Curran Clare: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCurran Clare: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 10 December 2014. Volume:702;Page:1342. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South):I was not sure who was going to take the next call. I certainly think that the previous speaker the Hon Judith Collins who was a very welcome addition to the Commerce Committee is vying tonight for the award for “the twinkle in Parliament’s eye” or to be the “parliamentary Christmas fairy”.Hon Judith Collins: No fairies on this side.CLARE CURRAN: On that note I would like to wish everyone a merry Christmas—and you Mr Assistant Speaker—and do hope that we all have a good break. I think we all need it. It has been a long year. Thank you to the messengers and all of the people who work at Parliament and make Parliament work for us in the background. Thank you so much for your good humour and your steadfast support of us all.I do not want to relitigate what has been said in this scintillating debate on this extremely important piece of legislation which is the last piece of legislation going through in 2014 other than to say that as one of only two members who were actually on the select committee who have spoken in the debate tonight it was not a hugely controversial bill. There were four submissions. I think it was reasonably straightforward in terms of the small changes that were made during the select committee process and recommended back to the House.I would like to make a couple of comments though because what preceded that select committee process with the submissions was actually another process. It was a discussion document that was put out by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment in which there were a number of other submissions given—15 I think. There was much more in-depth discussion that resulted from that.Through that I think the general point that was made and which is why we have got this bill before the House is that the actual cost of the contract requirement requiring this amendment to come before us is actually increasing to a point if the House can see it on this graph where it is going right up. The current appropriation of $3 million to cover that cost is just simply not enough. We are currently at around this point on the graph and it is going up to around $10 million to $12 million. So we have got to be able to find a way if we are going to meet our international treaty obligations to actually do that.Whether there should be a storage facility built so that we could actually keep that fuel onshore was thought about which I think a couple of my colleagues in the Greens and New Zealand First were arguing for. That was determined to be too expensive and that is why we are looking at this expanded levy arrangement which does result in a cost to taxpayers. I think we all need to acknowledge that. But the regulatory impact statement actually puts that cost as being at 0.113c per litre. I do not know about the other costs that have been mentioned tonight. I think in the Committee stage when we do get to the Committee stage it would be good to have the Minister clarify those. That equates to around 4.5c per 40 litres for a tank of fuel—4.5c.I guess we have got to put that into context and I think the New Zealand First representative who spoke who was not on the select committee—it would be worth thinking about that and thinking about what the impact of that actually is on the consumer. I think we do need to get some assurance from the Minister in the Committee stage that there will be close monitoring of that cost and that there are not going to be further costs passed on to consumers because I think that is pretty important.I also think that there has been a huge opportunity missed through this bill as usual by this Government which is more obsessed with presiding over the dirtiest filthiest grubbiest vilest operations we have ever seen in New Zealand politics. Instead it could have actually come up with a strategy for sustainability and looking at where we are going in terms of fuel use and moving beyond oil in terms of sustainable fuel and looking at biofuels and what we can be doing in that space.Where is the economic development strategy that sits behind this bill? There simply is none. As usual it is a piecemeal small piece of legislation that does not fit into a wider strategy. Labour supports the bill because it is sensible it fits our obligations for an international treaty and it is not a huge impost on consumers. But it is small-minded it does not fit into a bigger picture there is no economic development and no ongoing strategy around sustainable fuel and around how New Zealand could actually be using this as an opportunity for economic development. I think that is a great pity. It is a missed opportunity. I look forward to the Committee stage and questioning the Minister on some of those issues. I just reiterate: best wishes to everyone for Christmas. Make sure you have a good break and have a safe break and we will come back fighting in 2015.