Hughes Gareth: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Amendment Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeHughes Gareth: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Amendment Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 11 February 2015. Volume:703;Page:1498. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]GARETH HUGHES (Green):Kia ora Mr Chair ngā mihi nui ki a koutou kia ora. I want to pick up on the member Dr Megan Woods’ point on biofuels and support her Supplementary Order Paper 45 on the Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Amendment Bill and urge the National members to support this. I was privy to the discussions on it on the Commerce Committee and I am trying to recall the reasons for opposing it so I am going to pick up on a couple and urge the National members to support it because biofuels as Dr Woods said are a fantastic opportunity for us. It was one of the parts of the Pure Advantage report that picked out a $6 trillion market that we could be accessing something that PricewaterhouseCoopers says is potentially a $22 billion annual economic opportunity for us. In a carbon-constrained world where even the International Energy Agency is advising Governments like ours we cannot afford to burn two-thirds of the proven fossil fuel reserves we have already discovered let alone try to find some more deep off our coasts the world is crying out for sustainable solutions like biofuels. When I was in Beijing many years ago there were 550 cars per day entering Beijing’s congested roads. We are seeing a Chinese automotive market that could be the largest in the entire world in a matter of years. Finding sustainable solutions to power people to get around their cities towns or countries is critically important and I like the idea that our country could be playing a role.I urge members to support this Supplementary Order Paper because what we are sending is a very important price signal to those people like Z Energy contemplating or committing to tens of millions of dollars of capital investment in biofuel infrastructure and others around the country that are being picked up on. Those entrepreneurs those researchers and those people who are maybe thinking about getting a Callaghan research and development grant will be negatively affected by the uncertainty that this signal sends.As I said before the latest data is showing that the production of biodiesel has declined massively from 1.2 million litres in 2007 to only 0.24 million litres—so less than 1 million litres—in 2013. Over the same period we have seen the production of bio-ethanol increase marginally but down from its heyday. We have seen the production of biofuels obviously increase and total consumption decrease over that period. We have seen successive policy changes over the time add uncertainty. Adding a price signal by exempting other forms of fuels but not biofuels is a counter-productive step. Members over on this side acknowledge that there is a price signal. I pointed out how minuscule it was but I would also want to challenge some of the logic. If we are trying to make oil cheaper artificially—be it subsidies or some sort of command and control regulation—what we are doing is sending a very strong signal to people to consume more of it which of course is going to cost more in the future. This is why the International Energy Agency is calling on parliaments like ours to cut some of the $610 billion annually spent on fossil fuel subsidies because what we are seeing is a perverse negative feedback loop where more fossil fuels are burnt more carbon emitted and there are more negative impacts.So I would urge members to support this Supplementary Order Paper. What we want to do is support a flourishing biofuel industry where we can export some of the intellectual properties some of the products potentially. With the world counting down the months to the all-important Paris climate talks biofuels can play a critical role as long as those criteria I elucidated earlier are met. These are net negative emissions that they do not compete with agricultural land and food production and that they are actually sustainable. There is great work being done by Kiwis across the country to invest in biofuels. We want to support them and that is why I would urge National members to support it.I want to challenge the logic of the opposition by the National members because one of the arguments at the select committee I understand from officials was that biofuels are still a liquid fuel requiring oil stocks to be stored overseas so it is fair and commensurate that biofuels should pay this levy to supply the tickets. That does not make sense. We know that biofuels reduce our dependence on imported oil. We know that biofuels increase our resiliency. We know that biofuels support flourishing regional economies and local jobs being created. I also challenge you because there is quite a contradiction. When you look at electric vehicles the National Government—to its credit; and I give it credit—has removed the road-user charges from electric vehicles. Electric vehicles are another significant opportunity for New Zealand to save money to save carbon and to grow jobs. When it comes to eliminating the road-user charges—