Dunne Peter: Biofuel Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dunne Peter: Biofuel Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 02 September 2008. Volume:649;Page:18269. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 It surprises me greatly and I suspect it will astound the Greens even more to be able to say that we find ourselves in virtually total agreement with the comments that Jeanette Fitzsimons made a little earlier about the Biofuel Bill. This bill is not a silver bullet but it is a small step forward and we believe it is a useful step forward that deserves to be supported.  
I was interested in the quotation that Jeanette Fitzsimons read because it reminded me of a number of meetings I have had of late with people and companies that are interested in having a domestic biofuel industry. The message she quoted was very similar to the message they had been giving me in those meetings. It was essentially that there was a need for some certainty; some significant investment decisions were pending based on the fate of this bill. There was certainly a need to get this matter resolved and there was also an issue to ensure that a domestic industry based around our capacity to use tallow was able to be secured and that provisions would be put in place to prevent the potential importation into New Zealand of product from unsustainable sources.  
A number of those matters have been mentioned already. The concern being raised at that time was the absence in this bill as introduced of a mechanism that would prevent the importation of product that was adverse to the sustainability interests that biofuels are ostensibly about promoting and that that would not make it possible to develop a competitive industry in this country.  
I was interested too because it had bothered me to hear earlier references to the fact that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment was opposed to this bill to hear of the sequence of the Parliamentary Commissioner’s report and the subsequent amendment to the bill regarding the introduction of a sustainability clause. I think that makes sense and it puts the Parliamentary Commissioner’s comments into their proper perspective.  
Because of the introduction of those provisions which make it clear that issues relating to the food supply biodiversity protection and the likely importation of some quite dangerous product into New Zealand would be addressed and that we could look with some confidence to what was available domestically we took the view that this bill was worth supporting more than it was worth opposing. We had not made the call to oppose it but we were getting to the stage of thinking that some of its measures would not be as environmentally desirable as they had been portrayed and that therefore this might be one of those things that look good on paper but was unworkable in practice.  
The bill that has emerged—and I acknowledge the discussions we were able to have with the Minister at critical stages—I think addresses the concerns that reasonable people have about the way in which this measure is being advanced. Therefore it is appropriate to support its further passage. Those reasonable views are not some wild-eyed exposition of the fact that biofuels are a saviour to us all or that the advent of these products would move us away completely from our dependence on oil-based products or other alternatives. But there is a recognition of the possibility that a market niche could be developed in New Zealand particularly given the level of tallow in this country to give us some alternative and to perhaps just spread out a little more the range of products available. This has to be handled in a sensitive way and also with a degree of precision so that key investment decisions can be made. 
The message I distinctly recall receiving from a number of the potential investors—and I note that one has already gone by the wayside—was that unless Parliament proceeded to send the signal in relatively good time this would simply be theoretical and there would be no capacity to develop a domestically based industry. As a result of that we would be totally reliant on an imported product with all of the implications that have been discussed in other addresses this afternoon.  
On that basis I think this bill is a prudent step forward and is one worth supporting. It is not perfect in every respect. Some issues will need to be resolved as the regime it introduces unfolds. There is clearly an issue about the fact that the bill takes effect in October but there is a window until July of next year when the sustainability standard comes into force. That is a practical step as I understand it to get over the fact that certain transitional steps are under way.  
The challenge I think the House faces and why we come down on the side of supporting the bill is that we either make a stand on this issue at this time given the interest there is and the capacity in the New Zealand economy to make some movement or we effectively give it away as an option for this country. On that basis we made the call to support this bill. We think that it is the right decision and we believe that although there may well need to be adjustments as the bill takes effect in order to put in place a more viable long-term regime it is important to make a start at this point. That is why we are voting for the bill.