Court Simon; Woods MeganSIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you Minister; it's very helpful to clarify that and I do appreciate that. So given that Channel Infrastructure a private company is building the storage that would mean essentially that New Zealand suppliers of fuel comply why is this legislation necessary?Given the Minister's statement that a private company is building all of the storage necessary and that no additional cost is likely to be faced by the sector that no additional storage is likely to be built as a result of this legislation passing or it won't be needed why is this legislation necessary? It appears to impose a whole lot of regulatory red tape which will tie up the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment the ministry responsible for administering it. It'll tie up fuel suppliers in reporting obligations not just to a Government department which will require the information but also internally to their own boards to their own governance entities to demonstrate how they're complying with it. There'll be legal costs involved. There'll be technical risk assessments—all kinds of things involved by the private sector in order to demonstrate and to satisfy themselves that they're meeting their legal obligations. All this has cost Minister—all this has cost. Yet in response to my previous question you've stated quite glibly honestly factually—and thank you for that—that you have had advice that Channel Infrastructure's conversion of Marsden Point refinery to an onshore storage facility means no additional storage needs to be built. The problem is solved.Minister this bill is being passed under urgency. It will be passed today according to the Government's legislative agenda. There doesn't appear to be any need for it. It's of great concern—the cost this will add to a sector that's already facing additional costs. Petrol prices in Auckland for example are already up over $3.15 a litre for regular 91. Minister how much is all of this regulatory red tape all of this cost of compliance going to add to a litre of petrol and diesel? That's a question I asked you earlier in the session. We still haven't had an answer.So here we are passing a bill under urgency Minister at the direction of your Government at your direction the Minister responsible—the Minister of energy which you say is not necessary now because the obligation to hold more stock onshore is already met. How much is all of this red tape and compliance going to add to a litre of petrol and diesel? I mean Minister if Channel Infrastructure are building the tankage and the suppliers are going to comply why do we need this bill?Secondly Minister if it's an issue of resilience if we think about where diesel and jet fuel might be required Marsden Point Channel Infrastructure—fantastic. But New Zealand's subject to seismic risks. We have the Alpine Fault in the South Island. We have the Wellington Fault in Wellington. We have fuel storage at Petone at the north end of Wellington Harbour. How would we know that in fact New Zealand has achieved some kind of resilience in the supply of liquid fuels when apparently Channel Infrastructure is going to have enough storage? But what about those places around New Zealand which might be subject to natural hazards? Resilience isn't just about ticking some box so you can file a report to a Government department and say you comply or fulfilling some legal regulatory obligation to your own company. Resilience means actually being prepared for disasters and being able to respond and being able to restore basic services like the supply of fuel not just to retail service stations but also to say the hospitals which rely on diesel power generators in the case of power outages; telecommunications as we saw during Cyclone Gabrielle—absolutely reliant on diesel and petrol generators to keep telecoms networks operating.So Minister this bill talks about fuel resilience. Apparently that's already resolved by the private sector but what appears to be missing is any additional improvement in fuel resilience around the rest of the country particularly in the South Island in Canterbury the Wellington region where they are subject to significant seismic risks and natural hazards and that may very well be where fuel is needed but fuel can't get through in the event of a natural disaster. So Minister why is the bill even needed when Channel Infrastructure is apparently going to solve it all for us? How much is it going to add to a litre of petrol and diesel? And why hasn't actual physical resilience been taken into account?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): I have addressed the why in previous answers. I will briefly traverse that for one last time. The reason why is because it is important that Governments ensure security of supply of fuel for a country—to not leave it to chance. I pointed out in an earlier contribution to that member the fact that our jet fuel was below the minimum holdings that does provide that resilience for New Zealand—in December of that last year.In terms of the member's concerns around the fact that he seems to be under the impression that everything is going to be held at Marsden with Channel Infrastructure that is not the case and I point the member to the provision within the legislation that provides a clause to provide for a regulation-making power to adjust obligations and location specific requests could be part of that. Very much the thinking of putting this together is not only resilience in one place but what does resilience across the country look like and indeed the request for proposal for the diesel stockholdings is about to go out and geographic disbursement will be part of that. So the member can be assured that it has been part of the thinking of putting together the regime.