Norman Russel: Biofuel Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Norman Russel: Biofuel Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 02 September 2008. Volume:649;Page:18279. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I am here to speak briefly on the bill. I am one of the few people in the House who has been very actively campaigning against palm oil - based biofuels over a long time. Of course palm oil is one of the really problematic biofuels. It has resulted in massive deforestation in South-east Asia; 20 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions are now as a result of tropical forest deforestation which is being driven in part by the palm oil industry. 
It should also be noted that New Zealand has a connection to the palm oil industry. One of the by-products of the palm oil industry palm kernel is now imported into New Zealand in vast quantities. Last year alone 400000 tonnes of palm kernel were imported into New Zealand largely to feed dairy cattle. One of the secondary drivers of the destruction of rainforest is the palm kernel industry and the palm oil companies are on the public record as saying that palm kernel is now one of the significant factors in their profit stream. Biofuels are a major issue and they are linked to the palm oil industry. 
The Greens would not be supporting this bill had we not negotiated clauses around sustainability. Listening to the National Party members talking about sustainability reminds me of the saying that “A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.” Clearly if we are going to make some progress on these issues we need to encourage particularly the domestic production of biofuels. I do not know how many members have been to look at some of the projects happening around Taupo and elsewhere around biofuels and woody biomass. Woody biomass offers a real opportunity in a country like ours to develop second-generation biofuels. I would have thought we would be supporting it because it seems to me that it is real progress. 
It is also worth saying in terms of the amendment that has been put by Nick Smith that the member has not discussed it with the member in charge of the bill from the Green Party’s side Jeanette Fitzsimons. If National were serious about that amendment I am sure it would have discussed it with us earlier. We will not be supporting the amendment because it has not been discussed with us. If it had been we obviously would have considered it and looked at it. 
I shall respond to the discussion around regulation and leaving it up to the price to determine. It is certainly true that in the transition we need to make towards sustainability price and price signals are an essential part. But by themselves they will not be sufficient. We also need to use regulatory mechanisms and regulatory mechanisms need to work alongside price mechanisms. It is also true that we need to reach out to the community and win people over to the idea of our moving towards sustainability. We have if you like three levers that we can use in this transition: one is price signals one is regulation and one is what we might call consciousness raising or winning the community over to our ideas. Green members believe that we need to use all three levers. 
Finally in response to the increase in price that is involved—the very small increase—I say that the long-term trend of oil prices in spite of what the Minister of Finance was saying earlier is up. Anyone who has read the International Energy Agency’s reports on this matter will be aware that even that agency is now saying that the long-term trend of oil prices is up and that we need to look at alternatives. Biofuels may be a small part of that but they are certainly not a part that we should rule out.