Watts SimonSIMON WATTS (National—North Shore): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. I rise on behalf of the National Party and as a member of Parliament for North Shore on the first reading of the Companies (Levies) Amendment Bill. National will be opposing this bill for a number of reasons I must say many of which have been canvassed already. But this is a remarkable bill—I mean I actually wasn't sure whether my colleagues down the end there in ACT support it or oppose it. I think they said they support it but anyway we won't get caught in the detail. Maybe they're not reading the same bill I've just read. This bill is absolutely a solution looking for a problem and the context in which we've heard already that actually they're trying to implement—look let's get back to basics. Why are they doing this? They basically need to collect more revenue to cover more overheads in a system and this is a great way in which they think they can do it. It's basically another tax system that they're going to try and implement. The fact that this is being used to cross-subsidise other aspects of expenditure and going across the core principles around cost recovery is as my colleague Andrew Bayly says just completely inappropriate and the role in which these charges should be to just simply cover costs is around the fact that that cost-adequacy model needs to be balanced. But in effect what this is going to allow is just simply a charging model that is disproportionate and is going to be used and soaked up in other aspects of the broader system. For that reason that's why we're opposing it. The other point that was made earlier on from my colleagues was around the challenges around the fee structure actually going to be unfair and unjust in terms of it as a broader system as a result of this legislation. That is a real concern and I think that fairness element in terms of the way in which this will be implemented is really important. I think again in the way in which this bill is drafted—and we'll see where this goes as part of the select committee process. But if it follows its normal trajectory in terms of how things happen in this House then I'm not holding out too much hope that we're going to see significant reform or have the select committee saying Actually let's just throw this bill out well and truly." Probably that would be the most sensible thing to be doing but as I say while we'll be hoping that that happens hope is not a strategy is it? We know that. The reality is these guys will ram through this legislation using their majority at any cost and that is a real shame because the fee structure of the system in which this legislation will oppose will be unfair and unjust and the harm that is being done in regards to current state—as has being quoted—is minimal. So what's the case for change? I listened to the Minister and I hear on the other side all the gratitude to their Minister for all the good work etc. etc. Well he stood up and gave his opening gambit around the bill and didn't actually articulate what's the problem statement that this legislation is actually up to resolve. What is the problem that this is going to fix? He didn't say it at all and sort of from a first-principles point of view surely a piece of legislation like this should be trying to solve or should be solving a significant issue that's going to bring value in terms of the broader system. This thing fails on all levels and as my colleague Michael Woodhouse mentioned as well the wastage of time of putting through a bill like this which is not going to achieve outcomes which is going to reinforce the lack of harm that's being done in the system and which implements something that's going to be unfair and unjust is just ridiculous. But as we know that's pretty much status quo for this Government and we'll continue to see how that progresses as we go through. I think the other element here—and it was good see it's going to the Finance and Expenditure Committee (FEC). As a member of the FEC I'm going to enjoy putting some good tough questioning around this and seeing what type of responses we get back because this is just opened up for a whole lot of challenge. So we'll go through that process and we'll see where we go. But as I said National do not support this legislation. We don't believe that it's going to achieve the outcomes that it is intending to do and for that very basis National will be opposing this bill."