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:18297. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It is indeed a pleasure to follow my colleague Nick Smith who would have to be the most knowledgable member in this House on this subject. I would like to refer to the title of the bill and to cover about six issues very very briefly: what the Minister of Energy said previously; the behaviour of the various parties in this Chamber; what true leaders would do when confronted with the challenges that this Government has scored own goals on; the comments that Nick Smith drew to the Committee’s attention; and the record of this Clark-Peters Government on the Kyoto Protocol. 
If we were to listen to and believe what the Minister said before we could only draw the conclusion that this bill in actual fact is not required because everything is rosy. But we know that that is not the case. This Biofuel Bill is a lot deeper and more complex than that. 
When I heard the contributions from New Zealand First United Future and the Greens I drew the conclusion that a lot of members are voting in support of this bill for the wrong reasons and I have seen that happen in this House far too many times. Biofuels have a little bit of a notion around them that they will be the panacea for all our problems. However the science has caught up with them and that attitude seems to be very very perverse. Yet the politicians in this House will support this bill because there has been an amendment around sustainability. 
Nick Smith very eloquently highlighted how senseless the speedy process of this bill through the House is. In actual fact it makes the whole thing quite unprincipled. 
In terms of talk about principles and sustainability we heard from the chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee who got up before and gave a contribution. She spoke about the principles. She could not talk about the standards. I put it to members that if they are talking about the principles around a sustainability standard then why are they pushing this bill through the House before they have that sustainability standard? Why would they continue to go down the pathway of the perverse effects of the production of biofuels: the total demolishing of forests for the purpose of reaping Government-subsidised taxation benefits; rising food prices; and the taking of food from the mouths of the poor? It defies logic. 
Another point I would like to make—time is running away on me—is that I have the sense that a very dumb thing is being done by this House. Accepting those perverse effects a true leader would go further afield instead of trying to fence off New Zealand and make it a solution inside itself. A true leader would actually go further afield and seek collaborative partners to identify long-term global solutions. Is the Clark-Peters Government doing that? Not at all. One has to seriously challenge the motive for it introducing this measure. The Biofuel Bill is damaged because it is being rushed through the House. National members recognise the potential of it but it is hugely risky if one does not get the principles right. 
In terms of the cost when we look at the overall context of things we see that regardless of what the Minister says a lot more money is being spent on this novel bill than is being spent on the substantive game of addressing climate change. Regardless of how one wishes to quote it the cost-benefit ratio of this bill does not stack up. 
Coming from Marlborough I recognise that a lot of the growth in that area in recent years has come from the change of land use. It has come from the use of automotive engines such as tractors which burn fuels. Again this bill will impact upon the competitiveness of our region. 
Probably the point I am most disappointed about is that in asking the Minister to give me an explanation—