Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill

We come first to the Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill. We move to Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 3 to 12 and the schedule, “Amendments to Land Transport Act 1998”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m happy to take a reasonably brief call at the start of this debate on Part 1 of the Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill. I think, as all members of the committee know who have been involved in the debate over its previous two readings, this is quite a significant bill in terms of the Government’s ambitions to develop a cleaner vehicle fleet by influencing both the supply of clean vehicles and then the affordability of clean vehicles for New Zealand consumers.

Part 1 of the bill specifically amends the Land Transport Act 1998, and that’s what the focus of these discussions in committee will obviously be. It does a number of quite important things that enable the bill, in particular the enablement and the establishment of the Clean Car Standard. This part of the bill enables regulations to be made for fees and charges to be set up under the Clean Car Discount and the Clean Car Standard. It also enables the establishment of regulations to require a minimum proportion of zero-emission vehicles being imported as well. It provides for regulations for the approved testing cycle—that’s a very significant and important part of the operation of this piece of legislation. There needs to be an approved and consistent testing cycle in order that the regulator and consumers can have confidence in the emissions standards of the vehicles that are both coming in for the purposes of the standard and also the discount.

It also sets up some quite important provisions in terms of the Clean Car Standard in respect of the flexibility that has been designed to support importers to be able to achieve the Clean Car Standard. This is quite an important point, because the purpose of the standard overall is to drive down the emissions of the fleet, and we’ve great confidence that will happen. But we’ve tried to design it in as much as possible to provide flexibility for individual car importers—bearing in mind that they will have different fleet typologies—to be able to meet it. The purpose of this legislation is not to catch them out and to have people paying big fees, it’s to help them leverage down the emissions over time.

So Part 1 also sets up the ability for importers to be able to bank, borrow, and transfer the carbon dioxide credits that are established under this scheme. All importers will have to establish a carbon dioxide account, and as they bring vehicles in, the carbon emissions profile of those vehicles will, effectively, go into that account as credits or debits. Those importers who over-achieve will have the ability to be able to transfer those credits to importers who might be under-achieving in order to help them balance up and, ultimately, achieve their obligations. So it is important to note this point that the intention is to lower those emissions across the fleet and those facilities help to enable that.

Some other important points to note within Part 1—the first is the establishment of targets under the standard for both Type A and Type B vehicles. I think this is an important point for the committee to note in terms of the way in which this legislation scheme has been structured. We specifically set up different targets under the standard for Type A vehicles which are small passenger vehicles, and then for commercial vehicles and utes, which are Type B. They have higher targets that they are allowed to operate within. We are realistic and we understand that the emissions profiles of those types of vehicles are generally higher, and so the standard allows for that. It has a greater tolerance for carbon dioxide emissions.

That’s quite an important point because we know that, ultimately, if the levels within the standard are set too low and are unachievable, then we won’t get the outcomes that we want. We won’t be incentivising those importers to get the right kind of vehicles in if they are simply not available. But equally, if the allowances are too high, we won’t be getting the incentives in place either. So that’s quite an important part of the design of the scheme, the Type A and Type B vehicles, to allow for the different emissions profiles that are there, along with different penalties and charges in respect of used and new vehicles, which is a recognition that used vehicles will generally be on the road for a lesser period of time and therefore will emit less within the New Zealand context than new vehicles. That’s why, under the Clean Car Standard parts of the provisions, we see that there are lower fees that apply there. Part 1 also ensures that we have obligations around record-keeping for those importers. That’s a very important part of the integrity of the scheme, and Part 1 establishes those provisions as well.

I just want to touch on one more point, which is, I think, quite important in terms of—well, it’s an important part of Part 1 in itself, but I think quite important in terms of members of the committee understanding the underlying rubric of this piece of legislation. Here I’ll refer members to page 6 of the reported-back bill, which takes people—we’re looking at page 6, at the bottom of the page here, which sets out the considerations that the Minister must look at when the Minister is making regulations in respect of the bill to set fees and charges. This really goes to the purpose of the bill and Part 1, because these are the things that myself and future Ministers will be looking at as we make those fees and charges.

So the first one, if you look new section 167A(6)(a), set out in clause 5, “that the fees or charges are appropriate to sustain a scheme designed to increase consumer demand for zero- and low-emission vehicles and decrease consumer demand for high-emission vehicles:”. So there we have the high-level objective of the scheme, which is pretty plain and pretty direct, and that is the purpose. It’s not a kink of the scheme that we want to disincentivise the highest emission, most polluting vehicles; it is the purpose of it. And the purpose of it is that we incentivise those vehicles which are cleaner. Here I go back to New Zealand’s performance in this area over the years, where we have built up one of the dirtiest fleets in the OECD, and it’s been the lack of these provisions and regulations that most other countries have that have led us there.

