Court Simon; Mooney Joseph; Woods MeganSIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair and thank you for the opportunity to ask a couple more questions. Minister that is a fascinating insight and I'm wondering where the evidence or advice comes from which suggests that no new onshore storage needs to be constructed because up until now we've been progressing on the understanding that more tankage more facilities will need to be constructed. So this is new information—if I'm correct Mr Stuart Smith this is new information—that there are no additional facilities that need to be constructed. So I'm really interested as to where that evidence and advice comes from.Because what companies subject to these obligations have told the ACT Party is that they're very concerned that the commencement date on which these obligations come into force 1 January 2025 gives them insufficient time to carry out planning assessments obtain resource consents to build additional tankage additional storage tanks onshore given the fact that the Resource Management Act now includes a requirement for consenting authorities to consider the impacts of climate change and mitigating climate change. They're very very concerned that if they go to a local authority or council and say We'd like to apply for a resource consent to build new storage tanks for petrol and diesel." a regional council and an Environment Court—maybe all the way up to the Supreme Court—says "Well actually no. You shouldn't be building more tanks to hold petrol and diesel because that goes against the stated commitments of the Government other policy to mitigate the effects of climate change by reducing the amount of petrol and diesel that is used."So Minister you've introduced new information not just to the debate but to the understanding that submitters had that they're going to have to build facilities and also how on earth is that possible? I mean if we're going to increase the amount of storage of petrol and diesel and jet fuel in New Zealand how is it that you do that without building more facilities? If you're simply relying on tankers that are anchored up somewhere off New Zealand's coast is that going to be sufficient? What calculation has been carried out? Because if that's the case then surely a memorandum of understanding between fuel suppliers and the Government would be sufficient to come to that without having to pass legislation that opposes all of these regulations all of this cost and industry.So Minister this commencement date of 1 January 2025 is a real concern to organisations that have to plan consent design construct certify and then receive fuel. This stuff does not happen in 15 months usually Minister—partly because the Resource Management Act makes it very complex but also because carrying out designs and constructing fuel storage tanks has extremely high risks. Organisations involved in that need to obtain insurances. They need to be able to satisfy their insurers that they're actually delivering a design that is enduring that is going to meet earthquake standards and so. And also they have to be able to satisfy their financial backers because anybody who works for a fuel supplier company in New Zealand would know that when they go back to their parent company and say "We needs tens or twenties of millions of dollars to build fuel storage tanks." they'd say "In New Zealand? They've said that they're getting rid of fossil fuels. They've said that they're transitioning away from a reliance on high-density high-energy liquid hydrocarbons in favour of solar power wind power electricity."So Minister how on earth are these companies which have assumed that they need to build more tanks on shore supposed to actually comply have tanks standing up and have product in them by 1 January 2025 given the resource management constraints and given their need to obtain financing and then of course carry out the design and construction? How is this going to happen Minister?JOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you Madam Chair. Minister so this bill aims to ensure that New Zealand has sufficient stocks of diesel petrol and aviation kerosene jet fuel to mitigate the risk of plausible disruptions to the domestic or international fuel supplies and sets minimum stockholding levels as expressed in the number of days of demand of consumption required to be covered by each type fuel during the initial period.I'm just wondering is there flexibility in this to take into account changing geopolitical considerations? Obviously there's the war in Europe which we have the moment. There's some other changing considerations. My colleague Stuart Smith mentioned before about Norway for example approving more than $18 billion in new oil and gas investments. So there's some changing geopolitical—fast-changing actually—considerations at play. Are there provisions in this bill to enable those minimum stockholding levels to be moved up or down depending on those geopolitical considerations?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): In answer to the question that was just asked by the member no because that is not the purpose of this bill. This is about our onshore national resilience which is what New Zealand needs and probably if there is a marked change to geopolitical circumstance makes making sure that there is fuel resilience onshore in New Zealand even more important. Where we take account of the international geopolitical changes is actually in our International Energy Agency offshore stockholding. So in terms of what's in scope of this bill no there are no changes.In regard to the questions that the member asked about the ability to use existing storage and whether there is no storage. That analysis of course comes from the Hale & Twomey analysis which was made available to the select committee. One of the things in terms of the storage that is available of course with the closure of Marsden Point as a refinery is that Channel Infrastructure have made some conversion of the storage facilities there to be storage which has opened up a number of opportunities there. The legislation does have provision for some exemptions should there not be enough storage. So it has put in place insurance around that but the analysis that we've had with the new facilities with Channel Infrastructure is that we're not going to require new storage to be built."