❓ Hon Paul Llewellyn asks about the status of the Biofuels Taskforce report, government response timeline, and consideration of volumetric biofuels targets. Hon Kim Chance responds, outlining the report's scrutiny, industry changes, and his personal support for biofuel targets and mandates, while acknowledging the need for broader government consideration.
AnsweredQoN 163Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
WESTERN AUSTRALIAN BIOFUELS TASKFORCE
I refer to the Western Australian Biofuels Taskforce, which reported more than 12 months ago, and to public concerns regarding competition of biofuels with land and water use in food production. (1) What has become of the Biofuels Taskforce report and its recommendations? (2) When will the government response to the report be tabled? (3) Is the government considering establishing a volumetric biofuels target? (4) If yes to (3), why? (5) If no to (3), why not? Hon KIM CHANCE
I refer to the Western Australian Biofuels Taskforce, which reported more than 12 months ago, and to public concerns regarding competition of biofuels with land and water use in food production. (1) What has become of the Biofuels Taskforce report and its recommendations? (2) When will the government response to the report be tabled? (3) Is the government considering establishing a volumetric biofuels target? (4) If yes to (3), why? (5) If no to (3), why not? Hon KIM CHANCE
AnswerView source ↗
I think I got the gist of that five-part question. (1)-(5) The Biofuels Taskforce report has been under scrutiny by government since it was tabled. A number of changes have occurred within the structure of the biofuels industry in Australia and, indeed, to the degree of commitment to the biofuels sector overseas. This has occurred most particularly in the European Union, which has recently launched a review of its commitment to the biofuels mandate provisions. I did not quite get part (2) of the question, but I think it related to when the government is likely to respond to the recommendations of the Biofuels Taskforce report — Hon Paul Llewellyn : The third one is: are you concerned? Hon KIM CHANCE : Once the government has completed its consideration of all the multiple issues—that is, those raised in the Biofuels Taskforce report as well as matters that have arisen since that report was tabled—the government will be in a position to iterate its view on the recommendations and, indeed, the bulk of the report itself. Part (3) of the question asked whether the government is likely to accept a recommendation for a target; and the question then asked: if yes, why; and, if no, why not? Hon Paul Llewellyn : If yes, why; and, if no, why? Hon KIM CHANCE : I could ask why not! The Biofuels Taskforce recommended a target of five per cent biofuel use by 2010, and further recommended that if the target of five per cent biofuel was not reached by 2011, a mandate provision should take effect. I do not know how the government will move on that. I can tell the member my position: I support both propositions. However, it is for other ministers and agencies within government to come forward with their views on that matter; indeed, that is one of the issues that is being looked at most carefully. In response to parts (4) and (5) of the question, if the answer was yes, my view is that a target and the mandate are both defensible and highly desirable. I believe that biofuels are capable of making a very significant contribution to the Australian economy, and to the Western Australian economy in particular. If the answer is no, I cannot answer part (5) because it is not my position. It might be helpful to give the member some guidance on my views. I support what the European Union has done in calling for a review of its commitment to the mandate, because we can all learn something from the EU’s review. What has driven the EU review, if I am reading it correctly, primarily has been its concern about the replacement of native habitat, particularly tropical rainforest habitat, by palm oil plantations, most particularly in Indonesia and Malaysia. It would be healthy for the EU to carry out and publish that study because we all need to know that information. However, that would have no bearing whatsoever on Western Australia’s commitment to biofuels because we do not plan to use palm as one of our major feedstocks. Hon Paul Llewellyn : Nor did they. Hon KIM CHANCE : No, they did not, which is interesting. I do not quite understand what their problem is, because biodiesel manufacture in the European Union is really limited to manufacture from canola oil. The other matter that has since emerged has been the question of food for fuel. That seems to be more a part of Great Britain’s issue. I think that argument is a nonsense, frankly, and I am surprised when I see some of the arguments advanced by people who I think ought to know better. I am quite happy to explain why I think the argument is a nonsense, but this is not the right place to do that. However, the vast bulk of feedstock is going into the production of ethanol in particular, and the argument seems to be about ethanol rather than biodiesel. The vast bulk of international production of ethanol comes from either Brazilian sugar or United States corn, neither of which is an essential element in the human food chain.
(1) What has become of the Biofuels Taskforce report and its recommendations? (2) When will the government response to the report be tabled? (3) Is the government considering establishing a volumetric biofuels target? (4) If yes to (3), why? (5) If no to (3), why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I think I got the gist of that five-part question. (1)-(5) The Biofuels Taskforce report has been under scrutiny by government since it was tabled. A number of changes have occurred within the structure of the biofuels industry in Australia and, indeed, to the degree of commitment to the biofuels sector overseas. This has occurred most particularly in the European Union, which has recently launched a review of its commitment to the biofuels mandate provisions. I did not quite get part (2) of the question, but I think it related to when the government is likely to respond to the recommendations of the Biofuels Taskforce report — Hon Paul Llewellyn : The third one is: are you concerned? Hon KIM CHANCE : Once the government has completed its consideration of all the multiple issues—that is, those raised in the Biofuels Taskforce report as well as matters that have arisen since that report was tabled—the government will be in a position to iterate its view on the recommendations and, indeed, the bulk of the report itself. Part (3) of the question asked whether the government is likely to accept a recommendation for a target; and the question then asked: if yes, why; and, if no, why not? Hon Paul Llewellyn : If yes, why; and, if no, why? Hon KIM CHANCE : I could ask why not! The Biofuels Taskforce recommended a target of five per cent biofuel use by 2010, and further recommended that if the target of five per cent biofuel was not reached by 2011, a mandate provision should take effect. I do not know how the government will move on that. I can tell the member my position: I support both propositions. However, it is for other ministers and agencies within government to come forward with their views on that matter; indeed, that is one of the issues that is being looked at most carefully. In response to parts (4) and (5) of the question, if the answer was yes, my view is that a target and the mandate are both defensible and highly desirable. I believe that biofuels are capable of making a very significant contribution to the Australian economy, and to the Western Australian economy in particular. If the answer is no, I cannot answer part (5) because it is not my position. It might be helpful to give the member some guidance on my views. I support what the European Union has done in calling for a review of its commitment to the mandate, because we can all learn something from the EU’s review. What has driven the EU review, if I am reading it correctly, primarily has been its concern about the replacement of native habitat, particularly tropical rainforest habitat, by palm oil plantations, most particularly in Indonesia and Malaysia. It would be healthy for the EU to carry out and publish that study because we all need to know that information. However, that would have no bearing whatsoever on Western Australia’s commitment to biofuels because we do not plan to use palm as one of our major feedstocks. Hon Paul Llewellyn : Nor did they. Hon KIM CHANCE : No, they did not, which is interesting. I do not quite understand what their problem is, because biodiesel manufacture in the European Union is really limited to manufacture from canola oil. The other matter that has since emerged has been the question of food for fuel. That seems to be more a part of Great Britain’s issue. I think that argument is a nonsense, frankly, and I am surprised when I see some of the arguments advanced by people who I think ought to know better. I am quite happy to explain why I think the argument is a nonsense, but this is not the right place to do that. However, the vast bulk of feedstock is going into the production of ethanol in particular, and the argument seems to be about ethanol rather than biodiesel. The vast bulk of international production of ethanol comes from either Brazilian sugar or United States corn, neither of which is an essential element in the human food chain.
(2) When will the government response to the report be tabled? (3) Is the government considering establishing a volumetric biofuels target? (4) If yes to (3), why? (5) If no to (3), why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I think I got the gist of that five-part question. (1)-(5) The Biofuels Taskforce report has been under scrutiny by government since it was tabled. A number of changes have occurred within the structure of the biofuels industry in Australia and, indeed, to the degree of commitment to the biofuels sector overseas. This has occurred most particularly in the European Union, which has recently launched a review of its commitment to the biofuels mandate provisions. I did not quite get part (2) of the question, but I think it related to when the government is likely to respond to the recommendations of the Biofuels Taskforce report — Hon Paul Llewellyn : The third one is: are you concerned? Hon KIM CHANCE : Once the government has completed its consideration of all the multiple issues—that is, those raised in the Biofuels Taskforce report as well as matters that have arisen since that report was tabled—the government will be in a position to iterate its view on the recommendations and, indeed, the bulk of the report itself. Part (3) of the question asked whether the government is likely to accept a recommendation for a target; and the question then asked: if yes, why; and, if no, why not? Hon Paul Llewellyn : If yes, why; and, if no, why? Hon KIM CHANCE : I could ask why not! The Biofuels Taskforce recommended a target of five per cent biofuel use by 2010, and further recommended that if the target of five per cent biofuel was not reached by 2011, a mandate provision should take effect. I do not know how the government will move on that. I can tell the member my position: I support both propositions. However, it is for other ministers and agencies within government to come forward with their views on that matter; indeed, that is one of the issues that is being looked at most carefully. In response to parts (4) and (5) of the question, if the answer was yes, my view is that a target and the mandate are both defensible and highly desirable. I believe that biofuels are capable of making a very significant contribution to the Australian economy, and to the Western Australian economy in particular. If the answer is no, I cannot answer part (5) because it is not my position. It might be helpful to give the member some guidance on my views. I support what the European Union has done in calling for a review of its commitment to the mandate, because we can all learn something from the EU’s review. What has driven the EU review, if I am reading it correctly, primarily has been its concern about the replacement of native habitat, particularly tropical rainforest habitat, by palm oil plantations, most particularly in Indonesia and Malaysia. It would be healthy for the EU to carry out and publish that study because we all need to know that information. However, that would have no bearing whatsoever on Western Australia’s commitment to biofuels because we do not plan to use palm as one of our major feedstocks. Hon Paul Llewellyn : Nor did they. Hon KIM CHANCE : No, they did not, which is interesting. I do not quite understand what their problem is, because biodiesel manufacture in the European Union is really limited to manufacture from canola oil. The other matter that has since emerged has been the question of food for fuel. That seems to be more a part of Great Britain’s issue. I think that argument is a nonsense, frankly, and I am surprised when I see some of the arguments advanced by people who I think ought to know better. I am quite happy to explain why I think the argument is a nonsense, but this is not the right place to do that. However, the vast bulk of feedstock is going into the production of ethanol in particular, and the argument seems to be about ethanol rather than biodiesel. The vast bulk of international production of ethanol comes from either Brazilian sugar or United States corn, neither of which is an essential element in the human food chain.
