Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you Madam Chair. Earlier we were discussing among other things including the bill the wonderful play of King Lear and Mr Jones kindly replied in kind. I should've added at the end of the previous famous phrase that I quoted—Nothing will come of nothing"—that it's followed by the words "speak again". So I thank you Madam Chair for allowing me to do just that. Perhaps it might also be apposite to note the quote from the same play "Mend your speech a little lest it mar your fortunes"—and good advice I think for the Government benches today.I note under the commentary document for the bill—and indeed the Minister who I note is paying careful attention I'm hoping will be able to assist me with a query in relation to the commentary as compared with the bill itself. So under the heading of "Providing the ability to exclude parts of a region" the commentary says that "The bill as introduced would provide that a regional fuel tax implemented in a region must apply to fuel that is sold in the whole of its region." So far so bad but then it goes on to say—and I quote—"We recommend amending new section 65D to provide that councils can request that part of a region be exempt from the RFT in their proposals." It goes on to give an example of how that might be the case.In new section 65D in clause 5 there is no such exemption mechanism. In fact what we have still even with the insertions by the majority of the Finance and Expenditure Committee is actually that "A regional council may prepare a proposal to establish or replace an RFT scheme for the region" and so on. So far from being an exemption for part of a region what we have in fact is an ability for a council to provide a proposal to establish therefore a new regional fuel tax (RFT) scheme or replace—meaning of course a new scheme in replacement of an existing scheme. So actually what we have is not at all an exemption as promised in the commentary but in fact an establishment or replacement mechanism. That seems to me somewhat wrong and whether conspiracy or cock-up I suppose it will be for the constituents of my electorate all of Auckland and indeed all of the country who may end up being affected by such legislation to decide. I wondered if the answer to that question might be found in the surrounding sections—for example new section 65E in clause 5—but that merely sets out the things that must be in a proposal to establish or replace a RFT scheme and it certainly does nothing to displace the clear wording of new section 65D that talks about such a proposal for a scheme to establish or replace an existing scheme. Similarly new section 65G in clause 5 talks about how a proposal to vary an RFT scheme might be made. Again however we're not talking about the exemption of part of a region from being in the regional fuel tax scheme. We're talking about a variation to a scheme not an exemption—again as I say a variation. So unless the variation is to vary the amount of the tax from 10c plus GST or whatever the case may be to zero cents whether plus or inclusive of GST unless that is the case and unless there is a variation to have an amount of zero then there's no such exemption as promised in the commentary. So that's a very serious question that I would ask the Minister to address because it seems a big oversight. And as I say whether conspiracy or cock-up is unclear but either way I think really it should be addressed because otherwise the intent of the select committee and its at least potentially good-faith recommendation to make such a recommendation will not come to fruition. Another point that I'd like to make leading into a question that I hope will be addressed by the Minister relates to the definition of "exempt use". So an exempt use talking about situations in which an RFT scheme would have exempt users as opposed to a whole geographical area within a region being exempt—[Time expired]"