARTER 
: Well that may well be so. [ 
Interruption 
] I am not denying that of course. Parliamentarians all take photo opportunities. But the member has just accepted and acknowledged that this bill is being passed for the photo opportunity for the Prime Minister and not for genuine reasons at all. She has just confirmed my argument. Sadly what this means is that when we look at Part 2 and talk about taxes it will just put more cost on to the people of this country and the reason is that it gives the Prime Minister and the Clark-Peters Government another photo opportunity. 
Jill Pettis 
: Doesn’t that word “Government” have a lovely ring to it? 
JOHN CARTER 
: I have to say to the member over there who keeps interjecting that that is not accepted— 
Allan Peachey 
: Her farewell speech. 
JOHN CARTER 
: That was her valedictory—the interjection. The fact is that whether or not we like it not even the Minister in the chair the Hon David Parker has come up tonight and put forward any lucid argument about which we could say that we might reflect on it and have to accept that the Minister has a valid argument. 
You know it is all very well for all the parties to say that we have to start somewhere. We accept that. No one is arguing that there should not be a debate and an argument around biofuels. What we are saying which is the opposite of what the Government and its supporters are saying and have not yet put forward lucid arguments for is that we should question whether this bill will achieve what should be achieved by introducing biofuels to New Zealand. That is the unfortunate thing about this debate—it has become hollow. All that has happened all night throughout this whole debate is that the National Party has been attacked for the fact that we do not support the bill. No Government members have argued that they do not accept the National Party’s arguments but that nevertheless they will consider this point this point and this point because those are the valid reasons for this bill. 
I have not yet heard the Minister the chairman of the Local Government and Environment Committee or anyone from New Zealand First put forward a lucid argument that we could sit here as the National Party in Opposition and say there may be a valid argument in it. The Minister could take a call and stand up and say: “Listen John Carter. You need to understand that you have missed the point. You need to understand that there are valid reasons why we are doing this. You need to understand that this will bring this benefit to New Zealand. It will have this benefit for households and car-owners in this country. It will mean this much from a New Zealand perspective on the world stage.” If the Minister had put forward those arguments then maybe we would have had to sit back and think about it. But I am afraid that the Minister has never put forward those arguments. He has never done that in the select committee. Indeed if you have looked Mr Chairman—and I am sure you have because you are a very erstwhile member of this Parliament—you would have read— 
Jill Pettis 
: “Erstwhile”? 
JOHN CARTER 
: He is. He is a very earnest member of our— 
Jill Pettis 
: But you said “erstwhile”. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Well he is both. I mean that is a double compliment. The point is that at least he is coming back to this Parliament. Anyway we should not bring the Chairman into the debate. 
Jill Pettis 
: But erstwhile means former. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Oh well then it is that member whom I am referring to. I am sorry; I got the direction wrong. I beg the member’s pardon. The point is this. If the members of Parliament had read this statement from the Ministry of Economic Development then they would see that it is against this legislation. Ministry officials make it quite clear. They are saying that this legislation will not work and that it will put costs on to this country. They know it will increase taxes and they know it will increase costs for motorists. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment a person whom one would think would want to support this sort of legislation has said in her statement that she opposes this legislation for the way it is drafted. She does not oppose the concept; she supports the concept. So does the National Party. No one is arguing against the concept of biofuels; what we are arguing against is the way in which this Government is implementing their use. The timing of it is bad and on top of that the bill itself is flawed. It does not allow sufficient time for the whole issue around standards to be established before people have to compulsorily get on and implement it. That is seriously bad. 
The fact is that this Minister has failed this Parliament. Mind you he has done it before in many other things. He has not done anything with regard to energy. We have serious problems with regard to a whole number of issues in areas where he has been the Minister and this is just another example of where this Minister has been found to be deficient in his ability to contribute to this Parliament and to this country. 
Nick Smith put forward a very good amendment—which unfortunately was defeated I assume—and the point now is that we should be considering this bill and opposing it. I would like to think that the Minister would stand up take a call and explain to members why this Opposition should be supporting this bill because he has not done so yet. I say to the likes of Dail Jones who is here on behalf of New Zealand First and I say even to the member from the Greens that maybe they need to reconsider. They were opposed to this bill in its original form. 
Sue Bradford 
: You didn’t mention Jeanette Fitzsimons speaking before. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Yes I did; I mentioned Jeanette. She made a contribution. I made the very point earlier that when I listened to her contribution it was all about the fact that we were putting borders round New Zealand. We were not worried what was happening worldwide. Well I say that that is the problem. This Minister has now tried to shut us out from the rest of the world. He is saying that this legislation will all be New Zealand - focused it will be all about our country and it will be all about us. The sad fact is that this legislation will be to the detriment of New Zealand and it will certainly be to the detriment of the people in this country and all because this Minister has not done his homework. He has not set some standards that we can all apply. This legislation certainly has not allowed us a convincing argument.