Court SimonSIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair and thank you to Minister Wood for making yourself available tonight to answer some questions about this small and uncontroversial bill—this Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill—one that would have slipped past my email spam filter in the past but has now got my full attention.This bill when introduced to the House described the policy objectives: to address regulatory duplication gaps errors and inconsistencies within transport legislation. For that reason ACT supported this bill at the first and second reading. The ACT Party believes that there should be less regulation; that regulation where it needs to exist should be simple and not complex; and that Government agencies shouldn't need to come back to the Minister or to the House simply to change a form or a basic business process. So we certainly appreciate the intention of that part of this Regulatory Systems (Transport) Amendment Bill. The bill also seeks to ensure regulators can keep the transport regulatory system up to date and relevant—and we appreciate how important that is with new technologies—and to remove unnecessary compliance costs from the transport system. The ACT Party would support any effort that any Government or agency would make to reduce compliance costs so we certainly support those objectives of the bill. However what we noticed tonight is that there are a number of amendments that have been tabled which caused us initially great confusion as to why they were tabled so late in the piece and appear to have been neglected prior to committee stage and during the drafting stage when the concept of an omnibus bill to address some of these risks and some of these outstanding issues with transport regulation had what appears to be widespread support in the 52nd Parliament. Yet there is a very significant number of additional amendments through a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that has been tabled—in fact two SOPs one of which seeks to essentially legalise what has been an unlawful situation potentially where a fuel excise duty has been levied on a group of fuel users who don't use the road. The fuel excise duty which is hypothecated on being applied to roads through the New Zealand Transport Agency has been collected from recreational and commercial aircraft operators who use a clean green fuel—what they call motor gas which is far cleaner and far greener than the old aviation gas which contains lead. Those businesses and those recreational pilots which have chosen to upgrade their aircraft or upgrade their engines to motor fuel are now captured by this fuel excise duty and they've been asking for an exemption. In fact they asked the previous Minister for an exemption and the previous Minister's office and they didn't receive an adequate reply. So they continue to raise this with the ACT Party because they know that the ACT Party is the association of consumers and taxpayers.There are many recreational pilots of small aircraft and commercial pilots and flight training schools using hundreds of thousands of litres of fuel a year who have said Hey nobody's listening in those agencies. Nobody's listening in the Minister's office. The officials aren't listening or if they are they've heard us and they've decided this is a great opportunity to actually once and for all grab that fuel excise duty from aircraft operators who never use the road and legalise that essentially unlawful taking" because it does not make any sense at all to the aircraft operators and I'm sure it doesn't to the Kiwi out there on the street why aircraft operators should be paying a fuel excise duty to use the roads. I've never seen an aircraft landing on the road except on YouTube or on my Instagram.The ACT Party did support this bill coming to the House to the committee stage because we assumed that as the Minister described the small and uncontroversial series of amendments to fix forms and enable his departments to carry out their business more efficiently was the sole purpose of this bill. But it appears that not only will recreational—[Time expired]I raise a point of order Madam Chair. May I please have another call?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): May I encourage the member that if he wants to continue seeking this call to come back to Part 1 which is the amendment to the transport Act.SIMON COURT: Madam Chair I will accept your offer because I have a lot more to contribute to this debate and I would like the opportunity to come back at Part 1. Thank you for the offer."