Hodgson Pete: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading 
Hodgson Pete: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:756] 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 It will come as no surprise to this House that the Labour Party will be opposing this legislation vociferously. We think the decision of the Government to wind back biofuels is simply wrong. We think that it is unjust. We think the process that is being used by the Government is particularly unjust. We think that it is wrong for a Government to pass legislation that takes away the productive capacity of this or that individual enterprise without the enterprise having an ability to submit its case. We think that is wrong. We think that is unjust. We think that it is economically damaging. Quite apart from the fact that this company or that company will have to close and that there will be a loss of jobs—and in the case of one such company the loss of 46 jobs—it is economically damaging. Quite apart from that it is also economically damaging in the sense that it does not allow New Zealand to make slow and early steps—and let us make it clear that the progress of biofuels is in its infancy—towards a biofuels future. That has now been stopped by this legislation. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: No no! 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The Minister is deluding himself. It is environmentally damaging in the sense that our ability to replace the fossil fuels used in our transport sector will now be reduced. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: No it is not. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It will be reduced and that will be environmentally damaging. 
Most important it seems to me that this legislation will go through the House this week without a rationale and it is that absence of a rationale that I want to concentrate on. The rationale of course was what the Minister in his first reading speech attempted to lay out. I listened to the speech very carefully and I have taken notes from it. I find that the argumentation of the Minister’s first reading speech is dishonest. I find that the argumentation is dishonest and I am saying that it is dishonest in order to stay well within the Standing Orders. I now want to lay out step by step why I think the argumentation is dishonest. 
The Minister began—I thought quite correctly—by pointing out that biofuels can cause enormous damage. They can displace an awful lot of arable agricultural space for example and they can also cause a great deal of deforestation. That is known; that is accepted. The Minister made the point correctly. However he failed to point out two other things. The first is that the legislation this bill seeks to repeal does not allow for that type of biofuel to come into New Zealand. Secondly by the repeal of that legislation such biofuels will now be able to come into New Zealand— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Rubbish! 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: —unless there is some regulation that the Minister has forthcoming that we do not know about. He sits there and says “Rubbish!”; he is wrong. It is a matter of fact that the biofuels legislation that was passed by this House earlier this year contains a significant number of sustainability safeguards. Furthermore it is a matter of fact that the Ministry for the Environment and other agencies had indicated to the Government of the day—and would have indicated to this Government too I have no doubt—that their final regulatory regime would be ready by about July 2009. Yet we are getting rid of this legislation. We are getting rid of the sustainability parts of it that are in the primary legislation. The Government is squealing that somehow that is a good thing but it is clearly something that will take our country backwards. 
The Minister says there are not enough biofuels now to supply the sales obligation. What should be a surprise about that? The Government would lay out a sales obligation give the industry notice put up the obligation by a little bit each year and then the industry would invest to meet that target. Those targets will no longer exist if this legislation is repealed—those sales obligations will no longer exist—and most if not all of the biofuel industry in this country will shut down. Mark my words! 
The Minister said that the standards were not in place; I say that if he had waited 7 months they would have been in place. The Minister said that the standards could not be put in place but that is contrary to the advice that officials gave to this Government and to the select committee on the original bill etc. 
But the thing I disliked most was the Minister saying that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment opposed the bill and said that it was wrong. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: That’s right. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It is right. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Absolutely right. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It is right but what is wrong is that the bill was changed and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment then said that the legislation was in satisfactory form. The legislation was passed with her blessing but the Minister has failed to acknowledge to the House that that parliamentary officer did her job. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment went into the select committee process with the bill as introduced and said it was not good enough and it was not. The select committee fixed it up so that it was and she said then that it was satisfactory but the Minister in his first reading speech failed to advise Parliament of the views of one of Parliament’s own officers on the bill as it came out of the select committee—failed to advise Parliament. That is what I think is dishonest argument. I think the Government is bewildered on this; I think it is bewildered illogical and wrong. 
Let us now go to the next point that the Minister raised which is to do with money. The Minister said that the price of biofuels would cost somewhere between 2c and 8c a litre additionally. Well that was the advice received by the select committee from the oil companies—that is what Chevron Oil said or BP said. If the Minister is to become some sort of spokesperson for the “seven sisters” that is fine and dandy but why did the Minister not also advise the House what the official advice would have been on that cost differential? Why did he not do that? It seems to me that he did not do it because it did not suit his argument. Here—unfortunately for the Minister—are the official advice figures: the cost would not be from plus 2c to plus 8c per litre; the cost would be from minus 4c to plus 1.3c per litre. That was the advice that was given to the select committee— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Just like the climate change—Kyoto credit analysis. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: —and whether the Minister believes that advice or not it is really pertinent that he did not put those figures into the public arena when he was trying to give this lovely measured example of why he has to undertake this act of environmental vandalism. The member has made a botch of this. He has done it for substantially political reasons. It will mean loss of jobs. It will mean that our ability to progress biofuels will not be able to proceed. 
There is the whole case of Mr McNicholl and his investments but I will leave that for other speakers to talk about because that is an example of someone who invested on the basis of certainty and law and who found that that certainly did not carry through to the next Parliament and that the incoming Government was going to roll back that law. That is an example I think of where the Government has decided to take a series of steps for political reasons rather than for reasons of good policy. All I can say is that in the entire first reading speech which is when we would expect the rationale to come out there is a Minister who is using dishonest argument who is using figures that are selective and who is in fact totally befuddled when it comes to the logic of sustainability because this legislation sweeps away the sustainability criteria that are now in the primary legislation. At the end of this week there will be none of that and then anything will be able to flood into this country. 
So here we are in only the second week of Parliament and the list so far is that the emissions trading scheme will be put to a so-called high-level select committee that biofuels will be wound back that somehow or another it is really bad to have halogen or fluorescent lamps around this country and that the country will have other forms of environmental vandalism—all of which add up in total to this country moving into reverse. Later this week we will even be saying that it is OK to have gas-fired power stations all over again. 
Does the member not know that climate change is now up front of and central to global politics? Does the member not realise that there have been elections in recent times in Australia and in the US? Does the member not realise that far from being a leader around the place on a response to climate change this country is now becoming a follower? It has lost its way it is a slow follower—it is not a fast follower by any means—and it is illogical out of date heading in the wrong direction and completely befuddled. That is a disgrace in my view to this country.