Garrett David: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading 
Garrett David: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill — First Reading Second Reading 
[Volume:651;Page:765] 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I rise to support the Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Biofuel Obligation Repeal Bill which is no big surprise I suppose. But what might be a bit of a surprise is that I agree with much of what has been said both on the Labour side of the House and amongst the Greens. No one can argue that there is a decreasing supply of petroleum. No one can argue that at some point it will become very scarce and very expensive and will eventually run out. We should not actually use petroleum as a transport fuel if we can avoid it for one very good reason which is that it is a unique substance with many unique properties that allow it to be used for many other far more important things. So I agree with members on the other side of the House that the idea would be that we use 100 percent biofuel—tomorrow. The problem is that like lots of ideas it is great in theory. 
In my view this whole case is an example of the folly of going into things as the world leader as we were going to be on climate change—or as some still say we should be. The theory regarding the need to use biofuels is great but let us look at what has happened. The United Nations which is not known for Draconian pronouncements has said that biofuels are a crime against humanity. That point was completely ignored by members on the other side of the House. We should not use them for at least 5 years said the World Food Programme an agency of the United Nations. Why? The reason is that the whole idea is flawed. Although sustainability the buzzword of recent years sounds good biofuel production has led to side effects unintended consequences if you like such as deforestation in Brazil and increasing the price of food for poor people who would have eaten rapeseed that is now being made into biofuel. It has increased the price of food because land that would have been used for food is now being used to grow crops. The use of biofuel is just not a good idea because we have launched into it too soon. 
The speaker from the Greens said the biofuel would have to be produced locally so we know where it is grown. Well the problem with that is that in order to meet the target set by the outgoing Government we do not have enough land here. We do not have enough available land on which to grow biofuel crops. The European Union target for biofuel uptake—one that is not dissimilar from ours—would involve the use of up to one-quarter of the agricultural land. So the European Union will have to import it too. 
As I have said biofuel crops have increased the price of food distorted land use and led to the UN food agency calling them a crime against humanity. Not a great idea! The European Union apparently would require 14 percent of the world’s oilseed production just for itself. Leaving aside the food-price distortions and the other problems that 14 percent of the world’s oilseed production is double what is grown in the European Union now. Where will all that biofuel come from? As my colleague the Hon Heather Roy said in this House during the passage of the legislation Brazil is currently the second-largest biofuel producer in the world. That is great one might say except that when we scratch beneath the surface we see that Brazil has embarked on a massive deforestation campaign and is turning grasslands into sugar cane production areas for biofuel. Increased demand for biofuels would put further pressure on those areas leading to the slash-and-burn clearing of rainforests. 
So if the Green Party is serious about its environmentalist credentials and if it is serious about saving the planet—it is a bit like the nuclear argument which it goes very quiet about; the Europeans say nuclear power the way to go and is the cleanest fuel although I do not know whether I agree with that—then it should support this bill and vote against the use of unsustainably produced biofuels.