(3) Is the government considering establishing a volumetric biofuels target? (4) If yes to (3), why? (5) If no to (3), why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I think I got the gist of that five-part question. (1)-(5) The Biofuels Taskforce report has been under scrutiny by government since it was tabled. A number of changes have occurred within the structure of the biofuels industry in Australia and, indeed, to the degree of commitment to the biofuels sector overseas. This has occurred most particularly in the European Union, which has recently launched a review of its commitment to the biofuels mandate provisions. I did not quite get part (2) of the question, but I think it related to when the government is likely to respond to the recommendations of the Biofuels Taskforce report — Hon Paul Llewellyn : The third one is: are you concerned? Hon KIM CHANCE : Once the government has completed its consideration of all the multiple issues—that is, those raised in the Biofuels Taskforce report as well as matters that have arisen since that report was tabled—the government will be in a position to iterate its view on the recommendations and, indeed, the bulk of the report itself. Part (3) of the question asked whether the government is likely to accept a recommendation for a target; and the question then asked: if yes, why; and, if no, why not? Hon Paul Llewellyn : If yes, why; and, if no, why? Hon KIM CHANCE : I could ask why not! The Biofuels Taskforce recommended a target of five per cent biofuel use by 2010, and further recommended that if the target of five per cent biofuel was not reached by 2011, a mandate provision should take effect. I do not know how the government will move on that. I can tell the member my position: I support both propositions. However, it is for other ministers and agencies within government to come forward with their views on that matter; indeed, that is one of the issues that is being looked at most carefully. In response to parts (4) and (5) of the question, if the answer was yes, my view is that a target and the mandate are both defensible and highly desirable. I believe that biofuels are capable of making a very significant contribution to the Australian economy, and to the Western Australian economy in particular. If the answer is no, I cannot answer part (5) because it is not my position. It might be helpful to give the member some guidance on my views. I support what the European Union has done in calling for a review of its commitment to the mandate, because we can all learn something from the EU’s review. What has driven the EU review, if I am reading it correctly, primarily has been its concern about the replacement of native habitat, particularly tropical rainforest habitat, by palm oil plantations, most particularly in Indonesia and Malaysia. It would be healthy for the EU to carry out and publish that study because we all need to know that information. However, that would have no bearing whatsoever on Western Australia’s commitment to biofuels because we do not plan to use palm as one of our major feedstocks. Hon Paul Llewellyn : Nor did they. Hon KIM CHANCE : No, they did not, which is interesting. I do not quite understand what their problem is, because biodiesel manufacture in the European Union is really limited to manufacture from canola oil. The other matter that has since emerged has been the question of food for fuel. That seems to be more a part of Great Britain’s issue. I think that argument is a nonsense, frankly, and I am surprised when I see some of the arguments advanced by people who I think ought to know better. I am quite happy to explain why I think the argument is a nonsense, but this is not the right place to do that. However, the vast bulk of feedstock is going into the production of ethanol in particular, and the argument seems to be about ethanol rather than biodiesel. The vast bulk of international production of ethanol comes from either Brazilian sugar or United States corn, neither of which is an essential element in the human food chain.
(4) If yes to (3), why? (5) If no to (3), why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I think I got the gist of that five-part question. (1)-(5) The Biofuels Taskforce report has been under scrutiny by government since it was tabled. A number of changes have occurred within the structure of the biofuels industry in Australia and, indeed, to the degree of commitment to the biofuels sector overseas. This has occurred most particularly in the European Union, which has recently launched a review of its commitment to the biofuels mandate provisions. I did not quite get part (2) of the question, but I think it related to when the government is likely to respond to the recommendations of the Biofuels Taskforce report — Hon Paul Llewellyn : The third one is: are you concerned? Hon KIM CHANCE : Once the government has completed its consideration of all the multiple issues—that is, those raised in the Biofuels Taskforce report as well as matters that have arisen since that report was tabled—the government will be in a position to iterate its view on the recommendations and, indeed, the bulk of the report itself. Part (3) of the question asked whether the government is likely to accept a recommendation for a target; and the question then asked: if yes, why; and, if no, why not? Hon Paul Llewellyn : If yes, why; and, if no, why? Hon KIM CHANCE : I could ask why not! The Biofuels Taskforce recommended a target of five per cent biofuel use by 2010, and further recommended that if the target of five per cent biofuel was not reached by 2011, a mandate provision should take effect. I do not know how the government will move on that. I can tell the member my position: I support both propositions. However, it is for other ministers and agencies within government to come forward with their views on that matter; indeed, that is one of the issues that is being looked at most carefully. In response to parts (4) and (5) of the question, if the answer was yes, my view is that a target and the mandate are both defensible and highly desirable. I believe that biofuels are capable of making a very significant contribution to the Australian economy, and to the Western Australian economy in particular. If the answer is no, I cannot answer part (5) because it is not my position. It might be helpful to give the member some guidance on my views. I support what the European Union has done in calling for a review of its commitment to the mandate, because we can all learn something from the EU’s review. What has driven the EU review, if I am reading it correctly, primarily has been its concern about the replacement of native habitat, particularly tropical rainforest habitat, by palm oil plantations, most particularly in Indonesia and Malaysia. It would be healthy for the EU to carry out and publish that study because we all need to know that information. However, that would have no bearing whatsoever on Western Australia’s commitment to biofuels because we do not plan to use palm as one of our major feedstocks. Hon Paul Llewellyn : Nor did they. Hon KIM CHANCE : No, they did not, which is interesting. I do not quite understand what their problem is, because biodiesel manufacture in the European Union is really limited to manufacture from canola oil. The other matter that has since emerged has been the question of food for fuel. That seems to be more a part of Great Britain’s issue. I think that argument is a nonsense, frankly, and I am surprised when I see some of the arguments advanced by people who I think ought to know better. I am quite happy to explain why I think the argument is a nonsense, but this is not the right place to do that. However, the vast bulk of feedstock is going into the production of ethanol in particular, and the argument seems to be about ethanol rather than biodiesel. The vast bulk of international production of ethanol comes from either Brazilian sugar or United States corn, neither of which is an essential element in the human food chain.
(5) If no to (3), why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I think I got the gist of that five-part question. (1)-(5) The Biofuels Taskforce report has been under scrutiny by government since it was tabled. A number of changes have occurred within the structure of the biofuels industry in Australia and, indeed, to the degree of commitment to the biofuels sector overseas. This has occurred most particularly in the European Union, which has recently launched a review of its commitment to the biofuels mandate provisions. I did not quite get part (2) of the question, but I think it related to when the government is likely to respond to the recommendations of the Biofuels Taskforce report — Hon Paul Llewellyn : The third one is: are you concerned? Hon KIM CHANCE : Once the government has completed its consideration of all the multiple issues—that is, those raised in the Biofuels Taskforce report as well as matters that have arisen since that report was tabled—the government will be in a position to iterate its view on the recommendations and, indeed, the bulk of the report itself. Part (3) of the question asked whether the government is likely to accept a recommendation for a target; and the question then asked: if yes, why; and, if no, why not? Hon Paul Llewellyn : If yes, why; and, if no, why? Hon KIM CHANCE : I could ask why not! The Biofuels Taskforce recommended a target of five per cent biofuel use by 2010, and further recommended that if the target of five per cent biofuel was not reached by 2011, a mandate provision should take effect. I do not know how the government will move on that. I can tell the member my position: I support both propositions. However, it is for other ministers and agencies within government to come forward with their views on that matter; indeed, that is one of the issues that is being looked at most carefully. In response to parts (4) and (5) of the question, if the answer was yes, my view is that a target and the mandate are both defensible and highly desirable. I believe that biofuels are capable of making a very significant contribution to the Australian economy, and to the Western Australian economy in particular. If the answer is no, I cannot answer part (5) because it is not my position. It might be helpful to give the member some guidance on my views. I support what the European Union has done in calling for a review of its commitment to the mandate, because we can all learn something from the EU’s review. What has driven the EU review, if I am reading it correctly, primarily has been its concern about the replacement of native habitat, particularly tropical rainforest habitat, by palm oil plantations, most particularly in Indonesia and Malaysia. It would be healthy for the EU to carry out and publish that study because we all need to know that information. However, that would have no bearing whatsoever on Western Australia’s commitment to biofuels because we do not plan to use palm as one of our major feedstocks. Hon Paul Llewellyn : Nor did they. Hon KIM CHANCE : No, they did not, which is interesting. I do not quite understand what their problem is, because biodiesel manufacture in the European Union is really limited to manufacture from canola oil. The other matter that has since emerged has been the question of food for fuel. That seems to be more a part of Great Britain’s issue. I think that argument is a nonsense, frankly, and I am surprised when I see some of the arguments advanced by people who I think ought to know better. I am quite happy to explain why I think the argument is a nonsense, but this is not the right place to do that. However, the vast bulk of feedstock is going into the production of ethanol in particular, and the argument seems to be about ethanol rather than biodiesel. The vast bulk of international production of ethanol comes from either Brazilian sugar or United States corn, neither of which is an essential element in the human food chain.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I think I got the gist of that five-part question. (1)-(5) The Biofuels Taskforce report has been under scrutiny by government since it was tabled. A number of changes have occurred within the structure of the biofuels industry in Australia and, indeed, to the degree of commitment to the biofuels sector overseas. This has occurred most particularly in the European Union, which has recently launched a review of its commitment to the biofuels mandate provisions. I did not quite get part (2) of the question, but I think it related to when the government is likely to respond to the recommendations of the Biofuels Taskforce report — Hon Paul Llewellyn : The third one is: are you concerned? Hon KIM CHANCE : Once the government has completed its consideration of all the multiple issues—that is, those raised in the Biofuels Taskforce report as well as matters that have arisen since that report was tabled—the government will be in a position to iterate its view on the recommendations and, indeed, the bulk of the report itself. Part (3) of the question asked whether the government is likely to accept a recommendation for a target; and the question then asked: if yes, why; and, if no, why not? Hon Paul Llewellyn : If yes, why; and, if no, why? Hon KIM CHANCE : I could ask why not! The Biofuels Taskforce recommended a target of five per cent biofuel use by 2010, and further recommended that if the target of five per cent biofuel was not reached by 2011, a mandate provision should take effect. I do not know how the government will move on that. I can tell the member my position: I support both propositions. However, it is for other ministers and agencies within government to come forward with their views on that matter; indeed, that is one of the issues that is being looked at most carefully. In response to parts (4) and (5) of the question, if the answer was yes, my view is that a target and the mandate are both defensible and highly desirable. I believe that biofuels are capable of making a very significant contribution to the Australian economy, and to the Western Australian economy in particular. If the answer is no, I cannot answer part (5) because it is not my position. It might be helpful to give the member some guidance on my views. I support what the European Union has done in calling for a review of its commitment to the mandate, because we can all learn something from the EU’s review. What has driven the EU review, if I am reading it correctly, primarily has been its concern about the replacement of native habitat, particularly tropical rainforest habitat, by palm oil plantations, most particularly in Indonesia and Malaysia. It would be healthy for the EU to carry out and publish that study because we all need to know that information. However, that would have no bearing whatsoever on Western Australia’s commitment to biofuels because we do not plan to use palm as one of our major feedstocks. Hon Paul Llewellyn : Nor did they. Hon KIM CHANCE : No, they did not, which is interesting. I do not quite understand what their problem is, because biodiesel manufacture in the European Union is really limited to manufacture from canola oil. The other matter that has since emerged has been the question of food for fuel. That seems to be more a part of Great Britain’s issue. I think that argument is a nonsense, frankly, and I am surprised when I see some of the arguments advanced by people who I think ought to know better. I am quite happy to explain why I think the argument is a nonsense, but this is not the right place to do that. However, the vast bulk of feedstock is going into the production of ethanol in particular, and the argument seems to be about ethanol rather than biodiesel. The vast bulk of international production of ethanol comes from either Brazilian sugar or United States corn, neither of which is an essential element in the human food chain.