Then if we go to new section 167A(6)(b), set out in clause 5, this provides a little bit more detail about those factors that the Minister might consider. I just want to take a moment to take the committee through these because, again, they’re important. I guess they set out the way in which we have tried to put together quite a carefully considered scheme here, because these factors that the Minister might consider are about the real world. So, firstly, new section 167A(6)(b)(i), “the variety and availability of zero- and low-emission vehicles expected to enter the New Zealand light vehicle market in the following 12 to 24 months;”—so the Minister will be looking ahead, receiving advice from officials, from those people that she or he consults with to understand what the supply of vehicles might be coming in and then to calibrate the targets around that.

New section 167A(6)(b)(ii), “the market behaviour of consumers, including the nature of any continued demand for high-emission vehicles”—so actually looking at the responses that we are receiving from consumers. We’re already getting good market data as things stand from the Clean Car Discount.

New section 167A(6)(b)(iii), “international and domestic climate change ambitions and commitments”—this is a very important point, because it’s explicitly linking this legislation to both our international commitments, those commitments that Governments of both stripes have signed up to in terms of reaching net zero, and also the domestic commitments that the Parliament and the Government have signed up to in respect of the independent Climate Change Commission and its recommendations. They are factors that must be considered in setting this, and I think that is a very important point for the committee to note. This goes to the why of why this legislation is going forward.

Finally, there is the anticipated impact of fees and charges on the market, and also whether the estimated revenue to be received from the charges is sufficient to meet the costs of the scheme, which is important. So I’ll leave it there. Those are some key points, I think, for members to consider as we make our way through this debate in respect of Part 1. I’m very happy, obviously, as things move on to answer questions and hope that we can have a good debate about this important piece of legislation.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a significant piece of legislation that the Minister has brought to the House. It’s a piece of legislation that has been anticipated in some sections of the market place in terms of vehicles, but it’s also a piece of legislation that has caused angst and concern, particularly for those who are involved in the sale, purchase, and distribution of vehicles.

I want to start my contribution tonight talking about exactly where the Minister has left off, and that is in clause 5 particularly. Now, the Minister has made mention of the high-level purposes that are defined in new section 167A(6)(a) “that the fees or charges are appropriate to sustain a scheme designed to increase consumer demand for zero- and low-emission vehicles and decrease consumer demand for high-emission vehicles:”. So this is, essentially, a high-level purpose that seeks to manipulate a market place; that’s what it is trying to do. It’s trying to use market forces to change behaviour. Essentially, what that clause does is define at a very high level: what is perceived by the Government to be “good” purchasing behaviour will be rewarded and what is considered to be “poor” purchasing behaviour on the part of the Government will be punished. And my concern is the potential for perverse outcomes to be achieved by a market manipulation of this sort by a Government that likes to control from the centre, to centralise, and to manipulate markets as they see fit—will have outcomes that are unintended.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m a fan of electric vehicles, and I particularly want to support at every opportunity the uptake of them. But this measure of using carrots and sticks to punish people who have few choices and few options and little ability to pay, and at the same time reward those who have options and can afford to pay, strikes me as being contrary to the professed core values of the Labour Government, which often says, well, it’s all about caring and equity and fairness. And in this piece of legislation that simply appears not to be the case.

So this is a market place that is changing and changing rapidly. There will be sections of the market place that simply don’t have a choice. Now, we know that over a period of time ahead of us there will be an increasingly wide range of low emission vehicles available in the market. That range of vehicles that will be available will be determined not by New Zealand legislators, not by New Zealand customers, not by New Zealand drivers, not by New Zealand road users but actually by marketing companies and manufacturers of vehicles overseas. And they will make a range of vehicles available to, for instance, farmers, tradies, and so forth. And so this high-level purpose that is set out in subsection 6 at the moment makes it very difficult for those businesses, farmers, and users of vehicles who don’t have a choice. Now, it may be that at some time in the future they will have a choice, but right at the moment they don’t.

