Goldsmith Paul: Sustainable Biofuel Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Goldsmith Paul: Sustainable Biofuel Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 04 April 2012. Volume:679;Page:1687. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the Sustainable Biofuel Bill and I must say I do find it very interesting that the last speaker Gareth Hughes from the Greens is worried about New Zealand’s dependence on imported oil and how dangerous this is. Yet most of his time was spent trying to stop us from actually increasing the flow of our own indigenous oil because he will not allow anything to happen or any risk to be taken. So there is a bit of a contradiction there. The best way that we can get ourselves free from a dependence on foreign oil is to be able to drill for some of our own.  
The reality is that I am certainly not hearing a clamour in my neighbourhood or anywhere I go for more biofuels. I am not finding people running up to me on the street saying: “Where are more biofuels?”. Interestingly I think there was a grand total of 10 people who queued up to submit on this Sustainable Biofuel Bill so again I do not think this is the No. 1 top issue on people’s minds. I think that the No. 1 issue on people’s minds is actually trying to make ends meet in difficult times and trying to make ends meet in difficult times is about trying to make sure that the fuel bills are as low as they can be. That is why I am not surprised there is not a great deal of enthusiasm for well-meaning and well-intentioned schemes that ultimately put up the cost of petrol.  
People want to get from A to B in the cheapest way possible. They want to get on with their lives and make a living get their children to where they need to go and run their businesses in the most efficient manner and that is what we are focused on rather than the priorities of the Greens in this regard. I am not surprised either that there has not been much enthusiasm for the Biodiesel Grants Scheme again because I do not think the public is clamouring for what we are talking about here. So I think it is very sensible that the Local Government and Environment Committee recommended that we do not proceed with this bill.  
The debate involves quite a lot of hyperbole. I think Mr Graham referred to genocide. I think that might be a bit over the top with what we are dealing with here but what the biofuel industry does demonstrate to me I think is a classic example of the law of unintended consequences through legislation’s good intentions. Trying to introduce biofuels and reduce carbon emissions has led to all sorts of problems all around the world raising the price of grain and leading to starvation.  
What surprises me is that the solution that is proffered here is just a slightly cleverer new subsidy or set of interventions or distortions in the market so somehow we will be able to get around it by ever more clever regulation which is missing the point entirely. When you start to subsidise and distort the economy in this way by trying to encourage some group that the market does not recognise then you inevitably lead to these unintended consequences and greater economic costs for everybody to bear. So I am not at all surprised that the result of the great subsidies for biofuels in the United States has been a rotten one and an unhelpful one. So I think we need to be a lot more circumspect about how we go about these things. If it does not stack up to use tallow as a biofuel in an economic sense— 
Moana Mackey 
: It does stack up. 
PAUL GOLDSMITH 
: Well if it does stack up they will be using it and there must be some other more useful thing to do with this product than—[ 
Interruption 
] Thank you very much. I do not think I will take that advice Minister Coleman. If it makes sense the market will reward it and I think that is the point we need to recognise.  
I do not have any great faith in the ability of the Green Party to work out exactly what people want in this area of biofuels. I think it would be far better placed to rely on what people want and they want to get from A to B in their cars as cheaply as possible. I think that what we are doing here in our support for the existing provisions of the Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Act which allow regulations to be set up if there was a great enthusiasm for biofuel is something I am very comfortable with and I am very comfortable with the regulations we have got in place.  
I would not be at all surprised if further down the line there was a genuinely effective biofuel that was cheaper than the alternatives. Then it will take off but I do not think this bill in its attempt to try to perfect a distortion in the market will solve any of the problems. So I am afraid I will have to oppose this bill.