Utikere Tangi; Brown SimeonTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you Madam Chair. Can I firstly thank the Minister for answering a couple of my questions. I am disappointed to hear that the rationale for not looking at sections 65C and 65J is because of the campaign approach whereas it appears—unless the Minister advises the committee otherwise—that the same outcome for Aucklanders could none the less have been achieved by engaging those two sections of the Land Transport Management Act. But I note his response here. I do think there is still actually an outstanding question that my colleague Helen White referred to and it does relate to the inclusion of Project 4 in the order. This relates to the Minister's own electorate and I do think that the committee does deserve a response around the perception of conflicts of interest given that the Minister is the member for Pakuranga and this is a project that would obviously be of huge benefit at the expense of other Aucklanders if this was to proceed. I invite the—well I'm interested in the Minister's response and my question to the Minister is whether he still stands by the cost of living argument when the departmental disclosure statement very clearly indicates that in some cases motorists will be around $1.87 better off a week and the real difference that that would actually make to entertain the cost of living pressures. Now in my earlier contribution today I'd indicated that I'd had a look at what one could get for $1.87 at a supermarket in Auckland and what you could get is a 227-gram tin of chunky pineapple. Now is that really addressing the cost of living pressures as this Minister and his Government actually think? So I invite the Minister to reflect on whether or not that still rings true—that $1.87 a week is going to offset the cost of living pressures that households are facing. There are 14 projects that are suggested to be either retained or dispensed with under this bill and each in their own right is going to have a huge impact either way on the communities in Auckland. So it's certainly our intention on this side of the Chamber to be exploring and asking questions about each and every one of those projects because that is what we need to do given this is a bill that is being progressed under urgency. I do think it's important to make sure that—and the whole point of the committee of the whole House stage; that aside—we look at the clauses as they come and so I do have a number of questions which I'll return to now. So the first is in relation to clause 18 within Schedule 1 and it relates to the agency advice. There's a time frame there that basically indicates that the agency would continue to provide the Minister of Finance and the responsible Minister with advice and that advice is on request. My question for the Minister would be two things: one is the anticipated frequency of that advice that's being sought and whether the provision in clause 18 is sufficient and the second is that there are two components as to what that advice must be about. One is in relation to Subpart 3 which I referred to earlier and there are a number of different sections there that start with definition and that go right through to sort of tax implications and the other is in relation to—I guess that's quite broad in the sense of its relation to this scheme as it relates to the Auckland regional fuel tax itself. So my question for the Minister or the second part of that question is whether he is able to foreshadow the type of advice that might be sought—if this bill is successful—to transition across from a functioning regional fuel tax to a transitional period. My second question relates to clause 19 and this is something that I've raised in the House previously this year. It relates to what the expectation is around the information that is to be retained. I raised this question when the House was considering changes to Te Aka Whai Ora and my question is relevant to this situation as well because it's about the requirement for records to be kept and for returns to be made. So my question in relation to clause 19 is about whether there's an expectation as to what happens to that information once this particular bill is passed. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Could the member please be specific about clause 19? We're just trying to locate it. TANGI UTIKERE: Yes certainly. So I am referring to—Joseph Mooney: Madam Chair—Madam Chair. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): And I'm taking Tangi Utikere's call thank you. TANGI UTIKERE: Madam Chair thank you. This is relation to Schedule 1 and this is the Minister's proposed new insertion of new Part 5 in Schedule 1AA. It's headed Part 5" and I'm referring to what was originally clause 18 now clause 19. Is that OK? CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yep—thank you. TANGI UTIKERE: So in relation to the nature of the information obviously there's archival use but what's happening there—and whether there's actually a requirement once that information is filed that that can be disposed of or whether there is a requirement for that to be retained as in other parts of the parent Act where there is a requirement to retain some information for I think four years or thereabouts. So I'm interested in what the obligation is on those who are filing the returns and whether there is an expectation there. My other question is in relation to clause 20 and this is about whether or not there are provisions or any either flexibility or proposed leeway in the Minister's mind in approaching this clause or whether the provision provides for some flexibility around that particularly around the payment of tax that might be required post-disbursal. So if this bill is successful and this scheme comes to an end what are the requirements in terms of time frames? I know that they're listed there but if there are some extenuating circumstances that might exist from time to time what provisions exist—or whether the Minister has thought about this and has decided that there doesn't need to be a provision around flexibility or leeway. I've got a number of other questions but for now I'll leave it there.Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Thank you Madam Chair. There's a number of good questions there from the member in relation to Schedule 1—clauses 18 19 and 20. All of this in new Part 5 is about the transition provisions in terms of ensuring that when the regional fuel tax comes to an end Auckland Council is effectively paid out for all of the revenues that are collected prior to that date and ensuring that there is good reporting on that and making sure they receive the accurate amount.In terms of the agency's advice in clause 18 all the advice that the New Zealand Transport Agency is required to provide the Minister currently continues to be provided as the scheme is wound down. That relates to collection auditing administrating rebates transferring net revenue and monitoring revenue cost fuel prices and volumes. That's effectively what that's all about. Then as I said clause 19 is about making sure the fuel companies are paying the correct amount.So these are transitional provisions. It's all very sensible—when you're changing the law and you're transitioning to a new system this is all about making sure that there is accuracy in terms of the amounts which have been received making sure that they are dispersed and making sure that any people who are entitled to rebates are still able to receive them. Of course you might have fuelled up on 29 June but you might not process that application until a little bit later and so you'll notice that there is also provision there in relation to the rebate scheme as well. So it's all very sensible stuff which I'm sure the Opposition is very happy to support."