I think I got the gist of that five-part question. (1)-(5) The Biofuels Taskforce report has been under scrutiny by government since it was tabled. A number of changes have occurred within the structure of the biofuels industry in Australia and, indeed, to the degree of commitment to the biofuels sector overseas. This has occurred most particularly in the European Union, which has recently launched a review of its commitment to the biofuels mandate provisions. I did not quite get part (2) of the question, but I think it related to when the government is likely to respond to the recommendations of the Biofuels Taskforce report — Hon Paul Llewellyn : The third one is: are you concerned? Hon KIM CHANCE : Once the government has completed its consideration of all the multiple issues—that is, those raised in the Biofuels Taskforce report as well as matters that have arisen since that report was tabled—the government will be in a position to iterate its view on the recommendations and, indeed, the bulk of the report itself. Part (3) of the question asked whether the government is likely to accept a recommendation for a target; and the question then asked: if yes, why; and, if no, why not? Hon Paul Llewellyn : If yes, why; and, if no, why? Hon KIM CHANCE : I could ask why not! The Biofuels Taskforce recommended a target of five per cent biofuel use by 2010, and further recommended that if the target of five per cent biofuel was not reached by 2011, a mandate provision should take effect. I do not know how the government will move on that. I can tell the member my position: I support both propositions. However, it is for other ministers and agencies within government to come forward with their views on that matter; indeed, that is one of the issues that is being looked at most carefully. In response to parts (4) and (5) of the question, if the answer was yes, my view is that a target and the mandate are both defensible and highly desirable. I believe that biofuels are capable of making a very significant contribution to the Australian economy, and to the Western Australian economy in particular. If the answer is no, I cannot answer part (5) because it is not my position. It might be helpful to give the member some guidance on my views. I support what the European Union has done in calling for a review of its commitment to the mandate, because we can all learn something from the EU’s review. What has driven the EU review, if I am reading it correctly, primarily has been its concern about the replacement of native habitat, particularly tropical rainforest habitat, by palm oil plantations, most particularly in Indonesia and Malaysia. It would be healthy for the EU to carry out and publish that study because we all need to know that information. However, that would have no bearing whatsoever on Western Australia’s commitment to biofuels because we do not plan to use palm as one of our major feedstocks. Hon Paul Llewellyn : Nor did they. Hon KIM CHANCE : No, they did not, which is interesting. I do not quite understand what their problem is, because biodiesel manufacture in the European Union is really limited to manufacture from canola oil. The other matter that has since emerged has been the question of food for fuel. That seems to be more a part of Great Britain’s issue. I think that argument is a nonsense, frankly, and I am surprised when I see some of the arguments advanced by people who I think ought to know better. I am quite happy to explain why I think the argument is a nonsense, but this is not the right place to do that. However, the vast bulk of feedstock is going into the production of ethanol in particular, and the argument seems to be about ethanol rather than biodiesel. The vast bulk of international production of ethanol comes from either Brazilian sugar or United States corn, neither of which is an essential element in the human food chain.
(1)-(5) The Biofuels Taskforce report has been under scrutiny by government since it was tabled. A number of changes have occurred within the structure of the biofuels industry in Australia and, indeed, to the degree of commitment to the biofuels sector overseas. This has occurred most particularly in the European Union, which has recently launched a review of its commitment to the biofuels mandate provisions. I did not quite get part (2) of the question, but I think it related to when the government is likely to respond to the recommendations of the Biofuels Taskforce report — Hon Paul Llewellyn : The third one is: are you concerned? Hon KIM CHANCE : Once the government has completed its consideration of all the multiple issues—that is, those raised in the Biofuels Taskforce report as well as matters that have arisen since that report was tabled—the government will be in a position to iterate its view on the recommendations and, indeed, the bulk of the report itself. Part (3) of the question asked whether the government is likely to accept a recommendation for a target; and the question then asked: if yes, why; and, if no, why not? Hon Paul Llewellyn : If yes, why; and, if no, why? Hon KIM CHANCE : I could ask why not! The Biofuels Taskforce recommended a target of five per cent biofuel use by 2010, and further recommended that if the target of five per cent biofuel was not reached by 2011, a mandate provision should take effect. I do not know how the government will move on that. I can tell the member my position: I support both propositions. However, it is for other ministers and agencies within government to come forward with their views on that matter; indeed, that is one of the issues that is being looked at most carefully. In response to parts (4) and (5) of the question, if the answer was yes, my view is that a target and the mandate are both defensible and highly desirable. I believe that biofuels are capable of making a very significant contribution to the Australian economy, and to the Western Australian economy in particular. If the answer is no, I cannot answer part (5) because it is not my position. It might be helpful to give the member some guidance on my views. I support what the European Union has done in calling for a review of its commitment to the mandate, because we can all learn something from the EU’s review. What has driven the EU review, if I am reading it correctly, primarily has been its concern about the replacement of native habitat, particularly tropical rainforest habitat, by palm oil plantations, most particularly in Indonesia and Malaysia. It would be healthy for the EU to carry out and publish that study because we all need to know that information. However, that would have no bearing whatsoever on Western Australia’s commitment to biofuels because we do not plan to use palm as one of our major feedstocks. Hon Paul Llewellyn : Nor did they. Hon KIM CHANCE : No, they did not, which is interesting. I do not quite understand what their problem is, because biodiesel manufacture in the European Union is really limited to manufacture from canola oil. The other matter that has since emerged has been the question of food for fuel. That seems to be more a part of Great Britain’s issue. I think that argument is a nonsense, frankly, and I am surprised when I see some of the arguments advanced by people who I think ought to know better. I am quite happy to explain why I think the argument is a nonsense, but this is not the right place to do that. However, the vast bulk of feedstock is going into the production of ethanol in particular, and the argument seems to be about ethanol rather than biodiesel. The vast bulk of international production of ethanol comes from either Brazilian sugar or United States corn, neither of which is an essential element in the human food chain.
Hon KIM CHANCE : Once the government has completed its consideration of all the multiple issues—that is, those raised in the Biofuels Taskforce report as well as matters that have arisen since that report was tabled—the government will be in a position to iterate its view on the recommendations and, indeed, the bulk of the report itself. Part (3) of the question asked whether the government is likely to accept a recommendation for a target; and the question then asked: if yes, why; and, if no, why not? Hon Paul Llewellyn : If yes, why; and, if no, why? Hon KIM CHANCE : I could ask why not! The Biofuels Taskforce recommended a target of five per cent biofuel use by 2010, and further recommended that if the target of five per cent biofuel was not reached by 2011, a mandate provision should take effect. I do not know how the government will move on that. I can tell the member my position: I support both propositions. However, it is for other ministers and agencies within government to come forward with their views on that matter; indeed, that is one of the issues that is being looked at most carefully. In response to parts (4) and (5) of the question, if the answer was yes, my view is that a target and the mandate are both defensible and highly desirable. I believe that biofuels are capable of making a very significant contribution to the Australian economy, and to the Western Australian economy in particular. If the answer is no, I cannot answer part (5) because it is not my position. It might be helpful to give the member some guidance on my views. I support what the European Union has done in calling for a review of its commitment to the mandate, because we can all learn something from the EU’s review. What has driven the EU review, if I am reading it correctly, primarily has been its concern about the replacement of native habitat, particularly tropical rainforest habitat, by palm oil plantations, most particularly in Indonesia and Malaysia. It would be healthy for the EU to carry out and publish that study because we all need to know that information. However, that would have no bearing whatsoever on Western Australia’s commitment to biofuels because we do not plan to use palm as one of our major feedstocks. Hon Paul Llewellyn : Nor did they. Hon KIM CHANCE : No, they did not, which is interesting. I do not quite understand what their problem is, because biodiesel manufacture in the European Union is really limited to manufacture from canola oil. The other matter that has since emerged has been the question of food for fuel. That seems to be more a part of Great Britain’s issue. I think that argument is a nonsense, frankly, and I am surprised when I see some of the arguments advanced by people who I think ought to know better. I am quite happy to explain why I think the argument is a nonsense, but this is not the right place to do that. However, the vast bulk of feedstock is going into the production of ethanol in particular, and the argument seems to be about ethanol rather than biodiesel. The vast bulk of international production of ethanol comes from either Brazilian sugar or United States corn, neither of which is an essential element in the human food chain.
