Muller ToddTODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Well the role of the Opposition is of course to critique the Government when they put on the table policy that is ill-considered and not in New Zealand's best interests and my goodness hasn't this Government served up a lot of that over the last three years? But you have to bring some prudence and judgment to your critique and we do that as the National Party every day. When the Government serves up something which is reasonably well thought through and pragmatic then of course it makes sense for us to support it and I can see the shocked looks of amazement over on the other side of the House. But actually credit where credit is due. On this occasion I think the Minister of Energy and Resources has put together a bill that warrants our support and we'll be very interested in the feedback that we get from the submitters.So as the Minister has outlined to the House the key component here is about ensuring that we have enough fuel stocks in New Zealand to be able to withstand geopolitical or natural hazard shocks. Those minimum fuel stockholding obligations or MSOs have been set as the following: 28 days of consumption for petrol 24 days of consumption for jet fuel and 21 days of consumption for diesel. Now not surprisingly the tension in the conversation that the departmental disclosure statement and the regulatory impact statement have highlighted is the tension between the need that New Zealand businesses high users of fuel and the Channel Infrastructure leads have for this stock to be kept at a reasonable level and of course the importers themselves who are not that keen on having more obligation with respect to greater capital investment to ensure that they have the appropriate infrastructure to support the required stock levels that have been suggested. So we will be very interested from the National Party side to hear that debate and tension reflected in the various submissions that go to the Economic Development Science and Innovation Committee and assure ourselves through that conversation that actually the right balance has been struck here between ensuring that we have enough capacity in terms of those reserve stocks and that we have reached the right balance because as the Minister has said herself this afternoon the probability of a shock is low but if it happens then the pressure that will come on the New Zealand economy if we do not have access to sufficient petrol jet fuel and diesel will be significant. The challenge I guess from our perspective is whether those timings of 28 days 24 and 21 are right bearing in mind that currently—as in right now—the stock levels for petrol are 43 days as opposed to the 28 that's suggested and 47 as opposed to the 24 days that is suggested. Now I appreciate that this moves a bit over the course of the year but it suggests to me and to us that the concerns that the fuel importers have that this has not been the right balance are probably ill-founded and I think that the Government has landed on something that makes sense. But as I said we will need to test that in the select committee. We will need to test the calculations and we will need to test the risks and the implications because the Minister has said herself that if this was to happen it would cause a huge disruption. For example if we had a natural event that would cause a huge impact on our stores and exemptions would be immediately applied to enable essentially the New Zealand economy to draw down on that fuel beyond our ability to replace it to the minimum levels outlined. The question is that if we have a significant earthquake or if we have a significant geopolitical event frankly is 28 days going to be sufficient anyway and why have they struck that particular time frame as opposed to anything higher or lower? I think these are right questions to ask but the broad intent of the policy that the Government is putting forward here around fuel security and the importance of that from a New Zealand economic perspective makes sense so we're not going to quibble with that. As I said at the start of my speech when the Government fronts with something which is poorly thought through and frankly incompetent you will expect us with loud voices to critique it as we do most days in this House—as we have for the last six years and we will continue to. But when something pragmatic is put on the table we support it. It's very unlikely that this will be fully progressed by the election and I have every confidence that the incoming National and ACT and Whoever Else Party" Government will be able to progress this and get a—Hon Dr David Clark: The "coalition of cuts"—that's what you're looking for. That's the phrase you're looking for. TODD MULLER: Sorry—have a turn yourself. I'm looking forward to your contribution shortly. It will be a highlight of your career as this is for mine—as this is for mine—leading off here on behalf of the National Party. So look it makes sense. It's got a lot of sensible components. We will test it in the select committee to make sure the balance is well struck. Hopefully I have every confidence that the incoming National Government will put it through in its final stages later in the year and I commend the bill to the House."