King Colin: Biofuel Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
King Colin: Biofuel Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 02 September 2008. Volume:649;Page:18288. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 Speaking to Part 2 of the Biofuel Bill I say that it is quite appropriate that we direct attention to schedule 1 which contains the new schedule 5 “Biofuel percentage” to be added to the Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Act by clause 16 of this bill. I make the point that when we look at when this legislation would become law—should it pass—we see that it is 1 October 2008. There is an indication based on that date that there is an anomaly and that there will be a perverse effect. I would like the Minister in the chair the Hon David Parker to explain why it was acceptable to wait until 1 July 2009 before a standard would be put in place to fulfil the requirement put in at the very beginning of the bill that it was to be sustainable. That is why we on this side of the Chamber are saying that the bill in its present state is perverse in the sense that it is following the notion that biofuels are a panacea for all our global warming problems. However time has moved on so quickly that we now understand the full extent of the issue. Forests are being cut down and the equivalent percentage on which our biofuels are produced is far and away outweighed by the carbon footprint so there is quite a perverse effect. Yet we have set this standard that is coming in on 1 July 2009 and National members are saying effectively that doing that is no better than everybody else’s perverse effects which are driving Third World countries towards poverty and starvation.  
I just draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that a lot of the international commentary is saying that countries will not be able to arrive at a standard until 2011 so this Clark-Peters Government in its last dying days is to introduce that type of legislation into this House. I seek the indulgence of the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee to allow me to mention what we were saying when we had a very brief discussion about this matter before the dinner break. We were talking about creating a biofuel industry in New Zealand and about using some of the growth within the dairy industry and using the whey to produce biofuels or maybe tallow and things like that. Of course in Marlborough some people have been working on sewage so from that point of view some very very creative thinking is going on. 
May I put it to members in the context of where biofuels have replaced a lot of the food basket would it not have been far better to in actual fact have thought beyond just the confines of biofuel and looked at ways of incentivising research because in my view that would have been a far more effective way than picking winners with ethanol over bio-diesel? I am still waiting for the answer to my questions that I raised earlier as to the logic of that 42.5c preference of ethanol over bio-diesel.  
So when we stop and look at it all here we have this bill in front of us and we do not have a sustainable standard. We are actually seeing the perverse effects of a bill for virtually the next 12 months whereby continued burning and cutting down of forests and Government incentivised tax-benefited biofuels will be produced and we know even from the Green member if my memory serves me right that 20 percent of the carbon emissions at the moment are coming from the perverse effects of cutting down forests planting crops and endeavouring to produce biofuels. I would like that question answered because schedule 1 talks about the percentages of biofuel. In the first year it will be 0.5 percent year 2 will be 1 percent year 3 will be 1.5 percent year 4 will be 2 percent and year 5 onwards will be 2.5 percent. To me it all looks rather strained—very much just a structure and a framework with very very little substance. This Government has a track record of this sort of thought to containing global climate change as part of a suite of actions taken by a Government that is in desperation. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: In the dying throes of the Government. 
COLIN KING 
: In the dying throes of the Government as my colleague here mentions. Part 2 talks very much about the taxation and when one thinks of the tax one thinks about a pretty structured regime with a well-fleshed up body to it. Unfortunately the debate being put forward on this side of the Chamber indicates that we are so light on substance. This bill is all about form and it is a tragedy to see that it is all form without substance when we look at the sustainability standards. Schedule 1A “Consequential amendments to other enactments” talks about the far-reaching effects and it may be interesting from that point of view. Could the Minister also take a call because I am finding these schedules incredibly complex and I think they need to be explained. It is fascinating to me that it has an implication on such Acts as the Building Act 2004 and the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001. It also affects international agreements: the International Energy Agreement Act 1976—that is going back to last century—international energy agreements land transport rules and the Local Government Acts. [ 
Interruption 
] It is all written down here in black and white. It will be so very very difficult for the members on the opposite side to make head or tail of that let alone from this side of the Chamber.  
I would like to take the opportunity to get some answers on those two questions—the one I asked first about why the advantage of 42.5c for ethanol and secondly why it is so urgent to put this Act in place that the Minister will not even wait until July 2009 when officials are saying there will be a standard put forward as referred to in Part 2. I ask the Minister why he has not deferred this bill until such a time as there is the possibility of a sustainable standard. Is it because they know that this Clark-Peters Government is in its last days? Is there another reason for it? In the form it is in today it is not a very positive bill. It is just one of those other bills that will be following in the footsteps of the Electoral Finance Act and the emissions trading scheme that we are still debating at the moment. Basically as I hear it this Government has stopped listening to the nation—the citizens of New Zealand.  
We have so many unintended consequences that emanate out of this bill. Sadly this bill appears to me to be born out of a notion that biofuels would be the panacea to all our problems going forward. In actual fact the substance of this bill when it materialises into regulations will not do one thing to stimulate the development of biofuels in a sustainable way or any other way. It will just be a very very complex morass of regulations—a spaghetti bowl of regulations—that will be just as purposeful as this Government in its last dying days.  
Thank you Mr Chair for allowing me to speak on this bill. It is rather complex. It is certainly a very new area. I would encourage the Government though to think outside the square because if we have a global issue in finding alternative fuels I would have thought that it would be very important to be able to identify those people who are doing like research and get alongside those so we multiply the effect of the dollar that we have here and in that multiplier effect find some true solutions going forward. At the moment with the bill the way it is it will not stimulate sustain or promote the production of biofuels.