Tabuteau Fletcher: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTabuteau Fletcher: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 17 February 2015. Volume:703;Page:1655. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): May I add my personal commiserations to the family of Celia Lashlie. I have fond memories of working with her as a high school teacher at Rotorua Boys’ High School for an extended period of time as she was developing her book. This is indeed sad news. I do wish to send on behalf of New Zealand First our condolences to her family. I stand on behalf of New Zealand First to oppose this bill. I have been sitting here this evening with building frustration at the supposed solutions to this supposed problem. It seems like a short-sighted and naive attempt to fix a problem we do not actually have. This bill seeks to amend the purpose and the amount of petroleum or engine fuel monitoring levy that is currently provided for under the Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Act 1989 in section 24. Let us be very very clear. New Zealand First agrees with the obligations to meet our international energy commitments and respects the commitment to improve our oil security. That is a treaty obligation but it is also a common-sense mandate that this country must seek. Some of the members spoke quite eloquently about the secure supply of oil. It is essential.However we currently do meet our obligations through some small stocks held domestically but more significant we currently hold a large amount of so-called tickets to meet our obligations. We have been told that the cost of these ticket obligations is going up. There is a current decrease in the domestic production of oil but as the Minister himself alluded to the exploration activity albeit it in some marine reserves at any given time has increased quite significantly and the aim is to increase domestic production. What I would question and I would ask the Minister is: the select committee was told that the ticket price is increasing but what is the situation with the ticket price currently? We know that we also need to increase the volume of stocks. We are using more oil as alluded to by our Green MP and our fleet is growing. New Zealand First does not dispute any of these facts. We know that we are highly dependent on these stocks and to run out of fuel for whatever reason would be devastating for our domestic economy. To suggest that we should not comply with our international obligations would be inappropriate.But here is where the frustration kicks in on the part of our party. There are so many alternative actions that could be taken rather than just adding another tax on to the New Zealand motorist. We are told that the Vote Energy budget is now insufficient. Why is it insufficient now? Why do we not increase the budget? It is a simple question. I will come back to that point later. What has the Minister actually done to establish whether or not the ticket prices forecast by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment are still increasing? What is the current ticket price? We currently have huge surpluses of oil being manufactured in the US and Canada right now. It is one of the leading determinants of the world retail price at the moment. Also we are informed that the ministry responsible did investigate and did determine that the cost of holding physical stocks in New Zealand was prohibitive.The Minister himself spoke rather eloquently about the need for security. Some of the other National MPs actually spoke really well about the need for secure supply. I put it to the House tonight that the tickets are not necessarily going to be that secure supply that we could necessarily rely on in case of some world crisis that would necessitate the need to leverage our tickets with regard to our 90-day stocks. It does not hold well in my mind. We spoke about these treaty obligations in the Committee of the whole House and we were assured by some of the members that we had treaty obligations with these partners but if they are running out of oil themselves what is their motivation to send oil to New Zealand on the other side of the world? I again question whatthe situation was in terms of asking our oil companies to make that capital investment to hold physical stocks. I know it would be expensive. I acknowledge that. But as I noted in an earlier speech to the House on this issue it is an unusual situation in terms of oil prices such that I genuinely believe that the oil companies could take on much of that cost themselves without having to burden New Zealand motorists with that additional cost that it is argued would be implemented if we were to ask them to take that on.The climate in which this legislation was written has changed and the questions of cost could be reviewed. Does this not give us some time now I would suggest so that we could address the issue of the Vote Energy budget? The reason for this question is that I question the National Government’s supposed motivation for this legislation and the user-pays issue. I question how a crisis that restricts the supply of oil to New Zealand to our country is just an issue for New Zealand motorists. One of the National MPs spoke earlier tonight about how this would be a national disaster if we were not getting our oil and if we did not hold these stocks. How is that just the issue of the New Zealand motorist? In fact the legislation which we are currently seeking to add to speaks to National’s historical acknowledgment that this is an issue for all New Zealanders and not just New Zealand motorists. This burden of supposed “user pays” is in New Zealand First’s mind unfair and unnecessary.The solution to add another tax to New Zealand road users—we currently already have one of the highest levy or tax regimes on oil in the developed world paying 67c per litre on petrol. So at the current price that seems to be I mean an unsustainable component of the retail price. What I suggested earlier and I take this opportunity to suggest again is that currently we have this levy we have all of the other levies that our motorists are burdened with and they currently pay GST on it. What was this committee’s or the Minister’s motivation around—well how about we look at how we could fund this problem our commitments to our international obligations through existing taxation? We have a tax on a tax. Why not look at making good use of that?As noted earlier by one of the members on this side of the House the wording speaks about how the levy may be used for the purposes outlined in this bill. It also speaks about the Minister’s responsibilities to consult and it speaks about his ability to consult with those people whom he would choose to consult with. New Zealand First has a strong opposition to that particular part of the legislation. If New Zealanders want to consult on tax especially petrol tax they are well within their right under our democratic process to come to this Parliament and give their voice on a tax that they are obliged to pay.Also to finish it is with some reservations that we note that although numbers were given to this House on what the levy may be and a formula was suggested it is also within the purview of the Minister to set the rate himself. Then on top of that it was acknowledged earlier also that the length of the imposition of the levy is such that we could have paid our commitments off with regard to our international obligations but continue to impose this levy on the New Zealand motorists. It makes no sense it is open-ended and it is completely unfortunate. I stand on behalf of New Zealand First tonight to oppose this nonsensical legislation. Thank you.