And I have a question that I’d like the Minister to address, and it actually relates to subsection (6)(b)(v), where it says that one of the factors that needs to be taken into account is the imposition of levels of fees, and then (v) says, “whether the estimated revenue to be received from the charges is sufficient to meet the costs and expenses of the clean vehicle discount scheme”. Now, my question to the Minister is what happens to the revenue that is collected if the revenue collected is greater than that that is paid out by subsidies under this scheme? Will that money just go into the consolidated fund? Where does it go? What happens to it? Because the potential, I think, is that there will be significantly more revenue collected from hard-working New Zealanders who don’t have choice and can’t afford it, but will still have to be forced to pay this revenue-generating tax more than is paid out. So that’s my question first off for the Minister.

I’ll just deal with a couple of the member’s points quickly, and, hopefully, that’ll be useful for him. I mean, the first points he made were general policy points about the bill. But I understand where he’s coming from and the way in which they relate to subsection 6 that we were talking about. He talks about the lack of choice. The problem is that at the moment there’s a lack of choice in the New Zealand market place compared to most other developed markets. That’s because there is no particular incentive for importers to get the cleaner vehicles into our market. So you can look at those other markets, which have standards like this, and because they are incentivised to do so, the importers in those markets get the clean vehicles from head offices. We don’t get them in New Zealand. We’ve already heard from importers in New Zealand that the first stage is the Clean Car Discount. The prospect of this bill being passed is enabling them now to get a greater supply of cleaner vehicles into New Zealand, because they can go to their head offices and say that the Government is setting the incentives here.

To the member’s point, yes, this is the purpose. We are trying to use market mechanisms to get cleaner vehicles into the country. We’re not being particularly shy about that, and nor should we, given the woeful performance in the previously under-regulated market. We’re already seeing, for example, for tradespeople much cheaper electric trade vans coming into the New Zealand market, some dropping in price by around about $20,000 to get under the cap, and then getting the Clean Car Discount. Those are the kind of vehicles that we’ll be incentivising getting into the market, and people will actually have more choices than they do at the moment. That has been the experience time and time again in overseas markets. I make this point: these are not novel schemes internationally. New Zealand is currently the outlier in not having these. The only countries in the developed world without a standard scheme like this are Russia, Australia, and New Zealand. And guess what? They’re about the three with the worst emissions profile in the world and the poorest choice of clean vehicles.

On the final point that the member made, I can respond to that very directly. He asked the question about new section 167A(6)(b)(v) in which the Ministers take into account the estimated revenue and the cost and expense of the scheme. The intention is for the scheme, which was funded by around about a $300 million injection from the Crown in Budget 2021—is that it balances over time, and that the incomings balance the outgoings. The Minister will have to take that into account and work within that scheme. So it’s designed to balance out. It’s not designed to generate either a surplus or a shortfall. Of course, on a month-to-month, year-to-year basis there might be small unders and overs. If, in the end, the scheme does have surpluses, it will not go back into the general consolidated account; it will go into the National Land Transport Fund. But we do not expect that to happen, and, if it does happen, we do not expect it to be a particularly large portion.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill. It’s interesting, just the comment there by the Minister of Transport where he says, “Well, we kind of expect this to sort of wash up in the end, but we’re not quite sure, and if it doesn’t we’ll just take that money and put it into the National Land Transport Fund.”—taking money away from people who are purchasing vehicles, potentially for their farm or for their trade, and hoovering it up and putting it into the National Land Transport Fund. And I’d like the Minister to actually answer some questions in regards to that, in terms of what modelling and expectation—he says it may vary. It may vary. Well, what modelling has been done by officials to determine whether he does expect it to be cost-neutral, and also what the cost of actually administering this scheme is going to be, out of the percentage of the money raised, to actually administer practically all of the different functions in the scheme?

Now, I want to touch on a part in clause 5, which, under the new section 167A—this section, effectively, gives the Minister of Transport carte blanche authority to, effectively, manage the new car industry in New Zealand. It says here: “(1) Without limiting the generality of section 167(1)(j), regulations for the purpose of promoting the transition of New Zealand’s light vehicle fleet to zero- and low-emission vehicles and reducing vehicle carbon dioxide emissions may be made under that provision providing for fees and charges to be paid in relation to the carbon dioxide emissions of imported new and used light vehicles.”

Now, my question to the Minister is: is there any limit on the maximum amount of fees or charges that could be placed upon a vehicle coming into this country? Is there actually a limit, or is that something which the Minister of the day is able to, effectively, decide as to how he or she wishes to charge those vehicles coming into the country? Because I think people listening at home, or, potentially, on the forecourt—because the Speaker’s decided, in his infinite wisdom, to blast the House out to the forecourt—

💬 Hon Member: It’ll be edifying.

