Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Mr Chair. Well the Minister of Energy and Resources did attempt to answer the question I asked about pricing principles and methodologies but she didn't actually answer the question. All we found is—from her answer to paraphrase her—they didn't want too much control to limit their scope for making an inquiry and what actually defined the principles and the pricing methodologies.But I'd turn your attention to new section 29C inserted by clause 4 When terminal gate prices may be regulated" because it goes "The Commission may make a recommendation that price regulation should be imposed on terminal gate prices only if it is satisfied that the relevant wholesale supplier has posted terminal gate prices for the relevant specified engine fuel and bulk storage facility that were above what would be expected in a competitive market." In order to do that you have to know—not you of course Mr Chair but the Commerce Commission—would have to know what would be an expected price in a competitive market. One would expect that if they were to know that they would need to know the principles and the methodologies that were utilised by other companies to ascertain those prices. But we didn't hear that from the Minister so that doesn't seem like that's part of the scope of the commission's remit to investigate the market as to whether it's competitive or not.This is giving almost like "Henry VIII" - type powers to the commission on a whim essentially because either the Minister in writing or the commission can decide to undertake an inquiry themselves. They can go out and do it. If they say it's not competitive it's not competitive. If they say the pricing methodologies are not good they're not good. If the principles that are used are not acceptable to their standards they're not acceptable. But any other type of regulation like this we would all expect—I think very fair to expect—a definition that would be robust and would be able to be anchored in the legislation so that those companies that are subject to this and the rest of the market in fact can go back and look at that and say "Well actually that's fair enough they're right. The commission is right that company is not sticking to good market practices." or not. But there's nothing; there's absolutely nothing. It was criticised by submitters that there was no definition. It's I think criticised by any right-thinking business people that you would expect and I think the legal professional as well. Why would you have something that's not defined like that? That's just unbelievable. Everyone has the right to know the law—you don't have to know it but you should be able to know it if you want to—and yet you can't in this. We can't; it's just ridiculous.So I don't think that's a good enough explanation Minister. Your officials must surely have a better explanation than that. I mean we're talking about a serious issue here and going on and giving an example it says "However if only 1 supplier at 1 bulk storage facility has posted terminal gate prices for diesel that were above what would be expected in a competitive market the Commission may recommend regulation only in respect of the diesel terminal gate prices". But how much difference does there have to be to trigger that? And I think the Minister alluded to not expecting all the companies to have the same prices in the same place but it seems to me that that's practically what they're going to do. How much difference would be expected to trigger a non-competitive market Minister? That's what I'd like to know. Thank you."