Smith Nick: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading 
Smith Nick: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:779] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I find it somewhat galling that that was the Minister who convened a group on climate change for 6 years under the previous Government. Let me remind the House of his record. This is the member who went around New Zealand promising a $500 million cheque from Kyoto but do members know what we have? We have a $500 million liability. This is the member who talks renewable energy yet during his period as Minister we saw a trebling in the amount of electricity produced from coal. If there is any member in this House who should be ashamed to show his head and to lecture the new Government about climate change it is Pete Hodgson. 
I also want to draw to the attention of members opposite their record of emissions over 9 years. The only thing the Labour-Green Government led on in respect of emissions was increases. Let me read the figures for the record that was reported by the United Nations. The increase in emissions from New Zealand in the course of the last Government was 18 percent. The record of John Howard’s Government was an 8 percent increase. The record of George W Bush was a 6 percent increase. So let us get the record straight: in Government Labour had a record that was twice as bad as John Howard’s and 3 times as bad as that of George W Bush. So for Parliament to have a lecture from the Labour Party about successful climate change policy is like being given a lecture by Dracula on domestic safety and anti-violence. You see Labour’s record on climate change is about as bad as it can get and one of the reasons we need this biofuels bill is that it is another chapter in that party’s botched policy. 
Let me systematically go through and point out the botched aspects of that biofuel policy. The first thing we heard from members opposite was standards for sustainability of biofuels. I have a simple question for members opposite: having been in Government for 9 years where is their sustainability standard? We on this side of the House searched under the ministerial desks and we looked in every nook and cranny of our ministerial offices because we were sure that somewhere there would be a sustainability standard after 9 years of rhetoric. We looked under the chairs under the desks and in the corners of our offices; it was nowhere to be found. After 9 years there was no sustainability standard. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Keep screaming. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I ask Mr Hughes why he would compel the use of compulsory biofuels when there is no standard. When the United Nations the OECD and every reputable international organisation were expressing real concern about biofuels the previous Government compelled their use without a sustainability standard. I say to Mr Hughes that that is bad policy. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: One-half of 1 percent! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: He says it is only half of 1 percent but half of 1 percent without a sustainability standard has the risk of being some sort of politically correct policy that might make him feel good in his conscience but that does absolutely nothing for climate change and actually risks doing real damage to the environment and real damage in terms of the starving in the world who are competing for food along that way. 
I have to say that the most extraordinary contribution I have heard in this debate was from the previous Minister of Finance Michael Cullen. Let me go through the logic of Dr Cullen’s argument. He said that if we go down the road of providing an excise exemption for biofuels as we do already for ethanol there is a cost to that but that—listen to this—a compulsion has no cost. How many members of this House really believe there will be no cost to the consumer as a consequence of compelling the use of biofuels? I say to Dr Cullen that if there were not a cost why do we need compulsion? The members opposite are silent. The only reason they are compelling the use of biofuels is that biofuels are uneconomic. There are lots of other good things we do not compel for. 
I heard another wonderful argument from Dr Cullen who said that the price of fuel has gone up and down by 70-odd cents a litre so who is worried about 3c or 4c extra cost? I say to the member opposite that each cent on a litre of gas costs New Zealand consumers $60 million. That is $60 million for every cent. In the middle of a financial crisis when households are finding it harder than ever to meet their budgets and when businesses are under a real squeeze we on this side of the House are concerned about every single cent of costs that we will be imposing on consumers. 
Labour’s real flaw in the bill was that it was flim-flam. The real problem for Labour members was that they were going into the election campaign and campaigning on that carbon-neutral world-leader grandiose argument when their record was appalling— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: You’ve gone from fast follower to rapid reverse. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member should somehow explain how she reconciles the previous Prime Minister’s rhetoric of New Zealand being a world leader and the first carbon-neutral country in the world with the United Nations’ official figures that show that the previous Labour Government had the worst record—the worst record—of any country that we would want to be associated with in terms of actual increased emissions. I accept that the rhetoric of members opposite was bolder than anyone else’s on the planet—yes it was—but their record was awful and frankly on the issue of climate change the facts are more important than the rhetoric. 
Members opposite cry crocodile tears about jobs. If I was a biofuels manufacturer and I could persuade the Government to compel everybody to buy my product I would be in there like a robber’s dog. I would love to be able to pass a law to say that people had to buy my homebrew beer; I think it is good stuff and I think I could make good dosh by selling it. But is that good law? No it is not. 
I do not think that any member of this House can honestly say that the answer is electric cars biofuels or hydrogen cars. We need to provide sensible incentives in order for new technologies to come on stream. The sort of compulsory mentality of the previous Government is a flawed approach. The United Nations Secretary-General has urged Governments around the world not to proceed with mandatory requirements for biofuels. I am yet to hear any explanation from members opposite as to why they are ignoring that advice. 
The last word has to be with the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment said that this law was a real risk to New Zealand’s clean green image. That is why members on this side of the House say that it is a botched policy and the sooner we get it off the law books of New Zealand the sooner we can move on with some climate change policies that make sense and that will work for both our economy and our environment. That is the agenda of the new Government.