—which must be edifying—at least, my speech must be edifying! But the question they’ll be asking is: what could the maximum charge be, if I’m buying a ute or if I’m buying a van or if I’m buying that family wagon that I need for my family? Is it something that the Minister could, effectively, set overnight and would be able to change at a whim? How frequently can the Minister decide that “Actually, I’ve decided that the $5,000 tax on that ute, well, too many people are buying that particular ute. It’s far too cheap. We’re going to increase the fee to $7,000, and we’re going to start that by next month.”? At what kind of frequency is the Minister able to amend the fees or charges at, in order to try to manipulate the market as he or she sees fit for the purpose of this section? So the question is, is there a maximum? If so, what is that maximum? And the next question then is: what is the frequency by which those fees or charges can be set at? Can they be set on a regular basis, or is it required to be set on a yearly basis, or what is the frequency regarding that?

And a final question, before I look forward to the Minister’s answering, is regarding the regulations, because this bill—and we’ll talk about commencement shortly, obviously, because this part is not talking about the commencement. But the regulations that this section authorises need to be, obviously, implemented within six weeks, because the bill is meant to come into force on 1 April. And so my question is: have the regulations been drafted that will be implemented under this particular section? Have officials already been beavering away, drafting the regulations for this particular section, and what stage are they at and what consultation have they been undertaking with the industry? Because I can tell you, people in the motor trade industry will be looking at a six-week time frame and wondering: “How on earth are we going to implement this piece of legislation in six weeks?” I look forward to the Minister’s answers.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This issue relating to with whom the Minister must consult is, I think, quite important, and my colleague Simeon Brown has already made mention of a concern that he has. The issue that I particularly want to raise with the Minister relates to what appears in the legislation to be a lack of a requirement to consult with actual stakeholders from the motor vehicle sector. These are the people who are charged under this piece of legislation with actually making it work. This is a sort of ground zero for the implementation of this scheme, and yet there appears to be no requirement for the Minister—should he choose not to—to engage, consult, discuss, and, actually, take with him on this journey to low-emission vehicles the sector that is going to be most concerned with the day-to-day implementation of it. And these are the people in the motor vehicle sector that are going to have to make it work.

So I’m speaking in support of the amendment in the name of my colleague Simeon Brown. It’s the amendment that would amend clause 5. It’s numbered (f) on the Table. It would amend clause 5 to read that, in clause 5, replace new section 167A(5A) with “Before recommending the making of regulations, the Minister must consult with (a) stakeholders in the motor vehicle sector; and (b) any other such person as the Minister considers appropriate.” And so I think that that makes practical common sense. It’s the sort of practical logic that is often lost, I think, on a Government that brings to this Parliament agenda-driven policy that is party political rather than pragmatic. If there’s one thing that we’ve learnt over the years, watching this Government—five long years—it is that they do like to have things done their way, and they don’t particularly like to hear from people who might have a contrary or a divergent view from their own. But, in this particular case, it seems to be painfully obvious, with a piece of legislation that so dramatically impacts on the day-to-day operation of the motor vehicle sector, that they should be, by definition, included in the legislation—be a group of stakeholders that are named for consultation by the Minister in terms of his implementation and decisions he makes about the regulatory impacts of this legislation.

My question to the Minister is: why has it been that stakeholders in the motor vehicle sector have, on the face of it, been excluded from specific inclusion in the legislation? Will he support and adopt the very sensible, pragmatic amendment in the name of my colleague Simeon Brown? And, if not, why not?

Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. It’s a pleasure to rise to speak on the Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill. As always, I’d like to begin by acknowledging my colleague Julie Anne Genter for her work in putting in the building blocks to get this legislation started, and I commend the Minister for the progression of this bill.

I have been reflecting on the comments of the members to my right, because they’ve spoken plenty about the requirement to consult with the motor vehicle sector, and I was actually more interested about the Minister’s views regarding perhaps the variety of public groups that exist in our society who are going to be deeply impacted by this policy—for example, communities in areas that may be affected by climate change. Those are communities who will ultimately gain and have the most to benefit from a transformation of our transport industry.

I also wanted to get an understanding of, I guess, what the Minister’s understanding is of who’s purchasing new vehicles, because through the passage of this bill we’ve heard a lot of the members to my right saying that this bill is an attack on working-class communities, but I’ve yet to see evidence that these are the people who are buying new vehicles. If anything, my understanding is that what this bill would do is create options. So I guess if the Minister can enlighten us with any evidence around who will be the people who will be affected by this bill when it comes to options, that would be great, because it would help perhaps dispel some of the misinformation that we’ve heard through the passage of this bill. Thank you.

