Court SimonSIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. This bill is attempting to solve a problem that is a genuine problem that needs to be addressed. That is the issue of resilience in New Zealand's fuel supply and fuel infrastructure. Why is it a problem? Well according to some it's because the Marsden Point oil refinery closed. Another reason given why New Zealand's access to liquid fuels is at risk is because the Ukraine war disrupted supplies primarily from the world's biggest gas station Russia. But let's be honest the major disruptor to fuel resilience and to a supply of affordable energy in New Zealand has been this Labour Government with its terrible policies banning oil and gas exploration and forcing regulations and costs onto businesses that are simply trying to make products that are affordable for consumers that want to hire workers expand their facilities manufacture and export to the world and deliver better economic and social outcomes for New Zealanders.Well it's their resilience that is at risk from this Labour Government and this bill doesn't address that. In fact it increases costs to consumers increases the risk that some businesses might choose not to invest further in New Zealand because they're unsure about the regulatory environment that they would experience here. And for that reason ACT won't support this bill but we do have some suggestions as to how to improve fuel resilience.So what does resilience mean? Well if you live on the West Coast of the South Island or if you live in Wellington and there's a major earthquake—I'm talking the big one": the Alpine Fault letting go or a magnitude 8 earthquake on the Wellington Fault or the Wairarapa Fault; the kinds of events that absolutely annihilate cities and destroy infrastructure in a way that can take decades to rebuild. Ask the people of Christchurch what that was like and that was only a 7-point-something. The Alpine Fault's going to deliver something between an 8 and a 10 magnitude earthquake.What does resilience mean to communities affected by that? Well what it would mean is that there is infrastructure that is built to be resilient: roads ports additional lifeline routes. Transmission Gully into Wellington is a great example: before that was built Wellington only had State Highway 2 over the Remutakas or State Highway 1 through Kāpiti Coast. Resilience or fuel resilience can simply mean the tankers can get through the trucks can get through. It doesn't necessarily mean building a whole lot of storage tanks or forcing the private sector to build a whole lot of storage tanks to store a couple of extra days' supply of diesel or petrol. That's nonsensical because if the roads are broken and the port is devastated from an earthquake it doesn't matter that you've got a tank of petrol or diesel somewhere else in the country. It won't be able to get to the people who need it.What about industrial action? Well if there's one thing this Labour Government has ensured with its fair pay agreements we're bound to get more industrial action unless we can turf this Government out in October. Isn't that right Mr Baillie? Isn't that right? We're bound to get more union blockades at ports. No doubt there'll be climate-worried unionists wanting to blockade fuel terminals—Simeon Brown: Or glue themselves to the water!SIMON COURT: —or disrupt shipments or as Mr Simeon Brown said maybe even glue themselves to the road in the path of fuel tankers.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! The member will come back to this bill instead of pontificating and saying what might happen. SIMON COURT: I mean to describe my offer as pontificating is to deify me in a way that no one else would but thank you Madam Speaker.Industrial action is a risk of fuel resilience and then of course fuel quality: shipments of fuel coming to New Zealand which don't meet the quality standard. If you put dirty aviation fuel into a plane that could cause a massive risk to passengers and freight. If you put dirty diesel into a truck that could stop your truck on the side of the road cause you the loss of a couple of days' business.The problem that most people face is when they go to fill up with gas if they're not paying close attention instead of putting diesel in the ute they put petrol or vice versa—that's the typical quality issue New Zealanders have to face. But let's be honest even without Marsden Point oil refinery there are a whole series of refineries on the East Coast of Australia two to three days' sail away that can take off-spec product out of New Zealand return it to the refinery it was supplied from in Australia probably get them to redo the batch—at their own cost if they've supplied us with faulty product—then we get it back and we're good to go.Well that brings me to the issue at hand: fuel resilience the minimum stockholding obligation. This bill will require fuel companies to build tankage to build pipe networks to build bunded containment facilities to fence them off to provide fire protection systems and groundwater monitoring systems for a very long time to come. Because you don't just build a fuel storage tank put 30 50 thousand tonnes of fuel in it and then say job done walk away we'll just send the tankers every few days. That requires constant monitoring constant oversight groundwater testing air emissions testing. The obligation is not for a bit more diesel in a tank it's for a whole lot of cost and red tape on industry out potentially decades into the future.And then we come to the next problem. Apparently this Government believes there's a climate emergency and that climate was a nuclear-free moment for a former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and her Labour Party. And yet here we have a Labour Government bill insisting on building more fuel storage around New Zealand. Apparently we're still going to need petrol and diesel into the future—who knew?Well belatedly Minister Megan Woods introduced this bill gave the select committee two weeks to hear submissions on a matter that anyone in the industry anyone in the transport industry depending on fuel could have said we will always be reliant on liquid fuels until there is something cost effective to replace them. So two different policy directions: save us from climate change by getting rid of fossil fuels; oh by the way could you please build more fuel storage for fossil fuels because we're going to need them a lot longer.Completely incoherent policy approach and that is why New Zealand after six years is begging for a change of Government having practical people with policy solutions that actually make it more affordable to live and work in New Zealand to set up and do business in New Zealand. That's what people are asking for. That's what ACT MPs are hearing when we go around the country. And they're also asking for some certainty and security about their energy supplies.So what would ACT do? Well we listen to the industry: the people who import fuel the people who store fuel the people who supply fuel—not just to the retail service stations where I might take my Subaru and fill up with the highest octane I can get on any given day but the people who supply fuel to all the trucking companies to the telecommunications companies that depend on having diesel for generators to keep the telco networks up and running in the event of a loss of electricity or a loss of service.And what they told us was this: "Simon there are a whole lot of refineries on the east coast of Australia a few days' sail away. There are ships constantly crossing the Tasman loaded up with aviation fuel with diesel and petrol. We rely on Australia. They are our only formal ally as nation states. New Zealand and Australia have a closer economic relations agreement. If we can't rely on Australian suppliers to supply us with petrol and diesel who could we rely on? And if there needs to be a minimum stockholding obligation well could you please let us count the ships that are actually in the Tasman heading here? Because unless something goes terribly wrong they're not likely to get lost travelling between the east coast of Australia and New Zealand. We'd like to be able to count that fuel on the seas is part of the obligation. We think that's practical. We won't need to build any tankage."The ACT Party would concur with that. It comes at no cost to the taxpayer no cost to the consumer; no extra infrastructure needs to be built; no extra bureaucracy and monitoring and regulatory compliance for new equipment; no risk of stranded assets and stranded capital—another issue that suppliers of fuel are worried about. It's a very simple and elegant solution. It doesn't even require this Government to pass a law. That's what ACT would accept. That's what New Zealanders need: no or low-cost fuel security delivered by the private sector market-based solutions. That's what ACT stands for and we look forward to delivering all of that."