Part (3) of the question asked whether the government is likely to accept a recommendation for a target; and the question then asked: if yes, why; and, if no, why not? Hon Paul Llewellyn : If yes, why; and, if no, why? Hon KIM CHANCE : I could ask why not! The Biofuels Taskforce recommended a target of five per cent biofuel use by 2010, and further recommended that if the target of five per cent biofuel was not reached by 2011, a mandate provision should take effect. I do not know how the government will move on that. I can tell the member my position: I support both propositions. However, it is for other ministers and agencies within government to come forward with their views on that matter; indeed, that is one of the issues that is being looked at most carefully. In response to parts (4) and (5) of the question, if the answer was yes, my view is that a target and the mandate are both defensible and highly desirable. I believe that biofuels are capable of making a very significant contribution to the Australian economy, and to the Western Australian economy in particular. If the answer is no, I cannot answer part (5) because it is not my position. It might be helpful to give the member some guidance on my views. I support what the European Union has done in calling for a review of its commitment to the mandate, because we can all learn something from the EU’s review. What has driven the EU review, if I am reading it correctly, primarily has been its concern about the replacement of native habitat, particularly tropical rainforest habitat, by palm oil plantations, most particularly in Indonesia and Malaysia. It would be healthy for the EU to carry out and publish that study because we all need to know that information. However, that would have no bearing whatsoever on Western Australia’s commitment to biofuels because we do not plan to use palm as one of our major feedstocks. Hon Paul Llewellyn : Nor did they. Hon KIM CHANCE : No, they did not, which is interesting. I do not quite understand what their problem is, because biodiesel manufacture in the European Union is really limited to manufacture from canola oil. The other matter that has since emerged has been the question of food for fuel. That seems to be more a part of Great Britain’s issue. I think that argument is a nonsense, frankly, and I am surprised when I see some of the arguments advanced by people who I think ought to know better. I am quite happy to explain why I think the argument is a nonsense, but this is not the right place to do that. However, the vast bulk of feedstock is going into the production of ethanol in particular, and the argument seems to be about ethanol rather than biodiesel. The vast bulk of international production of ethanol comes from either Brazilian sugar or United States corn, neither of which is an essential element in the human food chain.
Hon Paul Llewellyn : If yes, why; and, if no, why? Hon KIM CHANCE : I could ask why not! The Biofuels Taskforce recommended a target of five per cent biofuel use by 2010, and further recommended that if the target of five per cent biofuel was not reached by 2011, a mandate provision should take effect. I do not know how the government will move on that. I can tell the member my position: I support both propositions. However, it is for other ministers and agencies within government to come forward with their views on that matter; indeed, that is one of the issues that is being looked at most carefully. In response to parts (4) and (5) of the question, if the answer was yes, my view is that a target and the mandate are both defensible and highly desirable. I believe that biofuels are capable of making a very significant contribution to the Australian economy, and to the Western Australian economy in particular. If the answer is no, I cannot answer part (5) because it is not my position. It might be helpful to give the member some guidance on my views. I support what the European Union has done in calling for a review of its commitment to the mandate, because we can all learn something from the EU’s review. What has driven the EU review, if I am reading it correctly, primarily has been its concern about the replacement of native habitat, particularly tropical rainforest habitat, by palm oil plantations, most particularly in Indonesia and Malaysia. It would be healthy for the EU to carry out and publish that study because we all need to know that information. However, that would have no bearing whatsoever on Western Australia’s commitment to biofuels because we do not plan to use palm as one of our major feedstocks. Hon Paul Llewellyn : Nor did they. Hon KIM CHANCE : No, they did not, which is interesting. I do not quite understand what their problem is, because biodiesel manufacture in the European Union is really limited to manufacture from canola oil. The other matter that has since emerged has been the question of food for fuel. That seems to be more a part of Great Britain’s issue. I think that argument is a nonsense, frankly, and I am surprised when I see some of the arguments advanced by people who I think ought to know better. I am quite happy to explain why I think the argument is a nonsense, but this is not the right place to do that. However, the vast bulk of feedstock is going into the production of ethanol in particular, and the argument seems to be about ethanol rather than biodiesel. The vast bulk of international production of ethanol comes from either Brazilian sugar or United States corn, neither of which is an essential element in the human food chain.
Hon KIM CHANCE : I could ask why not! The Biofuels Taskforce recommended a target of five per cent biofuel use by 2010, and further recommended that if the target of five per cent biofuel was not reached by 2011, a mandate provision should take effect. I do not know how the government will move on that. I can tell the member my position: I support both propositions. However, it is for other ministers and agencies within government to come forward with their views on that matter; indeed, that is one of the issues that is being looked at most carefully. In response to parts (4) and (5) of the question, if the answer was yes, my view is that a target and the mandate are both defensible and highly desirable. I believe that biofuels are capable of making a very significant contribution to the Australian economy, and to the Western Australian economy in particular. If the answer is no, I cannot answer part (5) because it is not my position. It might be helpful to give the member some guidance on my views. I support what the European Union has done in calling for a review of its commitment to the mandate, because we can all learn something from the EU’s review. What has driven the EU review, if I am reading it correctly, primarily has been its concern about the replacement of native habitat, particularly tropical rainforest habitat, by palm oil plantations, most particularly in Indonesia and Malaysia. It would be healthy for the EU to carry out and publish that study because we all need to know that information. However, that would have no bearing whatsoever on Western Australia’s commitment to biofuels because we do not plan to use palm as one of our major feedstocks. Hon Paul Llewellyn : Nor did they. Hon KIM CHANCE : No, they did not, which is interesting. I do not quite understand what their problem is, because biodiesel manufacture in the European Union is really limited to manufacture from canola oil. The other matter that has since emerged has been the question of food for fuel. That seems to be more a part of Great Britain’s issue. I think that argument is a nonsense, frankly, and I am surprised when I see some of the arguments advanced by people who I think ought to know better. I am quite happy to explain why I think the argument is a nonsense, but this is not the right place to do that. However, the vast bulk of feedstock is going into the production of ethanol in particular, and the argument seems to be about ethanol rather than biodiesel. The vast bulk of international production of ethanol comes from either Brazilian sugar or United States corn, neither of which is an essential element in the human food chain.
In response to parts (4) and (5) of the question, if the answer was yes, my view is that a target and the mandate are both defensible and highly desirable. I believe that biofuels are capable of making a very significant contribution to the Australian economy, and to the Western Australian economy in particular. If the answer is no, I cannot answer part (5) because it is not my position. It might be helpful to give the member some guidance on my views. I support what the European Union has done in calling for a review of its commitment to the mandate, because we can all learn something from the EU’s review. What has driven the EU review, if I am reading it correctly, primarily has been its concern about the replacement of native habitat, particularly tropical rainforest habitat, by palm oil plantations, most particularly in Indonesia and Malaysia. It would be healthy for the EU to carry out and publish that study because we all need to know that information. However, that would have no bearing whatsoever on Western Australia’s commitment to biofuels because we do not plan to use palm as one of our major feedstocks. Hon Paul Llewellyn : Nor did they. Hon KIM CHANCE : No, they did not, which is interesting. I do not quite understand what their problem is, because biodiesel manufacture in the European Union is really limited to manufacture from canola oil. The other matter that has since emerged has been the question of food for fuel. That seems to be more a part of Great Britain’s issue. I think that argument is a nonsense, frankly, and I am surprised when I see some of the arguments advanced by people who I think ought to know better. I am quite happy to explain why I think the argument is a nonsense, but this is not the right place to do that. However, the vast bulk of feedstock is going into the production of ethanol in particular, and the argument seems to be about ethanol rather than biodiesel. The vast bulk of international production of ethanol comes from either Brazilian sugar or United States corn, neither of which is an essential element in the human food chain.
It might be helpful to give the member some guidance on my views. I support what the European Union has done in calling for a review of its commitment to the mandate, because we can all learn something from the EU’s review. What has driven the EU review, if I am reading it correctly, primarily has been its concern about the replacement of native habitat, particularly tropical rainforest habitat, by palm oil plantations, most particularly in Indonesia and Malaysia. It would be healthy for the EU to carry out and publish that study because we all need to know that information. However, that would have no bearing whatsoever on Western Australia’s commitment to biofuels because we do not plan to use palm as one of our major feedstocks. Hon Paul Llewellyn : Nor did they. Hon KIM CHANCE : No, they did not, which is interesting. I do not quite understand what their problem is, because biodiesel manufacture in the European Union is really limited to manufacture from canola oil. The other matter that has since emerged has been the question of food for fuel. That seems to be more a part of Great Britain’s issue. I think that argument is a nonsense, frankly, and I am surprised when I see some of the arguments advanced by people who I think ought to know better. I am quite happy to explain why I think the argument is a nonsense, but this is not the right place to do that. However, the vast bulk of feedstock is going into the production of ethanol in particular, and the argument seems to be about ethanol rather than biodiesel. The vast bulk of international production of ethanol comes from either Brazilian sugar or United States corn, neither of which is an essential element in the human food chain.