Just responding to a few of the queries that have come through from members. The first is from Mr Brown, who raised a series of questions around the regulation-making powers in respect to the maximum charges under the scheme. They’ll be determined by the Minister and set through secondary legislation. The legislation itself doesn’t set specific parameters on what the maximum or minimums for those should be, but, as we’re discussing, the criteria by which the Minister must determine those are set in the legislation. I think that’s the appropriate way to take this forward, bearing in mind that those criteria point the Minister of the day to a range of quite real-world factors, including the supply of clean vehicles, the market response, the need to have a balance within the scheme between incomings and outgoings. So, for example, if a Minister chose to set very high fees that brought in a lot of revenue, that would imbalance the scheme and the obligation under—I think, is it clause 5—is to ensure the scheme is balanced. So those sort of controls will be there as well as broader questions of political acceptability when the Minister of the day sets those levels.

The Government, as members of the committee will be aware, has broadcast both the discounts and the fees very transparently from the beginning of this process and they’re beginning to have a useful effect already. The regulations are beginning to be drafted and they will be confirmed following the completion of this legislation but in time for the planned 1 April implementation date.

Mr Simpson raised questions about who would be consulted in the course of the setting of those fees and charges. As the legislation sets out, as returned by the select committee, there is an obligation for the Minister to consult such persons as the Minister considers appropriate. I do think it was useful of the select committee to make that addition to ensure that the requirement is there in black and white in the legislation for the Minister to consider who should be consulted. That wasn’t there previously and that would certainly be our intention. The point I’d make here is that I don’t think that it makes for good legislation to be very specific about that at the point in time at which the legislation is being set. We don’t quite know exactly who the groups will be—maybe in five years’ time or so—who the Minister at that time would be wanting to consult with to make sure that they got the right outcome and got the right information in these decisions.

I can give some assurance to the committee that we are consulting widely. I’ve established a clean car leadership group, which includes key representatives including the Motor Industry Association, the Imported Motor Vehicle Industry Association (VIA), and other groups with a strong interest in the sector, and it will be my intention to continue working with them and consulting with them as we develop up regulations under this piece of legislation.

In response to Mr Menéndez March—I think I’ve addressed that point in the first instance. We do want to consult widely. So that group, for example, also has representatives from Consumer New Zealand on it and a mana whenua voice on it, because we want to make sure that we’re actually hearing from everyone who’s affected by this. Yes, the commercial parties who import vehicles, but also the consumers and also the communities who ultimately are affected by our success or our failure in reaching our climate change ambitions.

The evidence is very clear internationally that the overall effect of these schemes is a progressive effect, that it gives the biggest advantage to the lowest income people and there’s strong evidence, particularly out of the Californian schemes, to support this, and that’s because there’s a massive lifetime saving for people who get cleaner vehicles in terms of the ongoing fuel costs. It’s something that people are feeling at the moment. To fill up an electric vehicle, if you have one, is the equivalent of filling up at the rate of 20c to 40c per litre. The more of those vehicles we can get into the fleet now, the more we’ll start cycling through the fleet and becoming more affordable. Already under the modelling for this scheme, we know that there are large vehicles, including hybrid vans, that either do not attract any charge or attract a discount under the scheme that’s here. And, again, the point of this is to incentivise the importers to bring in the cleaner models that are not currently available to purchasers in New Zealand because there is no incentive for that. That will advantage middle and low income earners, who will save money by getting more efficient vehicles to use.

Thank you, Madam Chair. To the Minister, would he consider giving an exemption to tradies and farmers, given that the technology that he is alluding to is probably the better part of a decade away? And what does he postulate the cost of an electric vehicle that would be conducive of that kind of livelihood would cost to the average farmer or tradie?

Thank you, Madam Chair. What an excellent question there, regarding exemptions. I would just like to ask the Minister myself: it says here as part of this clause in regard to the regulation-making power in new section 167A(3)(b) in clause 5 that the Minister may “prescribe any vehicle or class of vehicle as excluded from the definition of light vehicle for the purposes of the regulations:”, and my question to the Minister is: will he support my amendments?

I’ve got two amendments in regards to excluded classes of vehicles. One is in regard to the good old trusty ute, which our farmers and our tradies rely on to keep our productive sectors of our society going, which they don’t actually have reliable options available at the moment. That information was very clear. It came through via the submissions but also in the departmental report regarding the number of options available. At the moment, there are none, and so, effectively, they’re left in a position—farmers and tradies—where they have to pay a 15 to 20 percent increase, potentially, in the cost of their vehicle, without the opportunity to be able to have a different alternative which they could get a discount for.

