It is clear that the world has to do something to end its doomed love affair with oil. It is a persuasive aspect of our society, from our cars, even to bottled water bottles. Petroleum products and vehicle engines are contributing massively to carbon emissions and environmental degradation, at a time when we are all clear about the need to deal with that challenge, both personally and also through action as a country. We just do not know when oil is going to run out, but we do know that as it gets more scare prices will rise, and that will affect all of us everywhere.  We do need better alternatives to carbon-based energy, and one fantastic alternative is the use of biofuels: energy drawn from much more environmentally friendly sources that the petroleum that we have allowed ourselves as a society to become hooked on. But we do need to be careful that biofuels sources are environmentally sustainable. Biofuels are drawn from crops such as corn used to produce ethanol, and there are problems with that in the US. We have seen massive price distortions as a result. But biofuels can also be drawn from other plant sources, or animal sources, to produce bio-diesel or biogas. They can even come from the waste cooking oil from McDonalds.  

But the crops and lands that are used for biofuels production are also used for food production, and that is the problem that this bill addresses. Before the great global economic meltdown, the world experience what The Economist has called “A silent tsunami: rising food prices and shortages”. The race to get on the biofuels bandwagon was a contributor to the silent tsunami that The Economist referred to.  We do need biofuels that are sustainable and produced sustainably. But the problem we have here is one that Moana Mackay alluded to. We could have had all this in place already. It is very annoying and very frustrating for members on this side of the House, and it must also be for the sponsor of the bill who negotiated hard to get the provisions in the repealed legislation, that this House is having to legislate twice – once under repealed legislation, under urgency, before Christmas, and now we have had to wait months for this bill to replace it.  

What are we replacing? What are we dealing with, in terms of replacement proposals? As Moana Mackey said, it is a massive “multimillion-dollar payment to industry, and a total waste of scare taxpayer’s money in the current recessionary environment. It was interesting to hear the previous speaker Chris Auchinvole talk about the market working. If this is an example of the market working, because it gets a $36 million taxpayer subsidy, I am sure there are a whole lot of other parts of New Zealand that would like to have a bit more market, but I do not think we will be seeing that sort of approach extended to those who really are in need. In the meantime while we have been waiting, we could have had this legislation in place, as Moana Mackey said, on I July. Instead, we will have to wait until 1 May 2010. 

In the meantime, jobs have been lost. We have seen that, as a matter of public record, in entities that were relying on the biofuels obligation to make biofuels onshore domestically sustainable. Nevertheless we are here, and certainly Labour members welcome the bill. We are committed to seeking its passage through all stages in the House, if that can be achieved with the numbers that are required. Although I heard Mr Brownlee say that the Government will support it to a select committee, and then the ambition as I understand it is to merge the work that is being done by officials with submissions on this legislation, Labour is happy to commit to seeing this legislation through all its stages if the numbers can be achieved. This is effectively, as Moana Mackey said, a re-enactment of agreed legislation as between Labour and the Greens prior to the last election.  

We do need the bill, as I have said. It will be an important complimentary measure to the emissions trading scheme, when that finally is confirmed by this Parliament, in terms of the tool box that we need to reduce emissions. The bill will be an important part of making sure that we have a balance between food and fuel production, and it will be a very important contributor to that vital principle in which we all believe – encouraging biodiversity. With these concluding comments, I welcome this bill.