Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Mr Chair. It's a great pleasure to speak for the first time on Part 2 of the Land Transport Management (Regional Fuel Tax) Amendment Bill. It was with great disappointment last night I have to report that I had two tabled amendments that I did not get a chance or an opportunity to speak on. I have a tabled amendment—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): We're on Part 2.STUART SMITH: I know that Mr Chair but I am pointing out that last night I did not get the opportunity to speak on those amendments and I hope that this evening I will get the opportunity to speak on my other tabled amendments apart from the one I'm just about to address.It is with great disappointment that I look on the other side of the Chamber and see them trying to shut this debate down when we have not even discussed our tabled amendments. This is my first call and we're entitled to four calls I believe on a part and I think that's what we should be able to do.Hon Member: As a minimum surely.STUART SMITH: As a minimum yes. I'm very delighted that I now have this opportunity.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): That's one minute gone without mentioning anything.STUART SMITH: OK.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Please do.STUART SMITH: All right Mr Chair. Now I am proposing in clause 10 to add in a new paragraph to new section 34B inserting section 34B(1)(d): the cost benefit analysis that the Council has undertaken in relation to where the revenue was spent." That should be read of course after paragraph (b) which is: "how [the] revenue was applied by the council including to which projects and … what purposes (for example capital [expenditure] debt repayment operational [expenditure]);" etc. So this is very important and I think it fits well with the tabled amendment in the name of Tim van de Molen which I think was a new subsection (3) of that very clause.I think if you have tax then you have a responsibility to spend it correctly and I think you have an obligation to your ratepayers to ensure that you report that correctly. Tax is very much like a drug: it's highly addictive and councils and like with a drug Governments become so dependent on that tax that it has quite significant impacts on them. In the sense of a drug it has an impact on the body and changes in the body and if we use that as an analogy for a Government or for a council then what we see is it forming fat—fat in terms of lazy spending and staff doing jobs that are not required.I think a good example when we have schemes that might be paid for under a regional fuel tax—let's for example say a sewerage scheme. We have a lot of expenditure on a sewerage scheme like with the Kaipara District Council that got itself in a lot of trouble. Had it had really close management and reporting regimes back to its ratepayers I don't think it would have got in the trouble it did at that time. If I look in my own council the Marlborough District Council in the town of Blenheim they would likely line up I think for a regional fuel tax. The town is growing significantly. The building inspectors tell me there's a greater boom than there was in 2008 so that's an amazing amount of building going on but there's a significant sewerage infrastructure upgrade that's required and a regional fuel tax might well be the vehicle they use to fund that scheme or that expansion. But how do the ratepayers know they are getting value for money? How do they know that that scheme is actually being delivered in a form that will be good for everyone at a reasonable cost? What would be required certainly in a business sector would be strict reporting and cost-benefit analysis on that particular scheme to ensure that people are getting what they pay for and no more. We don't need more than we set out to pay for and we want to ensure that the efficiencies run right through the system because I can assure you that if money is sitting there they will spend it and they will spend it even if it isn't necessary or good quality spending. So I think clause 10 has some really good possibilities in it but it does need rounding out with Mr van de Molen's amendment and suggested addition and with my amendment inserting new section 34B(1)(d) to add "the cost benefit analysis that the Council has undertaken in relation to where the revenue was spent." So with that Mr Chair I thank you."