The second particular exclusion for which I’ve also put forward a tabled amendment is in regard to disability vehicles. There was a very good submission by Rod Milner, who runs a company in Auckland which specialises in the importation of disability vehicles and the modification of these vehicles, and they are going to have to pay the extra charge. Due to their weight and due to the fact that they are generally higher-emission vehicles, they will have to pay a higher fee, and, again, there are no other alternatives available to them. So my question to the Minister is: is he going to actually put an exemption in place, or will he support this tabled amendment which allows for an exemption for those two particular classes of vehicles?

Now, I do just want to finish my contribution here on a point in regards to the regulation-making powers. I asked the Minister before whether officials have started actually drafting the regulations, and the Minister said yes. Now, I find it intriguing that the legislation hasn’t even been passed. It’s going to have six weeks—or, actually, less than six weeks—between when it receives its Royal assent and the implementation date, and how is he going to fulfil the requirement in new section 167A(5A) in clause 5: “Before recommending the making of regulations, the Minister must consult such persons as the Minister considers appropriate.”? I guess my question there to the Minister is: is he already doing the consultation now? Has he already started consulting now, prior to this legislation actually going into law? I look forward to the answers from the Minister.

Thank you, Madam Chair. To the Minister, I, also, am quite concerned about the utes for farmers and tradie vehicles. But I want to take a little bit of a wider perspective as well, because I think some of my colleagues have actually drawn the attention to the lack of availability of utes. But I do know that in the consultation document that the Minister put out a few months ago, there was a line in there that referred to building cycle-ways so that rural people and tourists could go about their business. I just actually wondered whether at that point in time the Minister had actually been in rural New Zealand and realised how people do go about their business. But I do know that the Minister was at the opening of the bypass of the Awakino Tunnel, a fantastic project, along with Mt Messenger, that was announced by John Key and Simon Bridges six years ago in 2016.

💬 Hon David Parker: It took us to deliver it.

I also noticed that the Prime Minister mentioned in her statement the other day that Mt Messenger was on her list of things to do. It is a six-year-old project, Mr Parker, and I will say that not all of that is the Government’s fault. I won’t point all of the finger at you, because a lot of it is to do with the Resource Management Act—but, Mr Parker, I would like some hurry-up in that regard so we can get some of the roads done in the projects that you’re currently working on. Which then goes back to my question, and it is all related, which is that when the Minister was down opening the Awakino Bypass, which, by the way, badly needs a resurfacing already—so take another drive out into rural New Zealand—you wouldn’t have noticed very many chargers, very many electric-car chargers on the way past. And I wonder in all of this, when a lot of the vehicles in rural New Zealand are of the ute variety, you would have also noticed, when you were out there as you drove through the King Country to get down there or maybe you flew into New Plymouth and went up, a lot of hill country, a lot of places where you need four-wheel drive vehicles—you didn’t see a lot of infrastructure for charging systems.

And the other question, I guess, the Minister would like to ask is while he’s actually bowled through all of this, saying, “We’re going to do all of these things with renewable vehicles.”, I just wonder how much renewable electricity infrastructure we have and how much Indonesian coal we’re actually going to be burning to fuel these renewable electric utes that we can’t get the ute or the electricity for at this stage, so a little bit wider. I’m supporting Simeon Brown’s amendments, but I wanted to just ask those questions around infrastructure, please, Minister, and I’d be really grateful for an answer. Thank you.

Just responding briefly to a few of the points raised by members, and I think a number of the points raised by Barbara Kuriger are part of the broader debate around this—I don’t quite know if they relate to Part 1. But I can report that I had a very nice summer holiday travelling through her electorate and happily charged up my electric car in Ōtorohanga and Te Kūiti and many other parts of rural New Zealand who have now got those chargers, on average, every 75 kilometres along the State highway network, and it’s building well.

💬 Barbara Kuriger: Seventy-five.

Seventy-five. That’s right, yeah. Mr Brown did raise one point that I do think is quite important for the committee to take account of, and certainly the Transport and Infrastructure Committee and the Government have taken account of, and that’s the particular situation of disability vehicles. We have listened to the submissions that were made in respect of that, and we will be providing exemptions for disability vehicles through regulations. So we won’t be agreeing to the Supplementary Order Paper, but we will none the less be dealing with that issue.

