Hide Rodney: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hide Rodney: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 02 September 2008. Volume:649;Page:18308. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 It is typical that in the dying days of a teetering Government under urgency on a Wednesday night we are rushing through legislation that sets down—to the hundredth of 1 percent graduated over time—how much biofuel we are to have in our fuel. This Government wants to tell us what we can put in our kids’ tucker boxes it wants to regulate our light bulbs and it wants to regulate every little part of our lives and every part of the value chain of a modern economy. Why do Government members want to do that? There are two reasons. The first is that they love the exercise of power. They love telling people what to do how to do it and when they can do it and they love telling people what they cannot do. They love the moral superiority that power gives them so this legislation tells oil companies and consumers how they have to mix their fuel.  
The legislation is like the Electoral Finance Act which regulates political expression but of course none of the rules ever apply to the Government. That is the amazing thing. It seems that the Electoral Finance Act does not apply to the Labour Party. The financial disclosure regime does not apply to New Zealand First; it is just for everyone else. The Government can break the law and the rules at will because it is morally superior. It is everyone else who is corrupt and crooked and who needs to be told what to do and how to do it. Everyone else needs the finger wagged at them. Even simple principles of common jurisprudence such as being innocent until proven guilty apply to the Government when it is in trouble but not to anyone else. It is typical of this legislation and of the Government’s telling us how to live our lives that Helen Clark said that a man was an honourable man and innocent until proven guilty when Judge Dalmer had found in a court of law in relation to  
Cushing v Peters 
 that the man was a liar and a malicious liar at that. Yet the Serious Fraud Office was guilty. The Serious Fraud Office was guilty of what? 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am sure that this is very interesting but I think the member should go back to the legislation. I for one am interested in ACT’s viewpoint on this legislation but I am beginning to conclude that it does not have one. I believe that Mr Hide should be instructed to go back to the legislation. He can have a wide-ranging debate on the legislation but the Serious Fraud Office and judgments of years gone by are really not part of it.  
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Mr Brown you must have been reading my mind because I have just opened up the Speakers’ rulings on relevancy. I was trying to find what in Mr Hide’s speech was relevant. Mr Hide please speak to the legislation before the House.  
RODNEY HIDE 
: I am happy to Madam Assistant Speaker. I was just drawing a long bow about the busybody nature of the Labour-Helen Clark-Peters Government.  
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Here we go again! 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I ask Trevor to pipe down.  
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Can I have order from both sides please. Would you continue with your speech Mr Hide.  
RODNEY HIDE 
: This legislation reflects the busybody nature of this Government. Under this legislation we will start off with 0.53 percent of biofuels in 2008 and each year the percentage will increase until we end up according to this bill at an upper level of 3.4 percent in 2012.  
Peter Brown 
: I think the member should read the amended bill.  
RODNEY HIDE 
: Well I am just reading the obligation as set up. I ask Mr Brown how much it should be.  
Peter Brown 
: Oh for goodness’ sake Mr Hide read the literature. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: How much should it be? 
Peter Brown 
: It is 2.5. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Oh you see the level started off at 3.4 percent but the Government members sat around at the Local Government and Environment Committee and decided with the wisdom of ages that the level of 3.4 percent was a little high and that it should be put back to 2.5 percent. That is how these guys think we make fuel—that we sit around in a political committee and decide the composition of fuel. The Government knows so much! The level started off at 3.4 percent but Government members sat around in the select committee and decided after getting expert opinion from engineers after hearing all the cost-benefit analysis and with their super knowledge of the world climate that the level should be—what was it I ask Mr Brown—2.5 percent. But that is just the start because each year the level will be ratcheted up a wee bit. But the Government cannot tell us what the environmental benefit of it is.  
Peter Brown 
: I’ll bet you Jeannette Fitzsimons can. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I bet she cannot actually because I promise members that we do not know what the resource costs of the scheme are at the margin and what its impact on the environment will be. If Mr Brown thinks that the environment and the economy are such simple things that we can set a simple percentage crank it up by 0.5 percent each year and suddenly achieve a net gain then he is under a massive misapprehension about the complexity of an economy the complexity of social interactions and in particular the complexity of the environment. It is not a system that can be easily engineered. It is not a mechanical system where one can push here and get a result over there. It is far more subtle and far more complex than that. Indeed I ask Mr Brown why if the Government has confidence in its emissions trading scheme he is debating this bill.  
Peter Brown 
: I’m sure you don’t want me to answer that Rodney.  
RODNEY HIDE 
: I look forward to Mr Brown taking a call to tell us whether he has confidence in this bill. 
I heard Mr Brown and some Government speakers say that the fuel companies were against the bill but that the biofuel suppliers were in favour of it. Well that is a surprise. Why not do this for other things? Why not do it for carrots? Why not say that when we eat dinner 2.5 percent of it must be carrots? I am sure that if we did that the carrot growers— 
Katherine Rich 
: Brussels sprouts. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Brussels sprouts will be next. Government members will sit around and debate what percentage of our food intake should be carrots and what percentage should be brussels sprouts because they know best. Here is the interesting thing: if we did that carrot suppliers would probably come along to a select committee and make a submission saying that they thought the percentage should be a bit higher and that it would be good for the environment. Even that great arch-interventionist Sir Robert Muldoon never got down to this level of detail and specificity—never—because he was not that vain.  
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Speci-what? Can you say that again? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Clayton Cosgrove has opened up. How interesting! I ask him how the real estate bill is going.  
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Hold on; help is on the way Rodney. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: He must have sorted out Mr Peters because he says that help is on the way.  
Hon Bill English 
: He went on the list because he knows he’ll lose Waimakariri.  
RODNEY HIDE 
: He has got on the list? What an admission. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Please come to the legislation.  
RODNEY HIDE 
: After all these years— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Could we come to the legislation please? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I am sorry but if Mr Cosgrove is chipping at me about the English language am I not allowed to respond? Is that now against the rules too Madam Assistant Speaker? Is it only allowed to be all one way in this House? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: The member is trifling. Would the member sit down please; I am on my feet. There was a chip there was an answer back and then we started up a conversation there that was totally off the legislation. The member had 1 minute to go and he now has 30 seconds to go. Would the member please complete his call. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I just wish that Speakers would actually let a person speak and not let it be all one-way traffic from that— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The point of order is one that is absolutely obvious. The member is now commenting again on your ruling. Clearly that is in breach of Speakers’ rulings over many many years. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I thank you Mr Mallard; I doubt whether I need much help at the moment. The member has 15 seconds still to go please. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: It is going quickly. Anyway it is for those reasons that we oppose this legislation we oppose this Government we oppose Clayton Cosgrove in Waimakariri—it is good news that even he has given up—and we oppose New Zealand First.