Hon Paul Llewellyn : Nor did they. Hon KIM CHANCE : No, they did not, which is interesting. I do not quite understand what their problem is, because biodiesel manufacture in the European Union is really limited to manufacture from canola oil. The other matter that has since emerged has been the question of food for fuel. That seems to be more a part of Great Britain’s issue. I think that argument is a nonsense, frankly, and I am surprised when I see some of the arguments advanced by people who I think ought to know better. I am quite happy to explain why I think the argument is a nonsense, but this is not the right place to do that. However, the vast bulk of feedstock is going into the production of ethanol in particular, and the argument seems to be about ethanol rather than biodiesel. The vast bulk of international production of ethanol comes from either Brazilian sugar or United States corn, neither of which is an essential element in the human food chain.
Hon KIM CHANCE : No, they did not, which is interesting. I do not quite understand what their problem is, because biodiesel manufacture in the European Union is really limited to manufacture from canola oil. The other matter that has since emerged has been the question of food for fuel. That seems to be more a part of Great Britain’s issue. I think that argument is a nonsense, frankly, and I am surprised when I see some of the arguments advanced by people who I think ought to know better. I am quite happy to explain why I think the argument is a nonsense, but this is not the right place to do that. However, the vast bulk of feedstock is going into the production of ethanol in particular, and the argument seems to be about ethanol rather than biodiesel. The vast bulk of international production of ethanol comes from either Brazilian sugar or United States corn, neither of which is an essential element in the human food chain.
The other matter that has since emerged has been the question of food for fuel. That seems to be more a part of Great Britain’s issue. I think that argument is a nonsense, frankly, and I am surprised when I see some of the arguments advanced by people who I think ought to know better. I am quite happy to explain why I think the argument is a nonsense, but this is not the right place to do that. However, the vast bulk of feedstock is going into the production of ethanol in particular, and the argument seems to be about ethanol rather than biodiesel. The vast bulk of international production of ethanol comes from either Brazilian sugar or United States corn, neither of which is an essential element in the human food chain.
(1) What has become of the Biofuels Taskforce report and its recommendations? (2) When will the government response to the report be tabled? (3) Is the government considering establishing a volumetric biofuels target? (4) If yes to (3), why? (5) If no to (3), why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I think I got the gist of that five-part question. (1)-(5) The Biofuels Taskforce report has been under scrutiny by government since it was tabled. A number of changes have occurred within the structure of the biofuels industry in Australia and, indeed, to the degree of commitment to the biofuels sector overseas. This has occurred most particularly in the European Union, which has recently launched a review of its commitment to the biofuels mandate provisions. I did not quite get part (2) of the question, but I think it related to when the government is likely to respond to the recommendations of the Biofuels Taskforce report — Hon Paul Llewellyn : The third one is: are you concerned? Hon KIM CHANCE : Once the government has completed its consideration of all the multiple issues—that is, those raised in the Biofuels Taskforce report as well as matters that have arisen since that report was tabled—the government will be in a position to iterate its view on the recommendations and, indeed, the bulk of the report itself. Part (3) of the question asked whether the government is likely to accept a recommendation for a target; and the question then asked: if yes, why; and, if no, why not? Hon Paul Llewellyn : If yes, why; and, if no, why? Hon KIM CHANCE : I could ask why not! The Biofuels Taskforce recommended a target of five per cent biofuel use by 2010, and further recommended that if the target of five per cent biofuel was not reached by 2011, a mandate provision should take effect. I do not know how the government will move on that. I can tell the member my position: I support both propositions. However, it is for other ministers and agencies within government to come forward with their views on that matter; indeed, that is one of the issues that is being looked at most carefully. In response to parts (4) and (5) of the question, if the answer was yes, my view is that a target and the mandate are both defensible and highly desirable. I believe that biofuels are capable of making a very significant contribution to the Australian economy, and to the Western Australian economy in particular. If the answer is no, I cannot answer part (5) because it is not my position. It might be helpful to give the member some guidance on my views. I support what the European Union has done in calling for a review of its commitment to the mandate, because we can all learn something from the EU’s review. What has driven the EU review, if I am reading it correctly, primarily has been its concern about the replacement of native habitat, particularly tropical rainforest habitat, by palm oil plantations, most particularly in Indonesia and Malaysia. It would be healthy for the EU to carry out and publish that study because we all need to know that information. However, that would have no bearing whatsoever on Western Australia’s commitment to biofuels because we do not plan to use palm as one of our major feedstocks. Hon Paul Llewellyn : Nor did they. Hon KIM CHANCE : No, they did not, which is interesting. I do not quite understand what their problem is, because biodiesel manufacture in the European Union is really limited to manufacture from canola oil. The other matter that has since emerged has been the question of food for fuel. That seems to be more a part of Great Britain’s issue. I think that argument is a nonsense, frankly, and I am surprised when I see some of the arguments advanced by people who I think ought to know better. I am quite happy to explain why I think the argument is a nonsense, but this is not the right place to do that. However, the vast bulk of feedstock is going into the production of ethanol in particular, and the argument seems to be about ethanol rather than biodiesel. The vast bulk of international production of ethanol comes from either Brazilian sugar or United States corn, neither of which is an essential element in the human food chain.
(2) When will the government response to the report be tabled? (3) Is the government considering establishing a volumetric biofuels target? (4) If yes to (3), why? (5) If no to (3), why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I think I got the gist of that five-part question. (1)-(5) The Biofuels Taskforce report has been under scrutiny by government since it was tabled. A number of changes have occurred within the structure of the biofuels industry in Australia and, indeed, to the degree of commitment to the biofuels sector overseas. This has occurred most particularly in the European Union, which has recently launched a review of its commitment to the biofuels mandate provisions. I did not quite get part (2) of the question, but I think it related to when the government is likely to respond to the recommendations of the Biofuels Taskforce report — Hon Paul Llewellyn : The third one is: are you concerned? Hon KIM CHANCE : Once the government has completed its consideration of all the multiple issues—that is, those raised in the Biofuels Taskforce report as well as matters that have arisen since that report was tabled—the government will be in a position to iterate its view on the recommendations and, indeed, the bulk of the report itself. Part (3) of the question asked whether the government is likely to accept a recommendation for a target; and the question then asked: if yes, why; and, if no, why not? Hon Paul Llewellyn : If yes, why; and, if no, why? Hon KIM CHANCE : I could ask why not! The Biofuels Taskforce recommended a target of five per cent biofuel use by 2010, and further recommended that if the target of five per cent biofuel was not reached by 2011, a mandate provision should take effect. I do not know how the government will move on that. I can tell the member my position: I support both propositions. However, it is for other ministers and agencies within government to come forward with their views on that matter; indeed, that is one of the issues that is being looked at most carefully. In response to parts (4) and (5) of the question, if the answer was yes, my view is that a target and the mandate are both defensible and highly desirable. I believe that biofuels are capable of making a very significant contribution to the Australian economy, and to the Western Australian economy in particular. If the answer is no, I cannot answer part (5) because it is not my position. It might be helpful to give the member some guidance on my views. I support what the European Union has done in calling for a review of its commitment to the mandate, because we can all learn something from the EU’s review. What has driven the EU review, if I am reading it correctly, primarily has been its concern about the replacement of native habitat, particularly tropical rainforest habitat, by palm oil plantations, most particularly in Indonesia and Malaysia. It would be healthy for the EU to carry out and publish that study because we all need to know that information. However, that would have no bearing whatsoever on Western Australia’s commitment to biofuels because we do not plan to use palm as one of our major feedstocks. Hon Paul Llewellyn : Nor did they. Hon KIM CHANCE : No, they did not, which is interesting. I do not quite understand what their problem is, because biodiesel manufacture in the European Union is really limited to manufacture from canola oil. The other matter that has since emerged has been the question of food for fuel. That seems to be more a part of Great Britain’s issue. I think that argument is a nonsense, frankly, and I am surprised when I see some of the arguments advanced by people who I think ought to know better. I am quite happy to explain why I think the argument is a nonsense, but this is not the right place to do that. However, the vast bulk of feedstock is going into the production of ethanol in particular, and the argument seems to be about ethanol rather than biodiesel. The vast bulk of international production of ethanol comes from either Brazilian sugar or United States corn, neither of which is an essential element in the human food chain.
(3) Is the government considering establishing a volumetric biofuels target? (4) If yes to (3), why? (5) If no to (3), why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I think I got the gist of that five-part question. (1)-(5) The Biofuels Taskforce report has been under scrutiny by government since it was tabled. A number of changes have occurred within the structure of the biofuels industry in Australia and, indeed, to the degree of commitment to the biofuels sector overseas. This has occurred most particularly in the European Union, which has recently launched a review of its commitment to the biofuels mandate provisions. I did not quite get part (2) of the question, but I think it related to when the government is likely to respond to the recommendations of the Biofuels Taskforce report — Hon Paul Llewellyn : The third one is: are you concerned? Hon KIM CHANCE : Once the government has completed its consideration of all the multiple issues—that is, those raised in the Biofuels Taskforce report as well as matters that have arisen since that report was tabled—the government will be in a position to iterate its view on the recommendations and, indeed, the bulk of the report itself. Part (3) of the question asked whether the government is likely to accept a recommendation for a target; and the question then asked: if yes, why; and, if no, why not? Hon Paul Llewellyn : If yes, why; and, if no, why? Hon KIM CHANCE : I could ask why not! The Biofuels Taskforce recommended a target of five per cent biofuel use by 2010, and further recommended that if the target of five per cent biofuel was not reached by 2011, a mandate provision should take effect. I do not know how the government will move on that. I can tell the member my position: I support both propositions. However, it is for other ministers and agencies within government to come forward with their views on that matter; indeed, that is one of the issues that is being looked at most carefully. In response to parts (4) and (5) of the question, if the answer was yes, my view is that a target and the mandate are both defensible and highly desirable. I believe that biofuels are capable of making a very significant contribution to the Australian economy, and to the Western Australian economy in particular. If the answer is no, I cannot answer part (5) because it is not my position. It might be helpful to give the member some guidance on my views. I support what the European Union has done in calling for a review of its commitment to the mandate, because we can all learn something from the EU’s review. What has driven the EU review, if I am reading it correctly, primarily has been its concern about the replacement of native habitat, particularly tropical rainforest habitat, by palm oil plantations, most particularly in Indonesia and Malaysia. It would be healthy for the EU to carry out and publish that study because we all need to know that information. However, that would have no bearing whatsoever on Western Australia’s commitment to biofuels because we do not plan to use palm as one of our major feedstocks. Hon Paul Llewellyn : Nor did they. Hon KIM CHANCE : No, they did not, which is interesting. I do not quite understand what their problem is, because biodiesel manufacture in the European Union is really limited to manufacture from canola oil. The other matter that has since emerged has been the question of food for fuel. That seems to be more a part of Great Britain’s issue. I think that argument is a nonsense, frankly, and I am surprised when I see some of the arguments advanced by people who I think ought to know better. I am quite happy to explain why I think the argument is a nonsense, but this is not the right place to do that. However, the vast bulk of feedstock is going into the production of ethanol in particular, and the argument seems to be about ethanol rather than biodiesel. The vast bulk of international production of ethanol comes from either Brazilian sugar or United States corn, neither of which is an essential element in the human food chain.