In respect of the question of utes, again, I think this is actually a broader policy and political debate—I’m not entirely clear on the link to Part 1—but, if I can respond briefly, the point of this scheme as I’ve described is to ensure that New Zealand’s fleet is geared towards cleaner vehicles. We are going to get a supply of cleaner vehicles across all vehicle types. We have that in many cases—in the United States, this year we’re already seeing electric vehicles coming into the fleet. Within New Zealand we know that the majority of utes that are bought and sold are actually bought and sold on the used market, which isn’t impacted at all by the clean car discount scheme. And of course, yeah there’s a little bit of typecasting here. Yes it’s well understood that utes are an important of rural life, but actually so are other vehicles, and people in every part of New Zealand will get better access to those and the cost savings and environmental benefits of them, including people in rural communities. We’re already seeing those numbers going pretty well there. But, ultimately, providing widespread exemptions in a scheme like this ends up being a mug’s game, because the whole range of sectors can make an argument, and you end up undermining the scheme.

We have confidence that we’re actually going to have good supply of those vehicles and more choices for people. I note this as well: the evidence that we already have is that the scheme is beginning to work, in that we know from a range of importers that they’re already actually adjusting the type of utes that they are bringing into the New Zealand market to bring in lower emissions utes to attract lower charges. So there’s already a positive effect there. It’s bringing the supply of the vehicles into New Zealand, but a supply of lower emissions utes. That’s a good thing for New Zealand, and that’s a good thing for the people who will be buying them, because they will be cheaper to run.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to pick up where Minister Wood left off there in regards to the conversation of utes. I’m not sure if he actually read the departmental report, which officials brought to the select committee on this bill, where it said—it gave some very clear evidence in regards to the availability of utes, which may be hybrid, plug-in hybrid, or zero emissions up to 2025. The evidence is very clear: for the four-wheel drive ute market there’s looking to be one particular type of ute which may be able to fit that market by 2025. So what the Minister is, effectively, saying here is that he is happy for farmers and for tradies and people who require a four-wheel drive ute for their job to, effectively, have to rely on one particular model, which may have a very limited range, being their only option available up to 2025.

So this is not just some sort of theoretical, ideological issue which the Minister, sort of, looks at in his ivory tower up there in the Beehive, and looks at the market and can try and pull the levers. This is a reality. It’s an actual reality in terms of what is required by these people in our community, who work on our farms, and the tradies who build our houses, and do those jobs throughout New Zealand. What this Government is, effectively, saying is what the Prime Minister said as well, which is actually, all those people buying utes, they don’t really buy them for legitimate purposes. Actually, they don’t purchase them for legitimate purposes. They’re actually just illegitimate ute owners. They could actually just put their tools in their bag and go on the train, or potentially—

💬 Hon Member: Bike.

Bike. Bike down the farm to the far end and deal with the—

💬 Hon Member: You could get a horse.

Get on a horse. That’s right. Or, potentially, cycle across town to work on that building site. That’s, effectively, what the Minister is trying to say. Or they can have a vehicle, which—

💬 Hon Member: Slow tram.

Or a slow tram—or a slow tram, which may, potentially, be built by 2050-something, I don’t know. Or, potentially, it won’t be built at all, which is probably more likely.

But the point here is the alternative is they have to buy a vehicle which, effectively, doesn’t fit their needs and won’t be able to, actually, give them what they need. The Government and the Prime Minister says “Well, they’re making an illegitimate choice.”, and that is exactly the chardonnay socialism which is littered through this piece of legislation in giving extreme powers to the Minister without actually working, again, with industry to make sure that people have the choices that they actually need to be able to do their jobs. And so, in this instance, when it comes to utes, effectively, the answer in this piece of legislation is to tax those people rather than actually saying “Those people should be exempted until the market is available for them to be able to have that option and that choice.” That is something which isn’t available now, and up until about 2025 the evidence is very clear from the submissions that that market is still developing and will need more time. So I do ask the Minister to reconsider his very hard-line and extreme position of not supporting this Supplementary Order Paper.

I do acknowledge his willingness to engage with me in regards to disability vehicles. I’m grateful that the Government has listened to my pleas on that issue and will be exempting disability vehicles. I know there’ll be many people up and down the country grateful that the Government has listened to what the National Party has been putting forward on that particular issue.

But when it comes to utes and our farmers and our tradies, the Government continues to say they are illegitimate users. Another piece of evidence, which was brought to the committee, was the fact that 70 percent of people purchasing utes are purchasing them for their business. They’re not just purchasing them to have a cool, big car to drive down the road. They’re not just buying it just to park it in the driveway. They’re actually buying it for their work, so that they can contribute to this country and contribute to our economy, and actually build things, and do things, and make things. Those are the people that this Government punishes whilst they find money to support and subsidise those who can already afford to purchase Teslas and other types of electric vehicles.

