Bennett David: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeBennett David: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 17 February 2015. Volume:703;Page:1660. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): I want to thank members of the House for their speeches tonight which have been very exciting I must admit in regard to this bill.Hon Member: Oh seriously.DAVID BENNETT: Yes including—Hon Member: Especially the last one.DAVID BENNETT: Especially the last speech which was so exciting that the member is now seeking to have another call. This bill as members have said tonight is about providing security for New Zealand’s supply of fuel. Everybody would want to see that happen because as net fuel importers New Zealanders are at the whim of the international market and especially the international supply in the market.Dr David Clark: There’ll be an inquiry at FEC. I can see it.DAVID BENNETT: That member over there the red jacket member of the Labour Party is not dressed in his normal attire tonight but I am sure he will come back once a year with his happy-go-lucky jacket which we like to see. He is into his seventh year of chanting now and we look to him for 11 years of chanting which that member is known for in this House.This is an important bill in the sense that oil supply is something that New Zealanders understand and want to guarantee. This is about an international convention basically where countries have come together and decided that with unity of supply by purchasers they can regulate and control any action that sellers may take with this product trying to dictate supply on the market. That is a very important approach to take especially when you consider that most of the supply comes from regions of the world that are very delicately placed at the moment and have Governments that are in some kind of trouble of one form or another.When we look at the bill we see that all it doesiseffectively shift the cost of that ticketing process. Currently the ticketing which is basically ensuring that you have that supply held at some point is now paid for through the consolidated fund. Basically for every tax dollar you pay a portion of that goes to making sure we have a base supply through this agreement. The change that this bill makes is to reflect that cost in the cost of fuel for the consumer. Rather than central government paying through its central government fund it would do it through the fuel cost for consumers.There are a couple of points we need to discuss in that area. One of them is just what the last member raised about the conjecture around the pricing between international fuel prices and the domestic market. There can be a variety of reasons for that. Although you may see some commodity products reduce in price that does not necessarily reflect in the price of that end value-added product that you get reducing to the same effect because there are a lot of intermediary manufacturing processes shipping processes and the like that do not change to the same degree and that can influence the price differential. So there are a lot of factors in regard to the point that Mr Nash made that need to be taken into account. You can see that in your milk price. That is another indication of a commodity that has had a reduction but the value-added side of it does not necessarily have a reduction in cost. The other—Dr David Clark: Spot the farmer.DAVID BENNETT: Yes well that is the reality of someone who actually produces something in this country not of somebody who sits there and talks about how to transfer money around.The Green Party came into this House and actually supported this bill. It is unique for its members to actually support a Government bill. We thank them for that and may that be a sign of many more things to come. I notice they never mentioned peak oil. When we came into this House 10 years ago every Green speech was about peak oil—“You need to be worried about peak oil. The world’s supply of oil is going to stop.” In fact the world’s supply of oil was supposed to have stopped about now under the Green philosophy. Now we get the Green Party coming in and telling us what the future of the world energy supply will look like. Well it never got it right then it will not get it right now and we do not need that economic plan from the Green Party to come in front of us.The other side is that New Zealand First—and I would not be smiling if I were in New Zealand First—is the only party that is opposing this bill. The neo-communist economic ideology of the New Zealand First Party is something we need to take into account here.Clayton Mitchell: Mr Bennett seriously.DAVID BENNETT: Yes neo-communists—that is what you are; yes. The New Zealand First Party just does not know why it is opposing it. I think Fletcher Tabuteau in his speech sort of talked about it and said: “Well maybe it’s because the Government has to fund it or maybe it’s because the consumer has to fund it.” Maybe there were some other reasons. What were those other reasons?Clayton Mitchell: I said “Very eloquently put.” unlike the waffle that we’re hearing.DAVID BENNETT: “Very eloquently put.” Well Clayton Mitchell did not actually answer it but I can tell you what Fletcher Tabuteau said. He said he wanted the consolidated account of New Zealand the Government of New Zealand to pay not the consumer. That is what New Zealand First is saying in this case. It is the only party in this Parliament saying that. The Labour Party and the Green Party do not agree with New Zealand First in this case and good on them. They actually see the advantage to what we are doing in this bill. There are a lot of reasons that New Zealand First will be taking that approach. It is really just the shallowness of its economic thinking that is probably the fundamental reason. Its attraction to oppose anything is probably the other main reason and its negativity and inability to consider wider issues are probably other reasons that New Zealand First is taking the approach it is.Members of Parliament we have a bill in front of us today that essentially enables New Zealand to sustain its obligations under the international treaty. The way it does that under this bill is to actually pay for that through the consumer through that excise levy rather than through the Government spending money from its consolidated account. That is something that members in this Parliament have considered and decided is in the best interests of New Zealanders going forward.When we look at the global oil supply it is changing. America is now self-sufficient if not a major producer and exporter of energy. The world price of energy has dropped markedly in the sense of that raw commodity product. The value-added product we get is maybe somewhat different. This international obligation we are part of really has at the heart of it a focus on maintaining supply for crude oil. The last speaker from the Labour Party mentioned other types of oil-based products and a lot of those are very value-added specific products. The international obligations are really aimed at countries trying to take advantage of the crude oil supply to try to change that market rather than those more specific value-added products which often are not made in those countries of origin. They export the crude oil and then that is converted into the value-added types of energy products you see. So that may be an answer to the question the Opposition raised around why there are certain exemptions for different types of products. I see a member over there smiling because he is learning something. It is good for him to actually learn in this House.Dr David Clark: Always sitting at the feet of the chair of FEC.DAVID BENNETT: Yes yes. This is a bill that all parties in this House should support. It is a shame that our neo-communists from the New Zealand First Party do not support it. It is good to see the Green Party come to its senses and support it even though it is well off track in its desire to see this as a debate around wider energy issues rather than actually looking at the reality of what New Zealand industry and the economy are based on and their need for the basic crude oil that we have at the moment in our economy. Thank you.