(4) If yes to (3), why? (5) If no to (3), why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I think I got the gist of that five-part question. (1)-(5) The Biofuels Taskforce report has been under scrutiny by government since it was tabled. A number of changes have occurred within the structure of the biofuels industry in Australia and, indeed, to the degree of commitment to the biofuels sector overseas. This has occurred most particularly in the European Union, which has recently launched a review of its commitment to the biofuels mandate provisions. I did not quite get part (2) of the question, but I think it related to when the government is likely to respond to the recommendations of the Biofuels Taskforce report — Hon Paul Llewellyn : The third one is: are you concerned? Hon KIM CHANCE : Once the government has completed its consideration of all the multiple issues—that is, those raised in the Biofuels Taskforce report as well as matters that have arisen since that report was tabled—the government will be in a position to iterate its view on the recommendations and, indeed, the bulk of the report itself. Part (3) of the question asked whether the government is likely to accept a recommendation for a target; and the question then asked: if yes, why; and, if no, why not? Hon Paul Llewellyn : If yes, why; and, if no, why? Hon KIM CHANCE : I could ask why not! The Biofuels Taskforce recommended a target of five per cent biofuel use by 2010, and further recommended that if the target of five per cent biofuel was not reached by 2011, a mandate provision should take effect. I do not know how the government will move on that. I can tell the member my position: I support both propositions. However, it is for other ministers and agencies within government to come forward with their views on that matter; indeed, that is one of the issues that is being looked at most carefully. In response to parts (4) and (5) of the question, if the answer was yes, my view is that a target and the mandate are both defensible and highly desirable. I believe that biofuels are capable of making a very significant contribution to the Australian economy, and to the Western Australian economy in particular. If the answer is no, I cannot answer part (5) because it is not my position. It might be helpful to give the member some guidance on my views. I support what the European Union has done in calling for a review of its commitment to the mandate, because we can all learn something from the EU’s review. What has driven the EU review, if I am reading it correctly, primarily has been its concern about the replacement of native habitat, particularly tropical rainforest habitat, by palm oil plantations, most particularly in Indonesia and Malaysia. It would be healthy for the EU to carry out and publish that study because we all need to know that information. However, that would have no bearing whatsoever on Western Australia’s commitment to biofuels because we do not plan to use palm as one of our major feedstocks. Hon Paul Llewellyn : Nor did they. Hon KIM CHANCE : No, they did not, which is interesting. I do not quite understand what their problem is, because biodiesel manufacture in the European Union is really limited to manufacture from canola oil. The other matter that has since emerged has been the question of food for fuel. That seems to be more a part of Great Britain’s issue. I think that argument is a nonsense, frankly, and I am surprised when I see some of the arguments advanced by people who I think ought to know better. I am quite happy to explain why I think the argument is a nonsense, but this is not the right place to do that. However, the vast bulk of feedstock is going into the production of ethanol in particular, and the argument seems to be about ethanol rather than biodiesel. The vast bulk of international production of ethanol comes from either Brazilian sugar or United States corn, neither of which is an essential element in the human food chain.
(5) If no to (3), why not? Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I think I got the gist of that five-part question. (1)-(5) The Biofuels Taskforce report has been under scrutiny by government since it was tabled. A number of changes have occurred within the structure of the biofuels industry in Australia and, indeed, to the degree of commitment to the biofuels sector overseas. This has occurred most particularly in the European Union, which has recently launched a review of its commitment to the biofuels mandate provisions. I did not quite get part (2) of the question, but I think it related to when the government is likely to respond to the recommendations of the Biofuels Taskforce report — Hon Paul Llewellyn : The third one is: are you concerned? Hon KIM CHANCE : Once the government has completed its consideration of all the multiple issues—that is, those raised in the Biofuels Taskforce report as well as matters that have arisen since that report was tabled—the government will be in a position to iterate its view on the recommendations and, indeed, the bulk of the report itself. Part (3) of the question asked whether the government is likely to accept a recommendation for a target; and the question then asked: if yes, why; and, if no, why not? Hon Paul Llewellyn : If yes, why; and, if no, why? Hon KIM CHANCE : I could ask why not! The Biofuels Taskforce recommended a target of five per cent biofuel use by 2010, and further recommended that if the target of five per cent biofuel was not reached by 2011, a mandate provision should take effect. I do not know how the government will move on that. I can tell the member my position: I support both propositions. However, it is for other ministers and agencies within government to come forward with their views on that matter; indeed, that is one of the issues that is being looked at most carefully. In response to parts (4) and (5) of the question, if the answer was yes, my view is that a target and the mandate are both defensible and highly desirable. I believe that biofuels are capable of making a very significant contribution to the Australian economy, and to the Western Australian economy in particular. If the answer is no, I cannot answer part (5) because it is not my position. It might be helpful to give the member some guidance on my views. I support what the European Union has done in calling for a review of its commitment to the mandate, because we can all learn something from the EU’s review. What has driven the EU review, if I am reading it correctly, primarily has been its concern about the replacement of native habitat, particularly tropical rainforest habitat, by palm oil plantations, most particularly in Indonesia and Malaysia. It would be healthy for the EU to carry out and publish that study because we all need to know that information. However, that would have no bearing whatsoever on Western Australia’s commitment to biofuels because we do not plan to use palm as one of our major feedstocks. Hon Paul Llewellyn : Nor did they. Hon KIM CHANCE : No, they did not, which is interesting. I do not quite understand what their problem is, because biodiesel manufacture in the European Union is really limited to manufacture from canola oil. The other matter that has since emerged has been the question of food for fuel. That seems to be more a part of Great Britain’s issue. I think that argument is a nonsense, frankly, and I am surprised when I see some of the arguments advanced by people who I think ought to know better. I am quite happy to explain why I think the argument is a nonsense, but this is not the right place to do that. However, the vast bulk of feedstock is going into the production of ethanol in particular, and the argument seems to be about ethanol rather than biodiesel. The vast bulk of international production of ethanol comes from either Brazilian sugar or United States corn, neither of which is an essential element in the human food chain.
Hon KIM CHANCE replied: I think I got the gist of that five-part question. (1)-(5) The Biofuels Taskforce report has been under scrutiny by government since it was tabled. A number of changes have occurred within the structure of the biofuels industry in Australia and, indeed, to the degree of commitment to the biofuels sector overseas. This has occurred most particularly in the European Union, which has recently launched a review of its commitment to the biofuels mandate provisions. I did not quite get part (2) of the question, but I think it related to when the government is likely to respond to the recommendations of the Biofuels Taskforce report — Hon Paul Llewellyn : The third one is: are you concerned? Hon KIM CHANCE : Once the government has completed its consideration of all the multiple issues—that is, those raised in the Biofuels Taskforce report as well as matters that have arisen since that report was tabled—the government will be in a position to iterate its view on the recommendations and, indeed, the bulk of the report itself. Part (3) of the question asked whether the government is likely to accept a recommendation for a target; and the question then asked: if yes, why; and, if no, why not? Hon Paul Llewellyn : If yes, why; and, if no, why? Hon KIM CHANCE : I could ask why not! The Biofuels Taskforce recommended a target of five per cent biofuel use by 2010, and further recommended that if the target of five per cent biofuel was not reached by 2011, a mandate provision should take effect. I do not know how the government will move on that. I can tell the member my position: I support both propositions. However, it is for other ministers and agencies within government to come forward with their views on that matter; indeed, that is one of the issues that is being looked at most carefully. In response to parts (4) and (5) of the question, if the answer was yes, my view is that a target and the mandate are both defensible and highly desirable. I believe that biofuels are capable of making a very significant contribution to the Australian economy, and to the Western Australian economy in particular. If the answer is no, I cannot answer part (5) because it is not my position. It might be helpful to give the member some guidance on my views. I support what the European Union has done in calling for a review of its commitment to the mandate, because we can all learn something from the EU’s review. What has driven the EU review, if I am reading it correctly, primarily has been its concern about the replacement of native habitat, particularly tropical rainforest habitat, by palm oil plantations, most particularly in Indonesia and Malaysia. It would be healthy for the EU to carry out and publish that study because we all need to know that information. However, that would have no bearing whatsoever on Western Australia’s commitment to biofuels because we do not plan to use palm as one of our major feedstocks. Hon Paul Llewellyn : Nor did they. Hon KIM CHANCE : No, they did not, which is interesting. I do not quite understand what their problem is, because biodiesel manufacture in the European Union is really limited to manufacture from canola oil. The other matter that has since emerged has been the question of food for fuel. That seems to be more a part of Great Britain’s issue. I think that argument is a nonsense, frankly, and I am surprised when I see some of the arguments advanced by people who I think ought to know better. I am quite happy to explain why I think the argument is a nonsense, but this is not the right place to do that. However, the vast bulk of feedstock is going into the production of ethanol in particular, and the argument seems to be about ethanol rather than biodiesel. The vast bulk of international production of ethanol comes from either Brazilian sugar or United States corn, neither of which is an essential element in the human food chain.
