Clark David; Salesa JennyHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin): It's a pleasure to speak after that member Chris Penk who is always wise in the matters of grammar and I do acknowledge that he was referring to a conversation we had recently where we discussed some of our pet hates around words that add additional syllables where they're not needed. So I will follow his lead and talk about obliged persons at the appropriate point in my contribution. I do want to also acknowledge those who've gone before in this debate and particularly Todd Muller. I want to wish him well in his retirement—a very sensible decision. Although with his sensible speech today I wanted to invite him to stay on—we don't get enough of those from opposite. It was one where he contributed I think some wise thoughts on the merits of this bill and the reasons that we're having it. If I can remind members that this bill introduces a statutory framework for adopting fuel resilience measures over time to ensure that we as a country are well prepared should there be further supply chain interruptions the likes of which we had during COVID and subsequently actually. Shipping lines and the like are now starting to perform in a way that we might hope but previously they were horribly out of whack with our expectations with the likes of the war on Ukraine which had an impact on global fuel prices and the natural disasters we've had in the North and on the East Coast of New Zealand in particular where we've come to rely very heavily on diesel and other supplies at short notice for keeping communities supported through a very difficult period. So that's the kind of context if you will for this bill and it of course comes as part of the wider announcements the Government made in November last year in a package designed to make sure that we have the security that we want for our fuel supplies. I did also want to note the other part of context here which is the market study work that the Government did. The incoming Government in 2017 funded market studies for the Commerce Commission which aimed to make industries more competitive and we know as a result of the work on fuel that we now have fuel prices on the forecourts which helps customers decide where they're going to shop. We also know that if we look at the fuel margins for importers actually they did drop in response to that legislation as best we can tell and that's meant that people in a time of a cost of living crisis—Simon Court: Show us the evidence—show us the evidence.Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: —have saved money. The member opposite says Show us the evidence." It's there on the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) website. I can point him to the data if he wishes. I don't have the calculation in front of me. I've done it previously. Evidence is something that he'd like to see so I'll have a conversation with him afterwards and point him to where the fuel margins are on the MBIE website. If he believes in markets and a market response then he may be willing to attribute that response in the market to the changing conditions in the market and the changing nature of regulation surrounding it because it changed the nature of the market and therefore changed the nature of the response. But he may not believe in markets—I can never tell with the ACT Party. It's one of those great mysteries. They say they believe in markets but then the next minute they turn round and pretend that they don't happen and want to regulate things or say some kind of economic-defying statement.Anyway back to this matter at hand—I shan't be distracted too long off on that track. We know from that market study of course that the likes of Gull attribute their entry into the South Island to the changing conditions that came with the increased and appropriate regulation of the sector because they knew that they could then compete in a fairer market. With a fairer market of course what we do then see happen is we see markets deliver an outcome for consumers which is narrowing margins and a more competitive market place. In a more competitive market place of course there are incentives to lower stockholdings and this bill is designed to ensure that minimum stockholdings are in place so that in that more competitive market we don't get the unintended consequence of reduced fuel holdings which we could imagine easily occurring in an actually more competitive market. So I think all of those things are useful context as we debate this bill and I am pleased to see that the Opposition spokespeople that have spoken so far from the National Party are supporting the bill because they recognise sensible regulation that makes a market work in our interests and in the interests of consumers. So to the bill itself and the response that it provides it is there to boost New Zealand's fuel supply resilience and economic security because we also know that where there are disruptions in fuel supply that can have a knock-on effect in the economy. If planes don't fly our produce doesn't get to international markets. If we don't have the diesel generators to support industries to keep things cold when there have been natural hazard events natural emergencies then stock can end up being thrown away and not reach the intended markets. So these obligations that are being introduced for minimum stockholding in the bill build in the flexibility that we might need to adapt as a country to future events—to future supply chain disruptions. I note the member Chris Penk raised the issue of "Henry VIII" clauses and the debate around that. These are regulation-making powers we're introducing as a Parliament and I think it's a legitimate debate to have about the extent to which they will apply to ensure the security that we want. The bill grants the Minister the right to waive those obligations in a natural disaster for example where it's obvious that those reserves need to be used to keep the economy going or to keep people safe. That makes sense that you wouldn't then hold the stock because of course the reason for holding the stock is to actually deal with the situation in those events. So there are some very sensible debates that will need to be had around this. The Government also plans to buy and hold around 70 million litres of diesel stocks which we know is approximately seven days' worth of diesel stocks.Those are the basics of the bill but I wanted to turn for the point of the debate to the legislative statement that's been tabled because it does reveal some of the finer print around the minimum stockholding obligations. Interestingly the legislative statement talks about "minimum fuel stockholding" and then provides the abbreviation "MSO". Now we know that that stands for "minimum stockholding obligation"—it's not spelt out in the legislative statement but I think members will know about that—and it talks about "28 days of consumption for petrol on average;" must be held "24 days of consumption for jet fuel on average;" and "21 days of consumption for diesel on average in New Zealand." in order to comply with the legislation. But the regulation-making powers which enable the Government to have a clear oversight of New Zealand's fuel resilience are able to be adapted according to future situations. That is the wisdom that's being debated here and as I've said earlier it's good to see that the National Party are intending to support this to the select committee. The point I want to bring up is that the bill also empowers the chief executive of the regulator—in this case I imagine it would be the Commerce Commission—to "accept enforceable undertakings from persons in connection with any matter relating to the enforcement of the MSO" and so right through this bill there are degrees of flexibility to ensure that it's actually getting the outcomes that we want for consumers for our citizens and for our economy. That's I think really sensible and I do hope the whole Parliament in fact will support the legislation as a consequence and enjoy the debate through the select committee where the finer points can be debated. But the purpose I think is something that I hope all parties in this Parliament will support and really the purpose is to have a framework if you like for introducing measures that cover off the monitoring and the measurement of fuel supply risks and the management of those risks as they're identified. So one of the things that's in here as a possibility is specified locations for stockholding of fuel. Now those are not supplied in the initial version of the bill; those are to be determined through regulation and according—one would assume—to need. The methods of calculation for determining required stockholding volumes are up for grabs through regulation and so too are the specific requirements for disclosure of information in relation to resilience of fuel supplies in New Zealand. So those things are all able to be made through regulation according to this framework and I guess they allow the Government to have a clear oversight as situations develop in the future. We want to be nimble we want to be resilient and we want our economy in particular to be protected and then I will note in closing that there's also provision outlined in the legislative statement for a review—in fact there must be a review of the MSO within five years after it commences—and there is a very sensible list of things that must be considered in that review—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! Order! The member's time is up."