Clark David: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeClark David: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 17 February 2015. Volume:703;Page:1662. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): The member resuming his seat David Bennett made a few laconic remarks and I wish to engage with one or two things. I understand he is a little defensive certainly around the petrol pricing issue where an inquiry is being sought. As the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee he will have the job of receiving that request and dealing with it fairly. Perhaps the pressure of that is getting to him and making him a little looser-tongued than he otherwise would be. He may also be a little defensive right now.There are other issues that are harming his electorate. Of course there is the Skycity deal which is taking jobs away from Hamilton—from the convention centre industry there. A no longer iconic international centre is proposed but it is one that is competing more in the domestic market. So he will be feeling the pinch and a few loose remarks may result but those things can be put to one side as we talk about the bill that is focused on meeting our international obligations in respect of petroleum reserves the Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Amendment Bill.This bill is one that we will be supporting. It is one that makes some sensible steps forward but one of course that we have a few concerns about too. The rising cost of meeting this treaty obligation is something that Labour is concerned about. The cost of petrol of filling up the car at the end of the week is something that New Zealanders feel very directly. This does impose a cost on consumers and that cost must be minimised because after all as a society we want everybody to have access to transport and have the ability to move around and participate in society and we do not want people excluded by unnecessary price increases in petrol. Of course that is why Stuart Nash has put forward this proposal that petrol prices be looked into.The bill itself has that international stockholding treaty obligation it is trying to meet. New Zealand does pride itself on being a good international citizen. Having these kinds of stockholdings also increases the stability of the world markets when responsible countries have stocks in place. We know that energy and politics around energy is a volatile thing. It is a good thing that there are international agreements and treaties to make sure that countries do not find themselves in vulnerable positions.I think there is also a concern around the price signals that are sent here more broadly in terms of energy and energy policy. In a previous life I worked at Treasury on the emissions trading scheme which aimed to—[Interruption] I am not that old I think the member was meaning and it cannot have been a previous life. I was working on the emissions trading scheme. We in New Zealand introduced the first all-sectors all-gases scheme in the world. It was meant to send a signal around fossil fuel prices and give certainty to business about the future path that energy prices would take so that businesses could be sure that in the future renewables were going to be rewarded. And in fact at the time a bill was also passed to ensure that new generation—what is called baseload—would not be from anything but renewable sources and that fossil fuel generation would be outlawed except as spinning reserve in emergencies. This Government got rid of the Act as soon as it came into Government. It was less concerned about price signals ironically than one might think a party that talks a lot about markets would be.At the same time the Government also got rid of the biofuels sales obligation which saw the biofuels industry that was emerging in New Zealand flee the country. That is very sad because New Zealand was on a path to having itself well positioned to take advantage of the renewable resources that we have here to lead the world in new technologies and then to export the intellectual property with that. Instead we saw those industries flee the country as the Government gave more certainty to the oil industry that their interests would be protected.Once again here we are talking about the rising costs and this gives yet more of a buffer for the oil industry where the prices are higher overall and the margins as they come and go are less noticeable. That is of concern because the price signal is something that I would like to come back to and that I would like to see clearly laid out so that we actually have transparent and efficient markets working around fuels more generally.What we know of course is that these energy resources are abundant in New Zealand—the alternatives—and they do compete with petrol when the markets are efficient and in place and working. Things like solar-distributed generation can replace generation from the old-fashioned diesel generators. When geothermal is tapped we have more baseload generation. That means fossil fuels do not need to be tapped into. Likewise in New Zealand we know that most of our major cities on the coastlines have access to wind. There will be a few things here that will be challenging for the Government to get its head around I am sure. Solar may be a challenge to think about in the future because in Auckland the huge shadow cast by the iconic Skycity gambling structure may be putting more clouds on the horizon ruling out thinking of a sunny future there to compete with the oil industry.With that light-hearted comment aside there are great opportunities there and I really think it would be wonderful if the Government was thinking more about those broader price signals as it thinks about our international obligations and with them the climate change obligations that were signalled in the emissions trading scheme I mentioned at the beginning of my speech. We still have those international obligations. Although the emissions trading scheme has been watered down by this Government and does not send the price signal it once did we still have those obligations. The principle of meeting our international obligations is an important one across this legislation as it is across other legislation.That comes back to the concern about our international reputation. New Zealand trades in world markets. We are very proud of that. We are an exporting country and we want to export more as a country so that we can enjoy the prosperity we have now into the future. If we have a diminished international reputation and a diminished ability to trade we will be poorer as a country over time relative to competing countries in the export markets that we participate in.Our other concerns around growing alternative sources of fuel and the international reputation that goes with that I have mentioned. The lack of alternatives that comes with that for businesses for their own business planning and the implications that might have for their prosperity into the future—and with it ours—means that this energy security issue is a serious issue that we do well to debate here. It has been debated. It is something that affects our future prosperity not just in an abstract way but in a very real way as businesses do contingency planning and work out their margins and so on. We want efficient businesses competing in international markets secure in the knowledge that they have the energy sources that they need.So as I said at the beginning we on the Labour side of the House will be supporting this legislation despite our concerns about the rising fuel prices that will go with it. We think that the overall good means that this bill should go through. We think the Government could be doing other things to address those prices like the very sensible suggestion Stuart Nash has of an inquiry into petrol prices. David Shearer raised the issue of transparency in electricity bills which the Electricity Authority supported again in the same general market area. Those kinds of things should be explored. At the moment it feels very much like we have a Government that instead of focusing on those issues is distracted and mired in controversy. The Skycity saga drags on and on and there have been others like Rio Tinto and Novopay before it. Thank you.