I think I got the gist of that five-part question. (1)-(5) The Biofuels Taskforce report has been under scrutiny by government since it was tabled. A number of changes have occurred within the structure of the biofuels industry in Australia and, indeed, to the degree of commitment to the biofuels sector overseas. This has occurred most particularly in the European Union, which has recently launched a review of its commitment to the biofuels mandate provisions. I did not quite get part (2) of the question, but I think it related to when the government is likely to respond to the recommendations of the Biofuels Taskforce report — Hon Paul Llewellyn : The third one is: are you concerned? Hon KIM CHANCE : Once the government has completed its consideration of all the multiple issues—that is, those raised in the Biofuels Taskforce report as well as matters that have arisen since that report was tabled—the government will be in a position to iterate its view on the recommendations and, indeed, the bulk of the report itself. Part (3) of the question asked whether the government is likely to accept a recommendation for a target; and the question then asked: if yes, why; and, if no, why not? Hon Paul Llewellyn : If yes, why; and, if no, why? Hon KIM CHANCE : I could ask why not! The Biofuels Taskforce recommended a target of five per cent biofuel use by 2010, and further recommended that if the target of five per cent biofuel was not reached by 2011, a mandate provision should take effect. I do not know how the government will move on that. I can tell the member my position: I support both propositions. However, it is for other ministers and agencies within government to come forward with their views on that matter; indeed, that is one of the issues that is being looked at most carefully. In response to parts (4) and (5) of the question, if the answer was yes, my view is that a target and the mandate are both defensible and highly desirable. I believe that biofuels are capable of making a very significant contribution to the Australian economy, and to the Western Australian economy in particular. If the answer is no, I cannot answer part (5) because it is not my position. It might be helpful to give the member some guidance on my views. I support what the European Union has done in calling for a review of its commitment to the mandate, because we can all learn something from the EU’s review. What has driven the EU review, if I am reading it correctly, primarily has been its concern about the replacement of native habitat, particularly tropical rainforest habitat, by palm oil plantations, most particularly in Indonesia and Malaysia. It would be healthy for the EU to carry out and publish that study because we all need to know that information. However, that would have no bearing whatsoever on Western Australia’s commitment to biofuels because we do not plan to use palm as one of our major feedstocks. Hon Paul Llewellyn : Nor did they. Hon KIM CHANCE : No, they did not, which is interesting. I do not quite understand what their problem is, because biodiesel manufacture in the European Union is really limited to manufacture from canola oil. The other matter that has since emerged has been the question of food for fuel. That seems to be more a part of Great Britain’s issue. I think that argument is a nonsense, frankly, and I am surprised when I see some of the arguments advanced by people who I think ought to know better. I am quite happy to explain why I think the argument is a nonsense, but this is not the right place to do that. However, the vast bulk of feedstock is going into the production of ethanol in particular, and the argument seems to be about ethanol rather than biodiesel. The vast bulk of international production of ethanol comes from either Brazilian sugar or United States corn, neither of which is an essential element in the human food chain.
(1)-(5) The Biofuels Taskforce report has been under scrutiny by government since it was tabled. A number of changes have occurred within the structure of the biofuels industry in Australia and, indeed, to the degree of commitment to the biofuels sector overseas. This has occurred most particularly in the European Union, which has recently launched a review of its commitment to the biofuels mandate provisions. I did not quite get part (2) of the question, but I think it related to when the government is likely to respond to the recommendations of the Biofuels Taskforce report — Hon Paul Llewellyn : The third one is: are you concerned? Hon KIM CHANCE : Once the government has completed its consideration of all the multiple issues—that is, those raised in the Biofuels Taskforce report as well as matters that have arisen since that report was tabled—the government will be in a position to iterate its view on the recommendations and, indeed, the bulk of the report itself. Part (3) of the question asked whether the government is likely to accept a recommendation for a target; and the question then asked: if yes, why; and, if no, why not? Hon Paul Llewellyn : If yes, why; and, if no, why? Hon KIM CHANCE : I could ask why not! The Biofuels Taskforce recommended a target of five per cent biofuel use by 2010, and further recommended that if the target of five per cent biofuel was not reached by 2011, a mandate provision should take effect. I do not know how the government will move on that. I can tell the member my position: I support both propositions. However, it is for other ministers and agencies within government to come forward with their views on that matter; indeed, that is one of the issues that is being looked at most carefully. In response to parts (4) and (5) of the question, if the answer was yes, my view is that a target and the mandate are both defensible and highly desirable. I believe that biofuels are capable of making a very significant contribution to the Australian economy, and to the Western Australian economy in particular. If the answer is no, I cannot answer part (5) because it is not my position. It might be helpful to give the member some guidance on my views. I support what the European Union has done in calling for a review of its commitment to the mandate, because we can all learn something from the EU’s review. What has driven the EU review, if I am reading it correctly, primarily has been its concern about the replacement of native habitat, particularly tropical rainforest habitat, by palm oil plantations, most particularly in Indonesia and Malaysia. It would be healthy for the EU to carry out and publish that study because we all need to know that information. However, that would have no bearing whatsoever on Western Australia’s commitment to biofuels because we do not plan to use palm as one of our major feedstocks. Hon Paul Llewellyn : Nor did they. Hon KIM CHANCE : No, they did not, which is interesting. I do not quite understand what their problem is, because biodiesel manufacture in the European Union is really limited to manufacture from canola oil. The other matter that has since emerged has been the question of food for fuel. That seems to be more a part of Great Britain’s issue. I think that argument is a nonsense, frankly, and I am surprised when I see some of the arguments advanced by people who I think ought to know better. I am quite happy to explain why I think the argument is a nonsense, but this is not the right place to do that. However, the vast bulk of feedstock is going into the production of ethanol in particular, and the argument seems to be about ethanol rather than biodiesel. The vast bulk of international production of ethanol comes from either Brazilian sugar or United States corn, neither of which is an essential element in the human food chain.
Hon KIM CHANCE : Once the government has completed its consideration of all the multiple issues—that is, those raised in the Biofuels Taskforce report as well as matters that have arisen since that report was tabled—the government will be in a position to iterate its view on the recommendations and, indeed, the bulk of the report itself. Part (3) of the question asked whether the government is likely to accept a recommendation for a target; and the question then asked: if yes, why; and, if no, why not? Hon Paul Llewellyn : If yes, why; and, if no, why? Hon KIM CHANCE : I could ask why not! The Biofuels Taskforce recommended a target of five per cent biofuel use by 2010, and further recommended that if the target of five per cent biofuel was not reached by 2011, a mandate provision should take effect. I do not know how the government will move on that. I can tell the member my position: I support both propositions. However, it is for other ministers and agencies within government to come forward with their views on that matter; indeed, that is one of the issues that is being looked at most carefully. In response to parts (4) and (5) of the question, if the answer was yes, my view is that a target and the mandate are both defensible and highly desirable. I believe that biofuels are capable of making a very significant contribution to the Australian economy, and to the Western Australian economy in particular. If the answer is no, I cannot answer part (5) because it is not my position. It might be helpful to give the member some guidance on my views. I support what the European Union has done in calling for a review of its commitment to the mandate, because we can all learn something from the EU’s review. What has driven the EU review, if I am reading it correctly, primarily has been its concern about the replacement of native habitat, particularly tropical rainforest habitat, by palm oil plantations, most particularly in Indonesia and Malaysia. It would be healthy for the EU to carry out and publish that study because we all need to know that information. However, that would have no bearing whatsoever on Western Australia’s commitment to biofuels because we do not plan to use palm as one of our major feedstocks. Hon Paul Llewellyn : Nor did they. Hon KIM CHANCE : No, they did not, which is interesting. I do not quite understand what their problem is, because biodiesel manufacture in the European Union is really limited to manufacture from canola oil. The other matter that has since emerged has been the question of food for fuel. That seems to be more a part of Great Britain’s issue. I think that argument is a nonsense, frankly, and I am surprised when I see some of the arguments advanced by people who I think ought to know better. I am quite happy to explain why I think the argument is a nonsense, but this is not the right place to do that. However, the vast bulk of feedstock is going into the production of ethanol in particular, and the argument seems to be about ethanol rather than biodiesel. The vast bulk of international production of ethanol comes from either Brazilian sugar or United States corn, neither of which is an essential element in the human food chain.
Part (3) of the question asked whether the government is likely to accept a recommendation for a target; and the question then asked: if yes, why; and, if no, why not? Hon Paul Llewellyn : If yes, why; and, if no, why? Hon KIM CHANCE : I could ask why not! The Biofuels Taskforce recommended a target of five per cent biofuel use by 2010, and further recommended that if the target of five per cent biofuel was not reached by 2011, a mandate provision should take effect. I do not know how the government will move on that. I can tell the member my position: I support both propositions. However, it is for other ministers and agencies within government to come forward with their views on that matter; indeed, that is one of the issues that is being looked at most carefully. In response to parts (4) and (5) of the question, if the answer was yes, my view is that a target and the mandate are both defensible and highly desirable. I believe that biofuels are capable of making a very significant contribution to the Australian economy, and to the Western Australian economy in particular. If the answer is no, I cannot answer part (5) because it is not my position. It might be helpful to give the member some guidance on my views. I support what the European Union has done in calling for a review of its commitment to the mandate, because we can all learn something from the EU’s review. What has driven the EU review, if I am reading it correctly, primarily has been its concern about the replacement of native habitat, particularly tropical rainforest habitat, by palm oil plantations, most particularly in Indonesia and Malaysia. It would be healthy for the EU to carry out and publish that study because we all need to know that information. However, that would have no bearing whatsoever on Western Australia’s commitment to biofuels because we do not plan to use palm as one of our major feedstocks. Hon Paul Llewellyn : Nor did they. Hon KIM CHANCE : No, they did not, which is interesting. I do not quite understand what their problem is, because biodiesel manufacture in the European Union is really limited to manufacture from canola oil. The other matter that has since emerged has been the question of food for fuel. That seems to be more a part of Great Britain’s issue. I think that argument is a nonsense, frankly, and I am surprised when I see some of the arguments advanced by people who I think ought to know better. I am quite happy to explain why I think the argument is a nonsense, but this is not the right place to do that. However, the vast bulk of feedstock is going into the production of ethanol in particular, and the argument seems to be about ethanol rather than biodiesel. The vast bulk of international production of ethanol comes from either Brazilian sugar or United States corn, neither of which is an essential element in the human food chain.
