Scott AlastairALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Thank you Madam Chair. They call themselves the Government of transparency—the Government of transparency and accountability. They say that they're happy to be accounted for their actions and their performance. But we look at new clause 34B Additional information: RFT schemes" and there are simply three paragraphs in subsection (1): (a) (b) and (c). They have to report on the revenue how that revenue was applied by the council—well let's hope it's applied to the capital project—and they have to report on progress. And that's it. There are no key performance indicators. There is no measurement against any business case. There's no reporting on whether the project is ahead of schedule or behind schedule or whether the costs are blown out or in favour. Where is this transparency? Where is this accountability? I tell you if you turned up to a board meeting at any half-decent company in the country and you said "Well I'm just going to report on the revenue where I've spent it and the progress." you'd get kicked out. This is not a—but it's quite difficult I guess to report on something that is so vague.If I can just reflect back to what it would be reported against because the content requirements for a scheme are so vague it's laughable. If I can refer to new section 65E(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) and (g) which are the content requirements for a project—I'll just read very quickly. Paragraph (a) starts with the word "describe". Well that's very nice—nice and fluffy. Then paragraph (b) starts "with regard to the programme—(i) state its objectives; and (ii) describe … (iii) explain"—explain—"(iv) explain why it is desirable". Well how concrete is that? How measurable is that? How accountable is that?Paragraph (c) starts with "for each project in the programme—(i) describe"—again; here's another one in subparagraph (ii)—"describe"—and "explain" in subparagraph (iii). Once again in subparagraph (iv) there is "set out … [a] completion date;". Well there's something concrete that we can measure it by. In subparagraph (v) "state the amount of capital expenditure"—that's fairly concrete; then: "(vii) state the amount of debt repayment [and] (viii) specify". But the requirements for the project are so vague it's difficult to report on. It's difficult to be transparent to be fair to those who are running the project.So my point here is that there is a lack of transparency. There is a lack of accountability. There is a lack of detail in clause 10 under Part 2 inserting new clause 34B in schedule 10 of the Local Government Act 2002.The second part of my contribution I would like to relate to the GST and here is an opportunity for the Government—and the Minister has already acknowledged that this tax is regressive. It is regressive. It hurts those who can least afford it. It hurts those who are in inefficient cars. It hurts those in rural and regional New Zealand who have to travel long distances. So what a great opportunity to exempt this regional tax from GST. Now remember of course that this regional tax goes to the regional council. It's not a central government tax; it goes to the regional council. But hello central government has decided to treat it as a service and to dip their hands in and take the GST component because well you know they sort of can. It's just a tax that they've got an opportunity—you know it's like offering lollies and why wouldn't you take them?So central government has taken the opportunity not to acknowledge the regressiveness of this tax not to support provincial New Zealand and not to support those who can least afford it by making sure and ensuring the GST is on this tax that the Government is not even collecting. It is a regional tax. So if it's a regional tax why is the central government getting involved by taxing and applying GST? It doesn't make sense.It's a regional tax. Let the regions tax and take the money if they must—the 10c—but it's double-dipping. It's a tax on a tax. It's central government taking and adding to a tax which is not relevant to them. Therefore what a great opportunity for the Minister to exempt the GST."