King Colin: Third Readings — 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
King Colin: Third Readings — 
[Sitting date: 02 September 2008. Volume:649;Page:18306. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It has been the Government’s point of view that the biofuels legislation as presented to us has been the best possible outcome; it will be best practice and world leading. But on this side of the House we say that that is rubbish when we see the shell the flimsy framework that makes up the legislation. For instance if we look at the principles we start to understand the issues and narrow-minded thinking of this Clark-Peters Government in its last days. As a nation we export 85 percent of what we produce and we can boast about being the very best protein producers of produce from a grass-fed farming source. That being said this legislation is presented in a wholly different light. Regardless of the notion of sustainability which in actual fact probably brought onside the Greens New Zealand First United Future and for that matter the Maori Party a whole lot of rubbish is made out of that claim that sustainability is the appropriate measure by which to have a biofuels law to underpin infrastructural development in the context of that notion of growing 0.5 percent in the first year growing through to 2.5 percent in the fourth year and then growing onwards. 
Whether or not we like it we live in a global village and by supporting this legislation to go through the House into law the Government in actual fact is interfering and creating an otherwise perverse effect. That perverse effect means that unless we create biofuels out of tallow whey or waste we will be producing them on land that we could more efficiently use to produce the proteins for which the world is clamouring. That is no better than the experiment that has occurred throughout the developed world whereby Governments have sought to create by tax and other perverse incentives a biofuel industry within their own countries. 
We have heard the arguments from the Government that we have to get started—“Let’s get on with it!”. But that mentality is a fortress mentality a fortress New Zealand mentality—that we will inhabit New Zealand in isolation just amongst ourselves and become totally efficient. That in my view is a very weak argument. Effectively that brings us very much back to the question of what a leader nation in this field would do under these circumstances. Well I will tell the House what a world leader would do. It would get about to partner with international research and development companies or other nations that are doing research and development and identify the best solutions going forward. That is not a new idea. In actual fact when we look at many of the biosecurity risks around farm animals be they bovine spongiform encephalopathy or foot and mouth disease we see that this is what is occurring. New Zealand recognises that it does not have the ability the scientific machine to do these things on its own even though it is a pastoral farming leader. It cooperates with Europe and with America it goes into partnerships with cooperative research centres in Australia and there is the multiplying effect of a good outcome. 
On that basis we are taken back to the arguments that were clearly articulated from this side of the House. We listened to the Minister when he got up and spoke to the second part of the Biofuel Bill and he made it sound as if this was just so rosy. There was not going to be a problem and it was not going to cost anybody anything but all of that flew in the face of a number of the submitters. It also flew in the face of a number of the expert scientific explanations from those countries that have endeavoured to set up a sustainable biofuels industry. It left members on this side of the House with the feeling that there was another agenda in behind all this which was borne out by the implementation date. 
The implementation date is 1 October 2008 which has to be considered in the context that it is planned for New Zealand to have a standard of sustainability by July 2009. Even that date is pretty flimsy because best expert advice has said that it will more likely be 2011. So we can see there is a determination to push this legislation through. Again we have seen MMP in operation whereby deals are done to make it politically expedient to be supporting such a notion. Then the numbers are there and the deal is done. This is standard form for the Clark-Peters Government in its last dying days. It was quite compelling in my view to have Nick Smith’s amendment about lining up the date of the implementation of this bill—should it pass into law—with the date of the ability to supply a sustainable standard an accurate standard. There was some concern expressed about that by the Government because in its truth of truths it understands just how really difficult it is to find an answer to this. That is borne out by the expert advice. 
When we look at the situation here of the biofuels legislation we see that clearly the record from this Government has been abysmal. As far as the Kyoto Protocol obligations go from 2001 to 2008 we have had some incredibly poor performances. The Government’s performance has been totally underwhelming to say the least. This legislation is very difficult and I was disappointed that the Minister did not take the opportunity to explain to members on this side of the House why biomethanol was given a 42.5c advantage or favouritism over bio-diesels. It would suggest to me that there was a very strong and compelling reason for picking winners like that. I do feel that we have rushed this situation. It seems to me to be a political answer in the face of a common-sense way forward. The legislation is certainly something that will come back to this House because when we go through it we find that it becomes very complex. There are heaps of regulations and a lot of Orders in Council and I believe that the Regulations Review Committee will be confronted time and time again with the interpretation of what indeed is sustainable—what in actual fact is 35 percent less by way of carbon emissions in a lifetime compared with the biofuels produced. 
It is with great disappointment on this side of the House that we are at this time of night—9 o’clock in urgency—pushing through legislation that will only have to come back to this House to be tidied up cleaned up when there was the opportunity of doing something collaboratively and internationally and genuinely solving a problem. Thank you.