Hughes Darren: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Hughes Darren: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:792] 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
: 
 This bill the Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill is in its second reading before the House. It is a very sad bill from a sad Government on this very important topic of climate change. Our country as the Hon David Parker has said has to take some pretty firm measures in response to climate change because we have so little influence over the profile of our greenhouse gas emissions. That means that every measure we take has to be thoughtful has to be resolute and has to actually mean something and do something. But this repeal bill takes away the real chance for New Zealand to be able to do something constructive with regard to climate change and it is a huge shame and a wasted opportunity that this Government has brought this bill before Parliament for debate today. 
It makes one wonder what the Government now says New Zealand is doing at all with regard to climate change. For a while after a movie called  
An Inconvenient Truth 
 came out the National Party decided that climate change was a popular topic and so there was a bit of a flurry of activity. That led to a very brief period of time when Dr Nick Smith thought he was relevant again and he was allowed to put out a Bluegreens discussion document. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: And where did that go? 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Actually just about the only thing that National stands for in terms of recycling was putting every copy of the Bluegreens vision document into the green wheelie bins around Parliament. That is the only thing those members have done in terms of the environment since the general election. We know that that document now is out of vogue and out of step because the National Party has moved on to something else. The new buzzword is that everything must be “balanced”. We must have balance with everything. So if one does nothing on the one hand one ought to do nothing on the other. That is the new balanced approach that National is bringing to New Zealand’s response on climate change. National has decided that it is no longer a sexy topic but the problem for National is that the science has not gone away. Of course there is a question mark over that because the whole world now waits with bated breath for the New Zealand select committee of Parliament— 
Moana Mackey 
: High-level. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: —which was elevated yesterday to a high-level select committee of course. I mean how anything can be high-level without the Hon Gerry Brownlee’s intellectual firepower on it is beyond me! In fact at the General Assembly of the United Nations they must be standing around the espresso machine saying that it is good of New Zealanders to decide for them what is happening about the science of climate change but that it is a pity that Mr Brownlee is not involved. That is what they are saying while they wait for the high-level committee to report back on the balanced approach of how one can do nothing on the one hand and less on the other. 
We will now have a ridiculous situation. People used to look at a little country like New Zealand—4 million people at the bottom of the earth—and see it as a bit of an honest broker. We have always punched above our weight on foreign policy; people have looked at what we have done and said that we have had a principled stand on things. They have said that we have always had good examples to back up our rhetoric on things. We have not just gone along and given the flash speeches heard at some international forums where countries with dubious records on things have got up and lectured everyone else. New Zealand has always been one of those countries that have been able to get up and say hand on heart that “This is the stand we are taking this is the reason for it and this is what we are actually going to do about it in our country to give effect to what we are saying.” 
Everything National has done since the election takes away from all of that. I can now see why it was so dismissive of and derisive towards the previous Labour Government’s ambitious goal of carbon neutrality for our country which was a vision statement of where we could actually try to go. National poured scorn on that—I thought it was just for political reasons. I thought it was just attacking the Labour Government of the day which is a fair cop in politics. Actually though it goes to something deeper than that. National does not want to do a blind thing about climate change and this biofuels repeal bill is a classic example of that. 
The problem is that this bill is not only bad for our response to climate change but it is also bad for jobs. This bill actually costs jobs in our economy at the very time the economy is in recession and job security is one of the things New Zealanders are worried about first and foremost. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Who’s the member for Waharoa? 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: My colleague Trevor Mallard makes the point: who represents the people of Waharoa in Parliament? Do National members know? Does the Minister know who the local MP for Waharoa is? There is a lot of silence. The Minister would not have a clue of course. I want to hear from the local member of Parliament about what he will do to stick up for jobs in his electorate because that is such a critical thing at this time. The National Government not only is weakening New Zealand’s reputation and taking us down a path that is very disappointing in terms of what we are able to do on climate change but also is stopping and cutting the feet from under New Zealand - based industry. 
We know that this Minister loves to cut the base from under New Zealand industry because one of his first bold moves was to cancel the Buy Kiwi Made Campaign which is one of the small things we tried to do to give New Zealand manufacturers a chance to say there was something decent about what they did. There are jobs for hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders in that sector and we wanted to show our support for it. The campaign cost very little for the good it did for New Zealand manufacturers but the Minister has got rid of it. Now he is bringing this bill to the House. We know that Mr Tom McNicholl has put $10 million of his money behind the biofuels industry. He wanted to create jobs—47 jobs I think as a start. If that industry had got under way there would have been more and more jobs but the Government’s very clear message is that it sees no future for biofuels. That is what this bill is about. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Rubbish! 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: The Minister says “Rubbish!” but where are his details on tax incentives? [ 
Interruption 
] That was not the question. Gerry Brownlee is barking away over there. That was not the question he was asked. I asked him why he does not have any details on tax incentives if he is genuinely in favour of biofuels. Where is that information? 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Just wait! 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: The point is that that is the Government’s policy on climate change—“Just wait!”. The point about climate change is that we cannot wait. We cannot have that luxury of laziness that conservative attitude of “She’ll be right; don’t worry about it. We’ll wait until Labour gets back in and fixes it up”. 
This is bigger than being just a New Zealand problem; this is a world problem that requires leadership from the Government. The only leadership that the Government has given is to say first and foremost let us cancel everything that was put there by the previous Government and let us talk about nothing that replaces it. The emissions trading scheme has been suspended even though the Prime Minister could not tell the House yesterday exactly what part is suspended. The biofuel legislation is now being repealed which will ruin any chance of a biofuels industry for New Zealand; it will ruin not only the jobs in that industry but also the chance for that industry to make a positive contribution to our economy in a clean and green way. 
Of course there is National’s disgraceful treatment of the forestry sector. We remember Dr Nick Smith coming into Parliament question time after question time screaming and ranting—that was just during the parliamentary prayer actually—as he does about the forestry sector and about his concerns about forestry. Yet National’s first thing here has meant that the new Labour Opposition’s first lobbyist friend is Dr Roger Dickie from the Kyoto Forestry Association. He is not somebody who normally sought meetings with Labour when we were in Government but he has been knocking on the door to ask us what on earth National is doing. 
In this climate change space the Government is very very disappointing; its getting rid of the biofuel legislation that is currently on the books is such a wasted opportunity for our country. I cannot understand why more members of the National Party are not motivated to ask Cabinet Ministers and the leaders of their party exactly what they will do now. When Labour was in Government its members wanted to be leaders in climate change. We were out there boldly saying that Labour thought New Zealand had a real role to be a leader in that area. The National Party disagreed with that because it never likes leading on anything. Those members said that they want to be fast followers. It was not actually their line; they waited for the New Zealand Institute to say that and then they decided that it was their slogan. They wanted us to turbo-charge our way to a balanced approach by being fast followers. It turns out that the engine on the turbo has been turned off completely and we now will not be fast followers; we will be people who just trot along. What will happen is that New Zealand will be completely overtaken in the climate change debate. 
We are a country whose economy is hugely dependent on primary industry and we require a stable climate in order to run this economy—not that we heard about agriculture science or exporting in the Speech from the Throne. National might like to work out that agriculture is the basis of the New Zealand economy; so much comes from it. We should be acting on climate change for selfish reasons. We should say that as an agriculture-dependent economy we should selfishly be worried about climate change because our economy is one of the ones that has the most at risk if we do not get it right—not only in agriculture but in horticulture in viticulture and in all the areas of our economy that rely so strongly on a stable climate. The world’s planet is so important to the basis of our economy that we should be acting selfishly if that is to be the only motivation. If that is the only way we can connect emotionally with National we should plead for it to act selfishly: “Please act selfishly on climate change.” That kind of language might get those members to do something about it. We were always motivated by saying not only that New Zealand had a role to play in the world that was bigger than just our own interests which were huge but also that we were able to lead in this field. This is just another example of National needlessly taking us backwards. 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Talk about the food crisis. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: The Minister of Immigration mentions the food crisis and I am very interested that he does so. With the obligation on the books right now New Zealand has the ability to be self-sustaining in this area. We could now already use all the tallow that is generated in New Zealand and we could meet our obligations today from that. If the Minister does not know that then it shows that not only has he not read the bill that is before the House but also he clearly did not pay any attention during the Cabinet committee or the Cabinet process. 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: What about the deforestation in Brazil? 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: The member asked about Brazil. I am glad he has asked about the Brazilians because National has not always been known for its open-minded foreign policy. If the Minister had read the legislation he would know that all of the concerns he is now yelling across the Chamber are covered by the legislation. Jacqui Dean shakes her head but in terms of her worrying about the resources of the planet I say that that was kind of put in the box when she said she wanted water to be banned and that she is the leading light of the National Party in that particular regard. 
This is a bad bill. The Labour Opposition strongly opposes it.