Dyson Ruth: Sustainable Biofuel Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dyson Ruth: Sustainable Biofuel Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 04 April 2012. Volume:679;Page:1688. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 It has just become blindingly obvious to me why when that member who has just resumed his seat Paul Goldsmith paraded up and down the streets of Epsom saying “Please don’t vote for me; vote for John Banks.” he had such a huge ability to persuade people. I think that would have been a very easy request when he said: “Don’t vote for me.” That speech has just confirmed the people of Epsom’s correctness in choosing that as an option. That was an extraordinary speech—really extraordinary. I am not quite sure what the member stands for or against; neither was clear from his speech. Does the member support sustainability? I think that is probably a no. Does he support the use of biofuels? Not clear either. This is not a trick question but listen to it carefully: does he support his own Government’s subsidy on biofuels? Oh no he is going to consider that. He is seeking advice from “The Maestro” Jonathan Coleman on that very point. Could I recommend that you ignore it? Like the rest of his colleagues do ignore it.  
I was very pleased however to see that member take a call because I thought that National had given up. It put poor old Nicky Wagner and Maggie Barry up and they really had to work hard to justify to their former so-called blue-green constituency how they could possibly be voting against sustainable biofuels legislation. How could they do that? Just amazing. Well I am looking forward to the next Bluegreens conference where they will be explaining it to the National Party members up and down the country who I know are saying “They are voting against what?”. They are truly voting against the Sustainable Biofuel Bill on the grounds of sustainability. Well work that one out. I have listened to all those members’ speeches tonight. I have listened to all their speeches and what the member who spoke earlier from the Green Party Gareth Hughes said is absolutely right. They are voting against it because it is a Green Party bill not because they have any principles or values or any integrity in their voting. They are just voting against it because they could not bear to see a Green Party bill progress.  
Well I think we should be a little more mature in this Parliament. I think we should vote for bills if we think they are good and vote against them if we think they are bad regardless of which party is introducing them. We have had MMP in this Parliament for quite a long time and I would have thought that might be one of the lessons that could be learnt from our new voting system. Talking about MMP I want to acknowledge the former co-leader of the Green Party Jeanette Fitzsimons and say what a huge contribution she made clearly not to progressing this issue but to getting the issue on the table in Parliament and arousing a huge amount of debate. My colleague Moana Mackey who gave the most sensible contribution amongst the rabble from National and was followed closely after by Grant Robertson and Gareth Hughes—thank goodness some sense during this debate—outlined very clearly the issues that were raised during our introduction as a Labour-led Government of the biofuels issue the contribution that Jeanette Fitzsimons made the debate that happened at the select committee and the changes that were made. Metiria Turei eventually became the lead spokesperson I think on that issue and now Kennedy Graham has picked it up so it has been around Parliament for a long time.  
I suppose it is really quite odd to think that after all that thinking all the contributions from the submitters and the work that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment did and after the officials put in hours and hours of work to support a sustainable biofuels industry in New Zealand here we are on Wednesday night in Parliament and National ACT and Peter Dunne I suppose—and I do not know about the Maori Party; I have not heard its contribution yet—are going to vote it down. What is it about a sustainable biofuels industry in New Zealand that we do not want? I do not understand it. 
Paul Goldsmith 
: We don’t want the price. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The member who did not want anyone to vote for him made an interjection. Fortunately I did not hear it. I am really relieved actually that I did not. [ 
Interruption 
] No it is a he. It is whatever his name is whom John Banks beat. It is the young man who wrote John Banks’ biography then stood against him and asked people not to vote for him.  
The biofuels industry itself has told us that it could provide us as a nation with 30 percent of our fuel needs. I think that sounds quite good. I think that that is something that most New Zealanders would aspire to. Most New Zealanders do not like our reliance on imported fuel and we particularly do not like the price. What is it about New Zealand jobs that the National Party does not like? We had a huge amount of interest and commitment from the biofuels industry which has subsequently cost hundreds and hundreds of jobs because National pulled it. That is why the industry was not interested in contributing to this legislation at these last stages: because National had made it clear it was going to vote it down whereas previously it had been active and involved and contributing. We know the way that the industry could change the sustainability of our economy. [ 
Interruption 
] That is true. The National Party has lost one of its leading environmental thinkers and contributors with the resignation of Nick Smith. I am not going to dwell on that other than to say that on issues like this he would have been the sole voice in Cabinet speaking any sense and by the sound of the contributions this evening the sole voice in the caucus speaking sense on this issue. If the National Party is serious about a future for New Zealand that is better than it currently is it needs to have a plan. It needs to look to the future and ask what sort of country and society we want to have. A critical part of that has to be sustainability and the biofuels issue needs to be addressed.  
I think it was really petty politics actually that caused National to just dump so hard on the work that the Labour-led Government had done previously with the package that been worked on so hard. As we heard already from previous speakers we know that we would have reduced our greenhouse emissions we would have had a security in New Zealand from knowing that any biofuels that we did import would not be at the cost of food production—and that is really important—and that we would not have had any threats to our biodiversity. Those were the three critical issues that the Local Government and Environment Committee has looked at and that have been discussed with us tonight.  
These principles the sustainability principles which are outlined in this legislation that is now championed by Kennedy Graham were originally in Labour’s Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Amendment Act. That was the legislation that was not just repealed by National but repealed under urgency by National. It has done that far too often under urgency without any consideration or input from the public about an issue that could really help us in the future and make us not just a more sustainable country but a more envied country internationally—and that is what we should aspire to. We would have had the 60 million - litre biodiesel plant in the Bay of Plenty. Is there anyone who currently lives in the Bay of Plenty who says “No thank you very much. We have got plenty of work up here. We don’t want a sustainable industry with high-quality high-value well-paid jobs in our area. Please just leave us as we are.”? I do not think that is true. That 60 million - litre plant was pulled after the National Government dumped our legislation. The Bay of Plenty members of Parliament in this House should hang their heads in shame.  
It is a total disgrace that that huge opportunity for New Zealand was lost because of the National Government’s action. We had two production plants in Auckland and Waharoa. Both of them had plans to expand had gone public on their plans to expand their biofuel production and now they have said: “Well they’re canned. They’re put on the side.” Nicky Wagner thinks that is fine. She probably says like Gerry Brownlee does about the housing crisis in Christchurch “Let’s just leave it to the market.” This is what happens when you do not support an industry that could do so much better for us as New Zealanders. They just say: “Well we’re not going to expand. We’re not going to build our plants.” This is a huge opportunity lost. That is because National has no plan for the future. Between Labour and the Greens I think we had a really tidy package. There was a huge amount of effort and work put into it. This legislation deserves to be supported.