Macindoe TimHon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you Madam Chair. Kia orana to you. May I begin the first of these contributions on Part 2 of this bill by endorsing the comments of my very good colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith. I was a little alarmed when he spoke of the vast benefit of his experience of fighting 10 elections to realise I've fought nearly as many as he has and yet I still haven't been here for anything like half the time. But I'm learning and I'm catching up and I'm hoping that if I spend as long here as the Rt Hon Winston Peters I just might finally match his record.I do want to associate myself seriously both with his comments and the comments that Brett Hudson has just made. I was very encouraged to see Jenny Marcroft with her head down as Mr Hudson was speaking because I assume—Hon Dr Nick Smith: She's embarrassed.Hon TIM MACINDOE: No I assume—well she may have been Dr Smith but I wouldn't possibly wish to comment on that. More importantly however I think she was taking on board the advice we were both giving her: that as a very diligent—and I know she's a well-intentioned New Zealand First member; clearly she was indeed writing that amendment as was being suggested to her. I look forward to reading it and in fact I'm happy to pledge my support for her amendment as long as it is tabled with the wording that has been suggested that essentially says the New Zealand First Party should finally be true to its principles.Hon Ruth Dyson: Give Part 2 a go.Hon TIM MACINDOE: Yes I am talking about Part 2 Ms Dyson and I want in particular to say I'm pleased to see that the Minister in charge of the bill Phil Twyford is still in the chair because I've got a couple of questions and a couple of points I'd like him to comment upon.The first is that under clause 7(3) After section 5(6B) insert:"—and in the third line there we've got a line that I think might be a drafting error and I'd like the Minister to have a look at it and clarify. What we read there is "for a supply of services in the course or furtherance of a taxable activity carried on by the New Zealand Transport Agency" and I wonder whether that word "on" is really meant or whether it should in fact be the word "out". If it should be "out" then I would suggest that "on" needs to be taken out and we need to consider an amendment because I worry very much that sloppily drafted legislation can have all sorts of unintended consequences beyond the fact that this is already a bill that is clearly going to hurt New Zealanders the length and breadth of the country.If it is not a drafting error could I ask the Minister please to explain to us what "carried on by the New Zealand Transport Agency" means because when I think of the expression "carrying on" it normally means playing up acting the goat doing all sorts of strange things and I can't imagine for one moment—even though that may be the way most members of Government parties carry on in their activities outside this Chamber—that they intended to write that into the legislation.I'd also like to have a look at section 5(6BB)(b) inserted by that particular clause 7(3): "any amount of RFT rebate paid under section 65X … to a registered person is treated as being consideration for a supply of services in the course or furtherance of the registered person's taxable activity to the extent to which the RFT rebate relates to fuel used by the person for or available for use by the person in making taxable supplies." Well thank you "Sir Humphrey"; I'm sure we're all absolutely clear about what that means. Could I ask the Minister in the chair please to tell us in English: what on earth does that mean? In particular if we're going to be passing clauses of this type into legislation making them the law of this land we all ought to be able to understand exactly what it means and in particular we need to know why it is necessary. I assume from the fact that the Minister is at the moment busily texting one of his officials to find out the answer we'll get that fairly soon but could he please explain to us: what does that mean?I also would like to talk if we go over the page on to page 28—and I must admit I initially thought "Well there are far fewer pages in Part 2 of the bill. We might not have as much to talk about." But in fact I think that one of the most insidious aspects of this bill is to be found in clause 10(5) inserting new section 34B "Additional information: RFT schemes". There we read "The regional council of an RFT region"—not "of the Auckland region"; "of an RFT region". So if anybody listening to this debate around the country tonight was in any doubt whatsoever that this doesn't just apply to the Auckland region there I'm afraid their hopes are dashed because where it refers to "an RFT region" it is quite clearly the Government's intention that this is coming to a place near you New Zealanders. Every one of us is going to be affected. They didn't tell us that at the outset. They're sneaking it in. It's a particularly nasty sleazy way of dealing with this issue but here we've got the proof: any "RFT region"."