Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Port Waikato): Thank you Mr Chair. Look first of all I'm going to congratulate the Minister for doing Supplementary Order Paper 364 because at least the Minister has attempted to identify a couple of the costs: namely there is publicly listed the total excise duty and the total amount to be paid within the current market price of the emissions trading scheme. So it shows you can do some of it but I think what my good colleague Mr Smith is talking about is very very relevant. I used to chair a shipping company and we used to ship fuel and I also sold New Zealand's largest fuel bunker business some years ago which was sold to a company called Stolt-Nielsen on behalf of the owners from Norway. So I do have a little bit of understanding of the cost structure and the way the market works and I find it absurd that the Minister is way up there in the stratosphere talking in this bill about sort of—not even quite principles because it's not quite clear when I look at new section 29D inserted by clause 4 it is just a statement of intent not even dealing with the issue of principles. So first of all if we're bringing fuel from now Singapore which is the most likely place to bring fuel from now the size of the ship will matter quite considerably. And when you get it here you've also then got the issue of how you transport it to maybe where Mr Smith comes from in Blenheim—whether you're going to use the local shipping fleet or whether you're going to ship it by trucks and of course both have quite different cost structures. So even in the shipping side of the logistics chain there are considerable differences and I know that because we had to look at where we sourced the fuel from and then how we shipped it.The second thing is actually even around the logistics and the maintenance of bulk fuel tanks whilst they do last for a long period of time there are maintenance costs associated with them. Someone with an embedded advantage where they already have existing fuel tanks—maybe being modernised maybe not—that will have a considerable bearing on the cost structure of the fuel container costs so that's another driver. And also the driver for the bulk fuel container business is how often they're turning over stock because of course the stock is a major part of that business. So all of those things—you know if you're from business you understand these concepts around stock and the cost of holding stock. So even if you've got a new operation vs an old one there will be considerable differences in terms of the maintenance costs and all of those associated things.Then you've got a third overlay which is that people act differently in different times in markets and you will get some people who choose to put a discount on because at that period in time they want to buy a market share for a reason that—maybe they've got really old stock that they want to get rid of and therefore they will mark down the price and it's perceived that they're driving down the price. So those happen from time to time and it happens every day in business. So there are three identified clumps of costs and for someone to divinely come up with an assertion that Hey this is out of order"—that one particular supplier's costs are so different that they are now going to be brought under this regime is a tall ask for the commission. I think at best the commission will be able to ascertain whether in fact the price of fuel that is acquired or purchased in Singapore—whether we're paying differing amounts for volume and the price that that fuel is delivered to New Zealand—but beyond that that is a really difficult undertaking to be able to make on behalf of the commission and that's why I'm so disappointed reading this bill. I haven't been part of the select committee but I can understand why this is looking like just a bill to try and pass something to make us look good but it provides no guidance; no instructions in terms of how the Commerce Commission will do its job and certainly not for market participants."