Wagner Nicky: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Wagner Nicky: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 02 September 2008. Volume:649;Page:18305. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 Why are we rushing this legislation through the House now?  
Moana Mackey 
: Oh did you even listen?  
NICKY WAGNER 
: Just wait I say to the member. It is not because it is good legislation. It is because the Government has to be seen to be doing something now about climate change after 9 long years of inaction.  
There has been much debate tonight and in fact right round the world about the environmental benefits of biofuels. We have heard from dozens of world experts who are concerned about the use of biofuels and who debate the actual benefits of them. But Labour knows that those experts are wrong. There has been much debate about the cost of introducing the legislation and we have heard Moana Mackey the chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee going through those costs just now. A whole series of economists and people who work in the industry have given us their estimates. Moana Mackey is concerned that we in the National Party are considering what the oil companies say but the oil companies do work in the industry so that is significant as well. The Labour Party knows that those people are wrong and that this will not add costs—in fact experts right across the board are wrong in that respect.  
There has been much talk about the New Zealand Government requiring sustainable biofuels and about the Order in Council that will provide the criteria for these fuels and Moana Mackey just suggested that we look at the principles that are in the Biofuel Bill. So let us have a little look at them. They are in new section 34GA(3) in clause 9 of Part 1. The principles of sustainable biofuels are as follows. The first principle is less greenhouse gas: “Sustainable biofuels emit significantly less greenhouse gas over their life cycle than obligation engine fuel.” We agree with that. That makes sense—over their life cycle we should get less greenhouse gas. But the bill goes on to state that “the Order in Council must—(a) specify a methodology for life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from obligation engine fuels;”. That is an enormously difficult exercise. We know that people have tried to do that right round the world and no one has been able to come up with any sensible way to do it effectively.  
Paragraph (b) of this principle states that the Order in Council must “specify minimum levels of no less than 35% greenhouse gas emission reductions for qualifying biofuels …”. If we have a problem focusing on and sorting out how much that life cycle of greenhouse gas emissions is how can we possibly discover whether it is 35 percent less? So yes in principle that makes sense but in practice it is going to be enormously difficult to do.  
Let us look at the second principle which is to do with food production. “Sustainable biofuels do not compete with food production and are not grown on land of high value for food production.” The problem with that is that this will also be enormously difficult to assess to monitor and to ensure that sustainable biofuels are involved. They must not be by-products of food production—the ethanol from sugar cane grown in circumstances described by the Order in Council—and they talk about rotational oil seed crops. Again we have to come up with a methodology to figure out whether this will be good for biofuel and not food production.  
We are also saying here that they must come up with a mechanism that recognises the particular land and that includes land outside New Zealand. Can members imagine the amount of work that has to go into analysing land not only in New Zealand but also land outside New Zealand that would be used for high-value food production? It would be an enormous task.  
Let us look at Principle 3 which is to do with biodiversity and land with high conservation value. We have the same problem as with the assessment of land for food production. We have to come up with a mechanism to recognise this particular land both inside and outside New Zealand. When we look at those three principles yes they all make sense and yes we agree that that would underpin sustainable biofuels but to come up with that assessment and methodology will be enormously difficult. The bill also states that the Minister must recommend the Order in Council by 30 June 2009. That means there is just over a year and a half to do that—it is not quite as long as that—and we are really concerned that the Minister will not be able to do it. So yes in principle the principles behind the idea of sustainable biofuels make sense but in practice it will be very difficult to do.  
Let us go back to why we are rushing this legislation through the House under urgency. I am a little confused by some of the debate that has gone on tonight. One of the things that David Parker has been saying is that we need to introduce this legislation because unless we do oil companies will not be prepared to build infrastructure to underpin the use of biofuels. Without compulsion they will not build the infrastructure. Then on the other hand he states that the cost of building infrastructure is minimal—0.2c to 0.4c per litre over 4 years. That will not be a huge amount of money to build that infrastructure and it will not affect the cost of biofuels in the long term. So on the one hand the Minister is saying that there has to be compulsion because the cost of infrastructure will not be met otherwise and on the other hand he says that it is very cheap.  
Gull has already introduced biofuels to New Zealand and Moana Mackey tells us that Gull’s biofuels are actually cheaper than fossil fuels. So we have a situation where a company has already voluntarily introduced biofuels. Earlier today I spoke about a biofuel trial that went on in the bus fleet in Christchurch whereby a bus company was voluntarily and keenly using biofuels until the price of tallow went up and made the cost of the fuels prohibitive. The argument here is circular. If the infrastructure demands are not great and one company is already selling biofuels why do we need this legislation at all? Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker.