Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Madam Chair. I too want to take a call on Part 1 clause 4 which relates to section 3 of the amended principal Act. As we on this side of the House have been debating through the first and second readings we've indicated that we are very unhappy with the lack of focus the lack of definition and the lack of substance in terms of what this bill is actually going to do in real terms. If we look at new section 3(2)(h) it says enables a levy to be charged to fund or contribute to the funding of costs associated with conservation or tourism." So I've got a number of questions that just relate to a few of those words for the Minister in the chair the Minister of Immigration.What does "contribute" mean? How will a contribution be defined? Does contribution mean "fully fund"? Does contribution mean "partially fund"? Is there a formula? Is there some kind of mechanism? Is there an algebraic formula or algorithm to try and figure out what the size and the quantum of that contribution will be? Who is it that will make the decision about what that contribution that's referred to in new section 4(2)(h) will be?Then it goes on to say "enables a levy to be charged to fund or contribute to the funding of costs associated with conservation or tourism." Then we need to I think address the definition of the word "funding". Again is this going to be the funding of a complete business entity? Is it going to be funding fully and completely or just partially of a project that's being developed or run by a local government agency—a council or a regional council? Will that funding be actually all dollars and cents? Could it be funding that is made up proportionally of advice by consultants or by advisers maybe Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment officials or tourism ministry officials? We don't have any sense of what the definition of funding will be in terms of that clause.Then we go on to the next little word that needs addressing and that is "costs" associated with. Costs? What are the costs going to be? I don't know what the costs are going to be. Could it be the costs of building or construction? Is it the cost of running a car? Is it the cost of lunch? Is it the cost of afternoon tea? There's absolutely no clarity around what the funds that will be collected by way of this levy are going to be applied to or for. "Costs" is an incredibly loose word. That is not defined not set out in any definitive way in this piece of legislation and it seems again to be just a reconfirmation of the concerns that we have on this side of the committee that this is a loose piece of legislation that is not clear in its intention.One of the things that I learnt over a long number of years in the commercial area before coming to Parliament is that one person's costs are another person's expenses or another person's slush fund or could be used for all kinds of different things. It's a question of how tight—how tight—that is going to be. I can assure the committee of the whole House that actually we do need some definition around that.Then we go on to the last important words in this little section: "conservation or tourism"—so costs associated with conservation or tourism. How are we going to define exactly what conservation and tourism are? Conservation and tourism are a bit like beauty: they're in the eye of the beholder. Is this the Department of Conservation that is being referred to here? Is this a community conservation group? Is this a beach clean-up group? Is this the provision of public conveniences in a park in a council area? Where do we go in terms of tourism? Does that include somebody that's going out for a drive in their electric vehicle on a Sunday afternoon? Does that count as tourism? Or is it someone that's travelled halfway across the world from the Northern Hemisphere to come here? Clearly they are a tourist but what is the definition of how this funding is going to be spent?The regulatory impact statement indicates that potentially some $80 million is going to be contributed. I think the committee can legitimately ask questions as to "Where?" "How?" "What?" Where is this money going to go who is going to make the decisions and how are those decisions going to be implemented in reality?"