Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Madam Chairperson.Hon Member: Not again.CHRIS PENK: A pleasure to speak again much to the delight I'm sure of fellow members of the committee—almost as much as my own—on the subject of the Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill.I'd like to speak to a couple of amendments in my name the first of which relates to clause 5 of the amendment bill inserting new section 65ZD(3). Amended new section 65ZD(3) will therefore read as follows: An order made under subsection (1) is a legislative instrument and a confirmable instrument for the purposes of the Legislation Act 2012 and must be presented to the House of Representatives annually under section 41 of that Act." Now keen observers will have picked up that the word "annually" is thereby inserted with a particular and I think not insignificant effect such that the amendment will ensure that a change to the maximum rate of the regional fuel tax will receive regular parliamentary scrutiny.So looking at the effect that that will have in practice when this amendment is accepted—as I have absolutely no doubt that it will be—there are three headings essentially under which I would like to make comment on that. The first is the notion of scrutiny being appropriate for legislation in general but in particular tax legislation and in particular further still tax legislation that is effectively going to be changed over time by the mechanism of regulation. We're all familiar with and I hope cognisant of in a very diligent way the phrase "No taxation without representation". Of course while this initial piece of legislation is receiving some excellent scrutiny by way of representation right now as we speak the concern would be that in the future if the fuel tax rates were to rise—as indeed seems likely; perhaps even inevitable—then parliamentary scrutiny of that would be very appropriate indeed essential.The second point relates to the timing of the proposed scrutiny that I've already mentioned. The timing that I have proposed is annual because it seems to me that an annual review is a good regular basis on which all financial matters should be reviewed. That's consistent with the practices of most or perhaps all businesses and many families and households too. To be able to undertake a regular review perhaps even to make something of a fixture of this review—I expect that it would be looked forward to eagerly by young children in the same way that Christmas and other regular annual events are. "How many sleeps until the review under the Land Transport Management Amendment Act consistent with the Legislation Act 2012 Mummy or Daddy?" I can easily imagine young children up and down this country saying.So that brings me to the third and final point which is that it's appropriate that such scrutiny as encouraged by my amendment be conducted in Parliament because it is Parliament or the House of Representatives as recorded in the wording of the amendment—albeit that wording is already in the Act with the addition of course of the word "annually"—that would be scrutinising that. That would be applying that representation by way of this House being the representatives of the people of New Zealand in a way that the Governor-General—with all due respect to him or her in that role—does not provide. So too we might observe that a Minister however diligent he or she may be cannot be expected to provide the representation that is necessary to provide the scrutiny on behalf of the people of New Zealand who would be subject to this tax or indeed the people of Auckland if it is indeed to remain confined to Aucklanders as we suspect that it will very likely not be. So it is appropriate that it's in this House of Representatives that debates can take place just as they are now. Something for us all to look forward to no doubt—that this ongoing scrutiny can take place so that further changes do not take place without that proper democratic mandate."