Tabuteau Fletcher: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Amendment Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeTabuteau Fletcher: Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Amendment Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 10 December 2014. Volume:702;Page:1339. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First):It is quite similar to yesterday. There are lots of conversations on this side of the House about disagreeing with what the Government is trying to do and yet it seems at this stage anyway that only one party will stand up to oppose how it intends to fix this small problem. I stand on behalf of New Zealand First to attempt to add some small controversy to today’s proceedings.The Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Amendment Bill amends the purpose and the amount of the petroleum or engine fuel monitoring levy that is currently provided for under the Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Act 1989 section 24. New Zealand First does agree with the obligation to meet international energy agreements. It does agree that having 90 days’ worth of oil stocks is absolutely essential. We as a country must meet our obligations to our international commitments and these stocks must be held with our—as suggested—domestic oil supply. It is a $20 million commitment over the next 3 years. It is not large but as was well spoken to by previous members there are reasons why this bill should not go ahead as it is written.What is important to note as well is that it is not just physical stocks and actually it is not stocks in New Zealand. What we are talking about is the rights to tickets or stocks held in other countries that will count towards our total stock obligation. We are buying these overseas commitments and we are actually leaving those reserves in those other countries. We have been told the costs of these tickets are going up. These increased costs are due to the decrease in domestic production of oil an increase in the ticket contract price and an increase in the volume we need to hold. We acknowledge that these are real issues. The Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment forecasts a further increase in prices of these tickets. Again we acknowledge that it is a problem now. We must meet our obligations and these commitments will get larger over time.We do not dispute any of these facts. We know that we are highly dependent on these stocks and to run out of fuel would be devastating for our local economy. To suggest that we should not comply with our international obligations would be and is inappropriate. But this is where our take on the actions necessary differs from that of the Government. We are told that the Vote Energy budget is now insufficient but the Government’s solution is simply to add another tax to New Zealand road users especially. The Automobile Association points out that New Zealanders are currently paying 67.129c per litre of petrol just on tax—67c on the price of petrol is currently being collected by the Government as fuel excise and that is before motorists pay GST which is on top. Just to clarify: New Zealand First has always opposed tax on a tax which this situation now is a prime example of. As the Legislation Advisory Committee correctly points out this new levy can be categorised as being a charge in the nature of a tax.New Zealand First acknowledges that asking the fuel companies to build infrastructure large enough to meet our physical stock obligations as was discussed in the Commerce Committee would simply put prices up even more and this is what we in New Zealand First are trying to avoid. We were told by the Minister of Energy and Resources that oil is our fourth-biggest export and right now we are searching for more. Why could we not simply use existing levies to offset this increased cost to ensure we comply with our international obligations? Apparently we are looking to increase our domestic capacity so our stocks will increase. New Zealand First applauds this but would suggest to the Minister of Revenue that he look to ensure that we as a country benefit more than the large oil conglomerates do when they come and start taking oil out of our land. New Zealand First has campaigned strongly on regional development for example and looks to these recent announcements as an opportunity for the Government to share its largesse with the regions. Recent OECD reports showed very clearly that this Government needs to take another approach to building wealth in this country. The report gives clear suggestions that this might take the form of economic policy where all New Zealanders can share in this wealth and income-generating activity.Although we believe that the Government will pass this legislation despite our protests further burdening road users with another levy in perpetuity for a problem that can be resolved in the short term we offer some suggestions for the Minister’s consideration. One of the discussions I have had with those affected by this bill revolved around using the GST component to purchase the required tickets or stock or even using the levies we already have to address this problem. Let us not create another one. We have already been told in the House today by other members who in principle seemed to oppose this that the levy is tiny and we should absorb it. The Legislation Advisory Committee has stated that the original purpose of this bill was too broad. It was originally supposed to address the emergency reserves commitment but there was a lack of clarity around the purpose for which this bill can be applied and how the levy rate will be set. If the Government insists on passing this bill then its intent must match its original purpose. If this Government insists on taxing the New Zealand public even more then its purpose must be very specific.The bill did not originally contain any specific criteria for setting the levy or for determining which fuels were subject to it. I would like to concur with the previous speaker Gareth Hughes that the selection—and the lack of reasoning for the selection—of the types of fuels seems to be nonsensical. We would in fact support the removal of the levy on biofuels for example to encourage that industry. There is now reference in the bill to a calculation that must be applied but can I add further that the absence of a cap suggests that this levy will in fact be just another revenue device with no mention of stopping the levy when our obligations are met. New Zealand First would argue that despite the intent of the bill the Government will use it simply as another way of burdening Kiwi motorists in perpetuity. We need to be very clear to the public about what the levy sum will be. This legislation needs to guide and inform so that the New Zealand public is not surprised or even misinformed. Further clarification is needed as we cannot be sure even what fuels are being taxed. There is a clear lack of specificity—for example we do know aviation fuel is exempt because it is subject to a different international convention. Oil in its raw form is apparently also exempt at this stage.What the Government is proposing to do with regard to prescribing rates gives too much power yet again to a Minister in charge of a portfolio. It is seeking to remove parliamentary process in the setting of this levy. Once again the Minister must consult only with those considered by him to be people affected. Once again there will a loss of opportunity for wider consultation and submission. How about the Minister makes a list of who he thinks those important parties are? Let us be transparent and upfront. Whom will he be talking to? We agree that we are an international player and must meet our obligations. New Zealand must do its part to ensure worldwide stability and of course to ensure that any international or even domestic incidents that could interfere with the smooth and continuous supply of oil are mitigated.The intent of this bill is important but on behalf of the travelling public of New Zealand we oppose another increase on petrol levies. This tax will further aggravate the erroneous and inappropriate tax on a tax situation which New Zealand First so proudly campaigned against in the last election. There are alternatives that have not been explored which would not cost the people of New Zealand yet more of their hard-earned money. There are issues with the wording of this bill. It lacks details. It is another example of a Government Minister taking power away from a good democratic process. We oppose this bill. We do not need yet another tax.Whilst I have this opportunity may I end by wishing my parliamentary colleagues a very merry Christmas and a happy and peaceful New Year. Thank you.