Dean Jacqui: Biofuel Bill — First Reading 
Dean Jacqui: Biofuel Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:642;Page:12418] 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) 
: 
 I rise to support the Biofuel Bill going to the select committee. I believe that the Biofuel Bill raises far more questions than it actually answers. I will elaborate on that a bit further in my speech. National supports the first reading of the Biofuel Bill but would like to note that the ongoing support of National will depend very much on the evidence heard at the select committee. I understand that this bill has been referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee. I am very pleased to be sitting on that committee because I look forward to hearing submissions on the bill. As I say I believe that the proposals of the Biofuel Bill raise far more questions in practical terms than perhaps have been addressed tonight—questions over the environmental benefits of introducing biofuels into New Zealand the cost-effectiveness of a biofuels regime the risks to motorists around the different fuel mixes and of course the feasibility of the production timetable. 
The bill introduces a mandatory biofuel sales obligation which assuming this bill is passed becomes effective from 1 April 2008. That is an interesting date; it is April Fool’s Day. The obligation goes from 0.53 percent and increases to 3.4 percent by 2012. That is for ethanol in petrol and biodiesel in diesel. Regulation does not require a mandatory blend but requires an overall flexible sales obligation that can be met by a mix of blends as well as allowing trading between fuel companies. Those companies have already been named in this Chamber tonight. Biofuels are defined as deriving from biomass so they have no net impact on atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations except for the energy expended in their manufacture. They are therefore said to mitigate against climate change. There is another question. The biofuel obligation is expected to reduce New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions by 1.1 million tonnes to 2012 but again at what cost? 
It seems to be the view of this Government that we somehow caused climate change in the world and somehow that it is our responsibility to fix it on behalf of the world. I wonder sometimes whether the Government has considered the impacts of its climate change policies on the consumers of New Zealand. I would cite the example of the Government’s air quality standards which are still making their shaky way through regional councils and of the Government’s seeming inability to recognise the impacts of air quality standards on the people who live in communities. Those people then have to conform to those standards as prescribed by the Government in what I view as sometimes being unreasonable time frames. I believe that it is unreasonable to expect citizens who live in parts of New Zealand where there are adverse snow rain and flood events to shut down the possibility of using wood fuel burners in favour of electricity generated heating supplies in a climate where we do not have surety of electricity supply. 
So that is a climate change policy of this Government that I do not believe has been well-thought-through. Drinking-water standards is another example of a policy that this Government has brought through the House with very little consideration of the real impact. I am talking about the real impact on small communities and in particular on local government. On the one hand there has been a cry to keep down rates but on the other hand this Government seems determined to bring through legislation that it does not really know the effects of and which has impacts on people who have to conform to it. 
We need to be careful that when producing biofuel we do not incur a greater environmental cost in doing so. There are questions over the greenhouse gas inputs required to produce the biofuels in the first place and of course there are the flow-on effects on other commodities like food. That issue has been well canvassed in the House this evening because in trying to fix one problem we need to be very careful that we do not create another. The issue of the use of corn to produce ethanol has also been raised in the House. It brought to mind an issue that has been brought to me whereby in trying to fix a problem another problem is created. That has happened with pig farmers in Australia. As we all know the cost of grain is going up because of the drought in Australia. Therefore that has a flow-on effect to pig producers and of course the cost of pork goes up. How does that relate to our pork farmers and their relativity to Australia? In trying to fix one problem one must very carefully examine the consequences of those policies. That is where I believe that a close examination and a good submission period will come in very useful. 
It is very hard to predict what will happen in practice when fuel-mix changes are brought into New Zealand. Of course that was discovered when lead was removed from a certain grade of petrol. What happened at the pump and in people’s vehicles was that the vehicles were not as efficient and their emissions were raised. The risk is that biofuels are not as clean as they might be that vehicle engines will not run as well or as smoothly and that as a result the reduction in emissions which is desirable to all of us may not take place or it might be marginal. 
I was reading newspapers online and I have to congratulate the  
Daily Post 
 in Rotorua which stated that the Biofuel Bill was introduced into Parliament on Tuesday. I read this before the bill was introduced so well done to the  
Daily Post 
 but its article raised a lot of questions. I started this speech by saying that although the introduction of this biofuels regime is supported by National it also raises a number of questions. This fine pre-emptive article by the  
Daily Post 
 notes that a Rotorua car importer says that the Government will struggle to achieve anything by introducing biofuels which popular Japanese vehicles cannot take. I do not know whether popular Japanese vehicles cannot take these biofuels and I do not know whether anybody else really knows until we hear the submissions and evidence from those people who will be directly affected by this. It is noted that cars that are able to take these biofuels are more expensive to buy and that in the short term used-car owners—and this is a quote from a Mr Robinson—“will be punished for not being able to afford a car that meets emission standards.” That is a valid point that should be considered during the select committee process. He further goes on to note: “If you want to be clean and green then it’s going to cost.” A lot of people in New Zealand own imported cars—I am one of them—and having to pay more just because they own an older car is patently unfair. 
 The Automobile Association of New Zealand put out a table on biofuel compatible cars and notes some interesting things. The list applies only to cars sold brand new in New Zealand and that raises the question of whether this biofuel will be of any use at all if it is only suitable for vehicles like an Aston Martin. Biofuel mix can be used for all Aston Martin vehicles post-2004. It is possible that our chardonnay-swilling socialists on the other side of the House might have an Aston Martin a Bentley or a Daihatsu Charade but the list of vehicles that can take biofuels is extremely restricted. I see that my aged Toyota Land Cruiser which I drive around the gravel roads of the Otago mountain passes will not be able to use biofuels. 
This is a serious question that will need to be addressed in the select committee and it will need to address the environmental benefits the environmental cost of production of biofuels. There is a question over whether emissions from vehicles run on biofuels will be reduced to any degree. We also need to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of bringing in a biofuels regime—for example the cost to the motorist. Will it be so unaffordable that it is not effective to do so? 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.