Lee DeniseDENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): Thank you Madam Chair. I'm happy to speak to Part 2. I'm going to refer to—just a heads-up—an amendment that I had in Part 1 but I'm doing that because I'd like to ask the Minister if he'd have any objection to applying this to Part 2. I am specifically referring to an amendment to the Local Government Act 2002 and it is In schedule 10 after clause 34A insert:" and then they've got "34B Additional information: RFT schemes".So this is the new clause that I'm referring to. Now what we've got in this clause here is that "(1) The regional council of an RFT region"—and I pick up on my colleague's note that that's very telling; "an RFT region" so think much wider than Auckland—"in its annual report must report on—(a) the revenue from an RFT scheme paid to the council by the Agency; and (b) how that revenue was applied by the council including to which projects and for purposes (for example capital expenditures debt repayment operational expenditures); and (c) progress with respect to the programme of capital projects supported by the RFT scheme."Now what's not here—and this is what I proposed in Part 1 and am now wanting to know from the Minister in the chair Phil Twyford why it could not be here in Part 2—is that the council review the scheme at the same time as each annual council budget. Now when I say review I'm not just talking about what is already listed here: review all "in its annual report … report on … revenue … how the revenue was applied … progress with respect to … capital projects". It's an actual review—in other words should the tax still be in place full stop? At each annual budget for a council ask the question: should it be in place full stop? Is there another way to fund this—basic fundamental questions?I note that earlier on in the bill a council must review the scheme—that's the wording "review [the] … scheme"—before it proposes to extend or replace it. How about review it just on an annual basis because we should always ask the question: should it still be in place? So I'd like to hear from the Minister why the fundamental question annually should not be asked: why do we keep doing this especially when given that these regional fuel tax schemes—plural—will be in place for a long time: 10 years? We don't want these schemes to get out of sight and out of mind in councils' worlds. We need them to be annually up to the fore and asking fundamental questions as to their relevance and whether they should still stay in place.Given the rushed process to even get to this point do we not think that annually fundamentally asking whether this should stay in place is the right thing to do? The process to get to here tonight was truncated; it was shortened. The Ministry of Transport said there was no cost-benefit analysis fuel companies have not had time to accurately quantify the cost of the collection of the regional fuel tax. There's been a number of things that have been rushed—not just felt rushed but have been rushed—and so in this instance let's annually take the time to ask the question that is so incredibly fundamental.I want to underscore the fact that this could be in place for a very long time—10 years. When you have something that lasts that long it is beholden to us as lawmakers and to the power that we're giving to councils to be very clear with their ratepayers constituents—whatever terminology we want to use—that this is something that we will ask the question of annually.So I'd like to hear from the Minister. Again it's in that new clause 34B "Additional information: RFT schemes" whether there should be—it could be paragraph (1)(d). And wording—feel free to take some of my wording from my amendment in Part 1 in regard to reviewing the scheme at the same time annually in each council budget. Thank you."