Graham Kennedy: Sustainable Biofuel Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Graham Kennedy: Sustainable Biofuel Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 04 April 2012. Volume:679;Page:1675. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 I move  
That the Sustainable Biofuel Bill be now read a second time 
. I took over the energy portfolio from Jeanette Fitzsimons on her departure and thus her Sustainable Biofuel Bill. That bill is now in my name. The bill was referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee—following its first reading in July 2009—which referred it to a subcommittee of three members: one National one Labour and one Green. Officials from the Ministry of Economic Development produced a report for our small and happy band and then in a fit of contrition hastened back to the subcommittee with a request that large parts of their work be deleted on grounds of confidentiality. Weird as that was the majority in the subcommittee assented.  
The Ministry of Economic Development’s verbal advice was threefold. First the New Zealand proportion of biofuel consumption to total petrol and diesel was tiny. At 0.6 billion litres it was 0.5 percent of the total. Most was locally produced. Only Gull imported. This compared with 5 percent in the European Union and about 8 percent in the United States. In the case of the EU when its production was low it had set mandatory targets for increasing renewable energy in the form of biofuels—5.25 percent in 2010 and 10 percent in 2020. This resulted in the EU importing in haste from many sources: South America North America and South-east Asia. That explained the EU’s interest back in 2007 in developing importation standards.  
Secondly according to officials most New Zealand companies voluntarily provided information on their fuel imports to the Ministry of Economic Development. Gull for example did so in respect of biofuels. Thirdly developing legislation to introduce standards specifically for biofuels would be complex and time-consuming usually taking about a year. Although Europe did it that was because of the reasons I advanced earlier. In the New Zealand case for those same reasons it would not really be worth it.  
Frankly the Green Party did not find those reasons to be sufficient for not proceeding with the bill. In the subcommittee group I explored with officials two things: first whether the EU directive was initiated in the context of an anticipated increase in biofuel imports rather than as a reaction; and second what degree of confidence the public might have in a continued New Zealand voluntary regime. The answers of officials appeared to please at least the subcommittee chair. On my request the subcommittee explored the extent to which the New Zealand public might be assured that biofuel imports would be beyond reproach. I floated an additional possible requirement—that the Minister be required to report to the House annually with the sign-off that no biofuel imports from an unsustainable source had been imported into New Zealand. This appeared to displease the subcommittee chair.  
Not surprisingly the Green Party maintained a different view from that of the Government on sustainable biofuels. The preference of the Government and of the biofuel industry was for a system of voluntary reporting. There was also the confidence of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority that such a reporting system was meeting its purpose. In the Green view these considerations do not in themselves constitute a sufficient reason for New Zealand to confine itself to such a modest framework for biofuel production and importation.  
Although biofuel use in New Zealand remains low at 0.1 percent it will we think be prudent to establish time-specified quantitative targets for increased imports and sustainability criteria under legislation. The EU standards had been introduced at a time when its imports were low. It would we thought be prudent to establish time-specified targets in anticipation of greater targeted levels. As part of New Zealand’s share in the global responsibility to combat climate change and preserve global fuel food integrity we should follow suit rather than wait and see whether the market for imports here might first increase. Such a laissez-faire approach to global climate change and sustainability would prove to be inadequate to the challenge that the international community confronts.  
Finally New Zealand’s international obligations under its free-trade agreements did not in themselves preclude the merit or the feasibility of introducing sustainable criteria for biofuel imports.  
This bill I suspect will be voted down but let the last word go to Jeanette Fitzsimons: “The idea that it is OK to feed good human food like grains into motorcars while people are starving shows what happens when someone pursues a single-minded goal excludes all other considerations and totally loses sight of the big picture. It also shows the abject failure of the market to allocate scarce goods when there are very big differences in ability to pay. There is only so much agricultural land available so there is an absolute limit on how much grain can be produced in the world. We can increase yields with clever management but we can never overcome the fact that there are limits. There will never be enough to feed all human mouths and all the world’s vehicles. When it comes to market competition between the fuel tanks of the wealthy nations and mouths of the hungry who cannot afford to pay much for food it is obvious who will win. In this context unrestricted biofuels can mean genocide.” The Green Party will of course be voting for this bill.