Falloon AndrewANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): Thank you Mr Chair. I've been waiting a little while for that so thank you for finally noticing me. Look I was pleased to see the Minister find his feet before and start responding to some of the issues that have been raised and he himself raised a number of points which I'm sure members on this side on this Chamber will want to explore as the evening progresses.This is my second call in the committee stage of the Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill and I want to raise a number of specific questions with the Minister in relation to the content of the bill. But before I do that I just want to speak briefly on the second amendment that I have in my name which is in relation to oversight. It would insert a new section 65L(3) which would require that The Minister of Finance and responsible Minister must review a RFT Scheme annually to ensure that the regional council is carrying out the RFT scheme for their region."I would have thought that that was a perfectly reasonable amendment for the Government to accept. It doesn't detract from the aims of the bill. All it does is require Ministers and the Government to have a look from time to time at the adequacy and the operation of the regional fuel tax (RFT) scheme that they are legislating for tonight. Once approved the RFT scheme will be in place. It makes absolute sense that there is further democratic oversight beyond just the legislation passing through this House—that Ministers do continue to have a look making sure that it is operating appropriately for that region.I want to come now to three very specific questions I have for the Minister and I hope that he continues to follow on with what he's been doing just briefly this evening in responding to some of the issues that we've raised. The first one's in relation to new section 65C(2).Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.ANDREW FALLOON: Before the break I had been speaking to my second amendment which relates to ministerial oversight. So with that now completed I'll move on to the three specific queries I had for the Minister in the chair.The first one of those relates to new section 65C(2) and that specifies that "The maximum duration of an RFT scheme is 10 years unless extended under section 65K(2)." When you turn to new section 65K(2) that outlines the Minister's powers to extend the length of the RFT by Order in Council. My concern around that is that what it does is remove any further democratic oversight by this Parliament. It essentially allows the Minister and the council to go off and to keep extending the tax in perpetuity without it ever coming back to Parliament. So I'd like to ask the Minister in the chair if he'd consider changing that clause to something a bit more reasonable so that it comes back to this House and we can consider it again rather than it keep being extended in perpetuity.The second concern I have—and again I'd like to hear the Minister's thoughts on this—is in relation to new section 65D(b). This is where it outlines that a tax is available where a project "cannot reasonably be fully funded from sources other than a regional fuel tax within the time frame desired by the council." So I have a question for the Minister around that which is what is reasonable? Who determines what is reasonable? Is it the council that determines what is reasonable? Is it the Minister that determines what is reasonable? Or is it the Government that determines what is reasonable? The reason I ask that is because it could lead quite conceivably to some pretty strange ideas coming forward from councils. The odd council does have some interesting ideas from time to time about what they might want to achieve without it having to go through the normal ratepayer process.The second concern I have around that is around the incentive structure that operates in councils. Now if they know that they can go off cap in hand to Government and ask them for a regional fuel tax their incentive is going to be to spend up large so that they cannot conceivably fund that project without a tax. So what it's going to do is incentivise councils to spend a lot of money and then come to the Government and say "We can't fund this vital piece of infrastructure in our region."The third concern I have—and again I'd like to hear from the Minister on this—relates to new section 65E(c)(ii) (iii) and (iv). They run through "describe its expected"—[Time expired]"