SpeechJONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Thank you Mr Speaker. People would have heard from the speech of the Minister of Energy and Resources the Hon Dr Megan Woods how complex this matter is—a multitude of regulations in a market that's very very complex. I'd have to say that one of the comments that was most common from submitters during the hearing process was How is it we get one week to prepare our submissions for such a complex piece of legislation?" I'd have to say that with just one week of submissions and essentially one week to hear them this is a piece of legislation written by the Commerce Commission and officials. It's very very difficult for members of Parliament to really do a thorough job on this.Look I commend the Finance and Expenditure Committee for the work that they did do in trying to grapple with something which I think is quite complex. I'd have to ask the question: what was the big rush? Well we know that New Zealanders don't like to pay more than they ought but I would say that when you look at the evidence and what has been submitted not only through the select committee hearing process from submitters but also from the conference that the Commerce Commission ran for two days in I believe September 2019 there is actually quite a bit of dispute regarding the degree of competition that exists here in the country.In fact when the Commerce Commission came out with their report I would have to say—as one person who sat through two days of that conference—I was quite surprised at what they had to say about competition in this country particularly in the wholesale area being weak. I think some of the comments that came through that hearing time and also following with the select committee were such as this and we put it in our minority report from one fuel company: "If the wholesale market was broken or if the majors enjoyed a structural advantage which impacted workable competition we would not have expected to have seen a total of 76 sites from just the independent retail brands—being Gull Waitomo NPD and Allied—being built in the last five years alone." So while I state those concerns our position is that we reluctantly support this bill because by and large everybody supported the terminal gate price mechanism that has been in Australia since 2007 to bring opportunity for new entrants to the market and to bring some transparency to the market. We believe in competition. Enabling new entrants and creating further transparency is not a wrong thing; it's a good thing.So on that basis we were prepared to support this bill but we still have concerns about the process. We still have concerns about the assumption that the Prime Minister said in this House or in this Parliament that she believed that New Zealanders were being fleeced at the pump. In fact about a month after that we had the New Zealand Herald say in their editorial "You're probably not being fleeced at the petrol pump" after they had some investigation—after they looked at the situation that was happening.One of the other major fuel companies said this: "Margins and returns have increased at the start of this decade"—which is 10 years ago—"but we also observe that competition increased and as a result returns have declined." That is the kind of standard way the market operates: if people see an opportunity they enter into a market. But then when competition rises up people seek to be competitive; they drop their price. This is what was happening here in New Zealand. Look this major company went on to say that across the 2016 and 2018 period included in the draft report by the Commerce Commission as calculated by this company they went from 12 to 10 percent margin. Last year they declined to 8.5 percent margin. This year we forecast them to be about 7 percent. So those margins were already decreasing because of the active work of a competitive market.So what we see here—and I'd have to say I have huge suspicion around the urgency around the rush not only of the select committee process but here we are bringing this bill through second reading committee of the whole House stage and third reading all in one session under urgency because this Government wants to be able to say to the electorate "We have addressed the issue of high fuel prices." But the reality is by evidence supplied by companies through the Commerce Commission and through the select committee process that indeed those margins were softening and weakening because of a competitive market. It was already at work. So we see that here we have just the potential of regulations being entered into. In fact some of the submitters said actually the regulations that are being proposed in this bill could have the perverse outcome of increasing cost to petroleum companies that will increase the cost of petrol to motorists and consumers. We raised this issue with officials and they came up with a degree of flexibility for the Minister in terms of regulations to be able to address those concerns that were raised. This is in regard to clause 45. Let me read it out to you—and it's clause 45 "Differential regulations": "(1) Regulations made under this Act may make different provision for different cases on any differential basis." What does that mean? Basically what that means is it's an out clause for anything in the bill that has a perverse outcome of creating an opposite intention. It gives the Minister an opportunity to basically make different provisions for different cases on any differential basis.It goes on and it says "(2) Without limiting subsection (1) regulations made under this Act—(a) may prescribe requirements for a particular engine fuel or a class or classes of engine fuels; or (b) may prescribe different requirements for different engine fuels or classes of engine fuels; or (c) may prescribe different requirements for different fuel industry participants or other persons or classes of such persons; or (d) may prescribe different requirements for different retail fuel sites or classes of such sites." What is this? I mean yes I think we welcome this because there are so many elements of this bill that actually work against the proposal of reducing the cost of fuel and this proposed amendment from the Parliamentary Counsel Office which the committee have accepted gives incredible flexibility to be able to work around regulations or prescribe elements of the bill that may in fact lift the price of petrol.The concern is that such a rushed process on such a complex matter kind of needs this major piece of intervention in the legislation to be able to get it through. In fact I'd have to say in one session the officials said that actually the dispute resolution process prescribed in the bill is not really fit for purpose. We asked how long it would take to get it fit for purpose. They said "We can't do it within this term of Parliament; it's going to require another Act of Parliament to come into this House."I mean this is not what this Parliament ought to be doing: rushing through legislation for political purposes that then later has to be fixed up. I know we have amendment bills but when you know it from the beginning surely we could get it right.Anyway like I said just in conclusion: we don't think the market is broken. We don't think motorists are being fleeced at the pump. They are paying significantly higher fuel taxes under this Government though. I think the Commerce Commission did their best in a relatively short period of time but didn't get it right. The terminal gate price regime is broadly accepted; we support it because of that. The price is already coming down. We think it was too rushed. Thank you Madam Speaker."