Macindoe TimHon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): May I say I have no idea why the Minister in the chair Phil Twyford took that call because I hoped that he was about to answer some very legitimate questions that colleagues on this side of the House have been asking about Part 2 and instead all we got was an arrogant and frankly insulting put down of my colleague Andrew Bayly followed by an unbelievably condescending remark to one of the newer but very intelligent members on this side of the House Chris Penk. He has not answered anything.Madam Chair Tolley could I nevertheless thank you for the considered ruling that you gave us which is appreciated on this side of the Chamber because without it we would have been struggling to marshal our forces for the next hour or so. So I do appreciate that.But let's be under no mistake. As we consider Part 2 we are in uncharted territory here and therefore I think it is incumbent on the Government and particularly the Minister in the chair to give considered and dignified responses to the very legitimate amendments that are being put forward. Because it's palpably obvious to anybody listening that we on this side of the House do not like this bill and firmly reject Part 2 but we are through our amendments attempting to help to improve it and it is up to him surely to take those points on board and to respond to them.Now when I was last speaking on this part I was beginning to quote from Mr Ken Shirley who is of course the Chief Executive of the Road Transport Forum. And I was making the point that under Part 2 of this bill his concerns about the implications on local government need to be taken very seriously indeed. He'd made the point that it came as no surprise to learn that 14 councils around the country are seeking a regional fuel tax.And when I was interrupted I was going to go on and quote from him the following: With a number of councils obviously seeking this option it is likely to result in unintended consequences such as forcing transport operators and fuel retailers out of certain regions to avoid the tax. That is of course if price spreading doesn't just make a mockery out of the whole concept anyway." And so I am asking the Minister in the chair to respond to the concerns of Mr Shirley who is after all a former Labour MP presumably reasonably sympathetic toward some of the goals of the current Government and to say whether he believes Mr Shirley is wrong and if he believes he's wrong: why is he wrong and what is it about this bill that can satisfy him? Mr Shirley is an expert in this area and we are entitled to an answer.I'm also deeply unimpressed that the Minister in the chair has still not given an answer—at least while I've been in the Chamber and I've been here for much of this debate—to the legitimate query that I have raised as to whether there is a drafting error. It's on page 27 of the bill under Part 2 clause 7 in new section 5(6BB)(a) to the Goods and Services Tax Act. I've read it out a couple of times before and it refers to the "furtherance of a taxable activity carried on by the New Zealand Transport Agency". And my query is whether that wording is wrong.The Minister has not yet answered that. To refuse to do that I would suggest is both arrogant and treating this House while we're in committee with contempt and I'm asking him to stand up and take a call and tell us.I now want to turn to the amendments to the Local Government Act 2002 which are outlined in clause 10 of Part 2 and that's on page 28 of the bill. I've already referred to the first part of clause 10 where it is proposed to insert a new section 34B but under paragraph (b) of subsection (1) there—I haven't got on to this one yet—"how that revenue was applied by the council including to which projects and for what purposes (for example capital expenditures debt repayment operational expenditures);".And my question to the Minister is: why is this clause so wide and how can its provisions possibly be justified? I haven't heard a single explanation yet of why this very wide clause has been included. I'm asking the Minister to stand up to answer all of the questions that have been put to him by members on this side of the House; to respond in an intelligent and honest fashion to the way in which the amendments that we've put forward have been argued; if he disputes them to explain that clearly; to answer the questions that I have put forward in this particular part; and to understand that Part 2 of this bill—while it was originally thought that Part 1 was the meaty bit—actually contains a considerable amount of material that needs the considered attention of this committee. I can see that I'm running out of time."