Auchinvole Chris: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading 
Auchinvole Chris: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:774] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast-Tasman) 
: 
 Like previous speakers as this is the first occasion on which I have had to speak during this term I take the opportunity to congratulate the Speaker the Deputy Speaker your colleague Eric Roy as Assistant Speaker and yourself Mr Assistant Speaker Barker on your elevation to the position of Speaker. I think it is appropriate to say the people of Runanga where I understand Mr Assistant Speaker you were brought up as a boy particularly with your grandparents are very proud of the occasion. Although your ascension is from the West Coast and I now represent the coast I do not expect any special privilege to be afforded to me while you are in the Chair. 
I can understand the disappointment in the Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill of some people who have an intense feeling over carbon emissions; I can understand their initial disappointment in the bill. But the fact is that the more serious that people are about that subject the better pleased they should be that this bill is being brought in. If this bill had not been introduced there would be a very real risk that New Zealand would be contributing to the global food crisis. 
Moana Mackey 
: Oh for God’s sake— 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: There are those like the member opposite Moana Mackey who will frown scrunch up their faces and say our requirements are so small they could not possibly affect the world food crisis. But the argument is like that with regard to carbon production: the production is very small but nonetheless it has an impact—the same thing applies. 
I well remember that when I first came into Parliament I was appointed as associate spokesperson on energy. That entitled me to one of the great things about being in Parliament which is access to people from all walks of life and from all sorts of industries. We had the opportunity to speak with a large oil company executive—he was a large gentleman but it was a large oil company—and he was talking about his company’s move into the use of biofuels. He made it very plain the purpose was to make money; it was not to save the planet. Indeed he did say in conversation that the production of biofuels in the way that his company was doing it would in fact create more carbon than it would save. Reducing carbon was not the issue. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: That’s right. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: I thank the Minister of Energy and Resources for remembering that occasion. 
The oil company executive spoke about the displacement of food crops—the corn wars in Mexico where suddenly corn for tortillas and those sorts of things was going into biofuel and not into food with the consequence that Mexico’s natural foodstuff which was generally a lower-cost foodstuff was going up in price to a point where it could not be afforded. He spoke about the benefits of using equatorial lands and sub-equatorial lands. He thought from the point of view of ensuring that crops were used to maximum advantage that perhaps genetically modified crops would be the best way to go. 
Far more has to be done in terms of ensuring we have standards for sustainable production of biofuels before we move too quickly into this area. A quick calculation shows we would need 60 million - plus litres per year. We have heard people speak about enterprises that were planning to have those sorts of figures; they certainly would not have them straight away. There would be a need to import biofuel and there would be no guarantee at all that the products we imported would be sustainably produced. Naturally many first-generation products like those made from soy rapeseed and sugar compete for food production and I am amazed to hear people say “No we wouldn’t grow it where you could grow food.” Well how can we have that classification— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: We’d just get it from overseas; don’t worry. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Say it again? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Jacqui Dean—we’d just get it from overseas. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: But how could we have that classification—that it will not be grown where food could be grown? If a biomass can be grown to produce biofuel I presume from that that unless it is on land that is vertical or overhanging the same land could be used for food production. It is incontestable that the sudden rush into biofuels is causing a huge destruction of rainforests. That is hardly going for growth and benefits in terms of the world biosecurity situation. The cost of production and the amount of carbon released nullifies the potential benefits of biofuel. 
We have heard the speeches this evening; they have been very intense and they have been very sincere from members from all sides of the House who have spoken. I was particularly taken with the points made by Rahui Katene albeit that she voted against the bill; I thought she argued the situation very well. Peter Dunne also brought up good points. But the reality is that there was going to be a cost obligation of $240 million per year; we heard that from Dr Smith. 
We use a sustainability standard we need a sustainability standard and we need to know that the biofuels that are produced are measured against that standard before there can be any compulsion in their use or a mandatory obligation. It is the mandatory obligation here that is the problem. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Aha! 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Yes it is! This is a Government of commitment not of regulating blindly for the sake of regulating. This bill is a good instance of a commitment to sensible and well-reasoned legislation. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker.