Curran Clare: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCurran Clare: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 17 February 2015. Volume:703;Page:1648. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Firstly with your indulgence Mr Deputy Speaker I too would like to acknowledge the absolutely important contribution of Celia Lashlie to our country and to so many parents—mothers—around this country. Growing Gorgeous Boys into Good Men is a book that I have next to my bed. As I have two 14½-year-old boys it is of great importance in learning how to raise them and listen to them and not to be too pushy. Her passing is a loss to our nation and I am really pleased tonight that so many people have acknowledged her.Secondly I would like to express my disappointment that the Minister of Energy and Resources in his speech did not address one—not one—of the issues that were raised during the Committee stage on this bill and there were a number of really important issues that were raised. What that makes me conclude is that the Minister did not even bother to read the Committee stage speeches or even consider some of those important issues which I am going to list here tonight.Thirdly New Zealand takes very seriously its important role as a good international citizen in our part of the global community. What that means is that we have a sense of our place in the world as being independent and sensible and rational and caring. Meeting our obligations with regard to international treaties such as the oil stockholding obligation relating to this bill is just one of many treaty obligations that we take seriously. But we do that with a sense of knowledge thinking and being clear about why we are fulfilling those obligations. As a nation we are not lapdogs and never should we become lapdogs blindly going and following the path of other countries without really thinking through and debating the reasons for doing so. That is an important point to make in the current context. We on this side of the House have no quibble over fulfilling our international obligations with regard to oil stockholding. It is clear that we have to fulfil those obligations. The point of this bill which is not a major piece of legislation is that we are looking at how we can do that better and how we can do that in a way that is more modern and is an updating of legislation.There was quite a lot of discussion at the Commerce Committee. I am one of the few members speaking on this bill who actually sat through the select committee debates on this which I am going to acknowledge were not massive and were not long and ongoing but there were some important questions asked. One of those questions was around the cost of this bill and the impost on petrol costs and whether that would be significant. We were reassured and told very clearly by officials that this would have a very minimal effect on petrol costs.I would like to acknowledge tonight the important contribution that my colleague Stuart Nash has made around announcing that Labour is calling for an immediate inquiry into the way that petrol costs are actually happening and into the supply chain in this country and into who is actually bearing the cost given that the price of oil has actually gone down and we are not seeing the results of that in our own country. So I am just putting on the record and reinforcing what Stuart Nash has said which is that it is critically important that we watch what happens following the passage of this bill and we must ensure that there is no leeway given for oil companies to use this as an excuse to put up costs in this country in any way to halt the reduction in the cost of petrol or to in some way use this bill as a cover for the anti-competitive practices or practices that we would need to consider in an investigation.The other thing that has not happened as the result of this bill—there was a very big opportunity and the Minister unfortunately has not taken that opportunity—was to look at exceptions. During the discussion on this bill it was pointed out that the cost of airline fuel is excluded in the levy that is being collected as a result of this bill. Officials said that international jet fuel is exempt from taxation under the Convention on International Civil Aviation. It is currently 15 percent of New Zealand’s fuel consumption including the fuel used for international transport. Just as an aside we are also not seeing a reduction in the cost of airline travel despite the reduction in the cost of the fuel and that is another issue that I think is important tonight.But the point of saying that is that during the Committee stage of this debate the importance of biofuels as part of the way that New Zealand will produce fuel in the future was touched on. It was touched on in the discussion on the bill but its importance was never acknowledged. An amendment put forward by my colleague Dr Megan Woods to exempt biofuels from this bill was voted down by the Government members across the Chamber. Why they did that was never discussed because we have never had the opportunity to discuss it.The importance of that part of the industry has certainly been acknowledged. In fact the Government has got some investment in biofuels but in terms of using them—in fact I am just going to read you a bit of the officials’ advice here where they said that “[A] way of reducing New Zealand’s net oil import dependency is through greater efficiency of transport and use of alternate fuels such as domestic biofuels and electric vehicles. … The use of biofuels and electric vehicles in the transport sector is increasing from a small base and has potential to meet a greater proportion of transport energy demand in the future.” Well why then was this not used as an incentive for that sector? Why could this bill not have been used as a way of increasing the incentive for that sector?I guess that goes to the heart of another problem that Labour has with this bill which is that there is no “joined-up-ness” about this bill. There is no sense of it forming part of a bigger picture around energy security generally in this country or of developing alternative energy sources. There has been inaction on a wider energy strategy and therefore it is a bill that sits on its own. It is a piecemeal piece of legislation. Labour is supporting it because we support our commitment to meeting our treaty obligations and because we do not have any particular issue with the change in mechanism that is being used for the levy but we do raise issues around the cost of petrol and the bigger picture around that as to why those costs are not coming down why the Government is not looking at that as part of a bigger picture and why there is not a bigger discussion happening about an alternative energy strategy for New Zealand.Those are the big questions in this debate and this discussion. Unfortunately not once has any member of the Government on the select committee or anyone representing the Government who has knowledge of this sector got up and had a discussion about the bigger picture in this area. Now is the time to do that and although we support this bill we are putting that challenge across the House.