Hon Paul Llewellyn : If yes, why; and, if no, why? Hon KIM CHANCE : I could ask why not! The Biofuels Taskforce recommended a target of five per cent biofuel use by 2010, and further recommended that if the target of five per cent biofuel was not reached by 2011, a mandate provision should take effect. I do not know how the government will move on that. I can tell the member my position: I support both propositions. However, it is for other ministers and agencies within government to come forward with their views on that matter; indeed, that is one of the issues that is being looked at most carefully. In response to parts (4) and (5) of the question, if the answer was yes, my view is that a target and the mandate are both defensible and highly desirable. I believe that biofuels are capable of making a very significant contribution to the Australian economy, and to the Western Australian economy in particular. If the answer is no, I cannot answer part (5) because it is not my position. It might be helpful to give the member some guidance on my views. I support what the European Union has done in calling for a review of its commitment to the mandate, because we can all learn something from the EU’s review. What has driven the EU review, if I am reading it correctly, primarily has been its concern about the replacement of native habitat, particularly tropical rainforest habitat, by palm oil plantations, most particularly in Indonesia and Malaysia. It would be healthy for the EU to carry out and publish that study because we all need to know that information. However, that would have no bearing whatsoever on Western Australia’s commitment to biofuels because we do not plan to use palm as one of our major feedstocks. Hon Paul Llewellyn : Nor did they. Hon KIM CHANCE : No, they did not, which is interesting. I do not quite understand what their problem is, because biodiesel manufacture in the European Union is really limited to manufacture from canola oil. The other matter that has since emerged has been the question of food for fuel. That seems to be more a part of Great Britain’s issue. I think that argument is a nonsense, frankly, and I am surprised when I see some of the arguments advanced by people who I think ought to know better. I am quite happy to explain why I think the argument is a nonsense, but this is not the right place to do that. However, the vast bulk of feedstock is going into the production of ethanol in particular, and the argument seems to be about ethanol rather than biodiesel. The vast bulk of international production of ethanol comes from either Brazilian sugar or United States corn, neither of which is an essential element in the human food chain.
Hon KIM CHANCE : I could ask why not! The Biofuels Taskforce recommended a target of five per cent biofuel use by 2010, and further recommended that if the target of five per cent biofuel was not reached by 2011, a mandate provision should take effect. I do not know how the government will move on that. I can tell the member my position: I support both propositions. However, it is for other ministers and agencies within government to come forward with their views on that matter; indeed, that is one of the issues that is being looked at most carefully. In response to parts (4) and (5) of the question, if the answer was yes, my view is that a target and the mandate are both defensible and highly desirable. I believe that biofuels are capable of making a very significant contribution to the Australian economy, and to the Western Australian economy in particular. If the answer is no, I cannot answer part (5) because it is not my position. It might be helpful to give the member some guidance on my views. I support what the European Union has done in calling for a review of its commitment to the mandate, because we can all learn something from the EU’s review. What has driven the EU review, if I am reading it correctly, primarily has been its concern about the replacement of native habitat, particularly tropical rainforest habitat, by palm oil plantations, most particularly in Indonesia and Malaysia. It would be healthy for the EU to carry out and publish that study because we all need to know that information. However, that would have no bearing whatsoever on Western Australia’s commitment to biofuels because we do not plan to use palm as one of our major feedstocks. Hon Paul Llewellyn : Nor did they. Hon KIM CHANCE : No, they did not, which is interesting. I do not quite understand what their problem is, because biodiesel manufacture in the European Union is really limited to manufacture from canola oil. The other matter that has since emerged has been the question of food for fuel. That seems to be more a part of Great Britain’s issue. I think that argument is a nonsense, frankly, and I am surprised when I see some of the arguments advanced by people who I think ought to know better. I am quite happy to explain why I think the argument is a nonsense, but this is not the right place to do that. However, the vast bulk of feedstock is going into the production of ethanol in particular, and the argument seems to be about ethanol rather than biodiesel. The vast bulk of international production of ethanol comes from either Brazilian sugar or United States corn, neither of which is an essential element in the human food chain.
In response to parts (4) and (5) of the question, if the answer was yes, my view is that a target and the mandate are both defensible and highly desirable. I believe that biofuels are capable of making a very significant contribution to the Australian economy, and to the Western Australian economy in particular. If the answer is no, I cannot answer part (5) because it is not my position. It might be helpful to give the member some guidance on my views. I support what the European Union has done in calling for a review of its commitment to the mandate, because we can all learn something from the EU’s review. What has driven the EU review, if I am reading it correctly, primarily has been its concern about the replacement of native habitat, particularly tropical rainforest habitat, by palm oil plantations, most particularly in Indonesia and Malaysia. It would be healthy for the EU to carry out and publish that study because we all need to know that information. However, that would have no bearing whatsoever on Western Australia’s commitment to biofuels because we do not plan to use palm as one of our major feedstocks. Hon Paul Llewellyn : Nor did they. Hon KIM CHANCE : No, they did not, which is interesting. I do not quite understand what their problem is, because biodiesel manufacture in the European Union is really limited to manufacture from canola oil. The other matter that has since emerged has been the question of food for fuel. That seems to be more a part of Great Britain’s issue. I think that argument is a nonsense, frankly, and I am surprised when I see some of the arguments advanced by people who I think ought to know better. I am quite happy to explain why I think the argument is a nonsense, but this is not the right place to do that. However, the vast bulk of feedstock is going into the production of ethanol in particular, and the argument seems to be about ethanol rather than biodiesel. The vast bulk of international production of ethanol comes from either Brazilian sugar or United States corn, neither of which is an essential element in the human food chain.
It might be helpful to give the member some guidance on my views. I support what the European Union has done in calling for a review of its commitment to the mandate, because we can all learn something from the EU’s review. What has driven the EU review, if I am reading it correctly, primarily has been its concern about the replacement of native habitat, particularly tropical rainforest habitat, by palm oil plantations, most particularly in Indonesia and Malaysia. It would be healthy for the EU to carry out and publish that study because we all need to know that information. However, that would have no bearing whatsoever on Western Australia’s commitment to biofuels because we do not plan to use palm as one of our major feedstocks. Hon Paul Llewellyn : Nor did they. Hon KIM CHANCE : No, they did not, which is interesting. I do not quite understand what their problem is, because biodiesel manufacture in the European Union is really limited to manufacture from canola oil. The other matter that has since emerged has been the question of food for fuel. That seems to be more a part of Great Britain’s issue. I think that argument is a nonsense, frankly, and I am surprised when I see some of the arguments advanced by people who I think ought to know better. I am quite happy to explain why I think the argument is a nonsense, but this is not the right place to do that. However, the vast bulk of feedstock is going into the production of ethanol in particular, and the argument seems to be about ethanol rather than biodiesel. The vast bulk of international production of ethanol comes from either Brazilian sugar or United States corn, neither of which is an essential element in the human food chain.
Hon Paul Llewellyn : Nor did they. Hon KIM CHANCE : No, they did not, which is interesting. I do not quite understand what their problem is, because biodiesel manufacture in the European Union is really limited to manufacture from canola oil. The other matter that has since emerged has been the question of food for fuel. That seems to be more a part of Great Britain’s issue. I think that argument is a nonsense, frankly, and I am surprised when I see some of the arguments advanced by people who I think ought to know better. I am quite happy to explain why I think the argument is a nonsense, but this is not the right place to do that. However, the vast bulk of feedstock is going into the production of ethanol in particular, and the argument seems to be about ethanol rather than biodiesel. The vast bulk of international production of ethanol comes from either Brazilian sugar or United States corn, neither of which is an essential element in the human food chain.
Hon KIM CHANCE : No, they did not, which is interesting. I do not quite understand what their problem is, because biodiesel manufacture in the European Union is really limited to manufacture from canola oil. The other matter that has since emerged has been the question of food for fuel. That seems to be more a part of Great Britain’s issue. I think that argument is a nonsense, frankly, and I am surprised when I see some of the arguments advanced by people who I think ought to know better. I am quite happy to explain why I think the argument is a nonsense, but this is not the right place to do that. However, the vast bulk of feedstock is going into the production of ethanol in particular, and the argument seems to be about ethanol rather than biodiesel. The vast bulk of international production of ethanol comes from either Brazilian sugar or United States corn, neither of which is an essential element in the human food chain.
The other matter that has since emerged has been the question of food for fuel. That seems to be more a part of Great Britain’s issue. I think that argument is a nonsense, frankly, and I am surprised when I see some of the arguments advanced by people who I think ought to know better. I am quite happy to explain why I think the argument is a nonsense, but this is not the right place to do that. However, the vast bulk of feedstock is going into the production of ethanol in particular, and the argument seems to be about ethanol rather than biodiesel. The vast bulk of international production of ethanol comes from either Brazilian sugar or United States corn, neither of which is an essential element in the human food chain.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.