So I do ask the Minister to reconsider his position on this particular issue. I know there are tens of thousands of New Zealanders who are looking at this and staring at these costs and saying “That’s unacceptable. It’s just another tax from this Government.”

That previous speaker, Simeon Brown, should remember the old axiom that “success has a thousand fathers, failure is an orphan”—so he will claim anything that he likes.

My question is to the Minister. Minister, is he aware what percentage of utes are registered as commercial vehicles in New Zealand? My understanding is less than 10 percent. He might like to comment on that.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s interesting that Greg O’Connor was the last speaker. People of his generation, and that of the Hon David Parker, will recall that when GST was first introduced into the New Zealand economy, there was a lot of debate and discussion about whether pricing should be GST-inclusive or GST-exclusive in terms of advertising—for instance, supermarkets and any kind of consumer goods and what have you. It’s in that regard that I want to speak to the, again, very pragmatic and sensible Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in the name of my colleague and friend Simeon Brown. It relates to an amendment that he is proposing to clause 7, which would require after section 172 to include the following words: that “For the purposes of the clean vehicle standard, sellers and importers of motor vehicles must include any rebate or charge in the prices of their motor vehicles, including in any advertising.”

I think that’s a very sensible option that Simeon Brown has put forward, because already we are starting to see vehicle sellers advertising pricing that is confusing for consumers. And why wouldn’t they? They’re in the business of selling vehicles and they’re trying to maximise their competitive advantage against other manufacturers and other brands and other sellers of vehicles. Some of the advertising seems to include the clean car discount already taken into account, and some of it doesn’t, but there doesn’t seem to be any clear or consistent mechanism for consumers to understand what the ticket price of the vehicle will be. I would’ve thought that—again, putting aside their academic and sort of ideologically driven views about who should have what cars and when they should be driven and how they should be driven and how they should be powered—it would make sense to make it very easy and clear for consumers, potential purchasers of cars, to know what the actual price is. And right at the minute, I think that there is reasonable concern amongst consumers about a confused pricing mechanism that doesn’t mandate or require one way or the other. Should the price on the windscreen in the car yard have a price that reflects the discount taken off it, or is it a gross price or a net price? And what is it that the consumer is actually going to have to pay to pick up and purchase that car?

So I’m interested to know what the Minister of Transport’s view is on the communication and clarity of pricing vehicles in the market place. Does he think that it’s appropriate that consumers should have some clarity around it and that there should be some definition so that there is in his clean car standard a clean price standard as well?

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I rose so many times and didn’t get the call; now you’ve picked me and you’ve caught me out! Anyway—hey, I just wanted to start by acknowledging the Minister’s comment about the holiday he had through Te Kūiti, I think, and every 75 kilometres he was able to get a charger. And it kind of reminds me that that was actually, I think, if we look back, a former National Government initiative to have a charging station every 75 kilometres. And now I think of it, when I think of Greg O’Connor’s quite in-depth report back in the second reading about National’s legacy within electric vehicles (EVs), it’s disappointing he missed that one out, because I thought we do have a very good narrative and a very good legacy in this space.

I want to start with new section 167B(5), which talks about “the Minister must not recommend the making of regulations unless the Minister is satisfied—(a) that the fees and charges are appropriate to increase supply and availability … (b) that the imposition and level of charges … are appropriate [for] international and domestic climate change ambitions”. And it does strike me, in a pragmatic sense, that that would be potentially one provision to look at where we can look at the inequity of people who need certain cars around, potentially, their occupations; and why we could not have in there “if the Minister was not satisfied that certain groups of people didn’t have choice”, because, as we know with this “ute tax”, some New Zealanders are not going to have choice under this scheme.

And that’s part of the issue, isn’t it? The title, the Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill—very benign, but I suppose when you look at new section 167B(5), that would be the place to ensure that all New Zealanders were supported under a very benign title, because, you know, let’s be very clear: if you’re in the regions, if you’re in North Canterbury, you’ve got petrol going up, you’re paying your road-user charges, your tax, the National Land Transport Fund’s been raided again and taken out of the regions for pet projects like light rail in Auckland, and now you’re being told as a tradie and a farmer in North Canterbury that you’re going to have to pay a “ute tax”. And the Government even cancelled your motorway—the Woodend Bypass. So, you know, this is pretty unfair stuff.

And then also, it does strike me, once the Minister’s responded to that, that maybe under new section 167(A)(4), where it talks about “Different rates of fees or charges, or both, may be prescribed or fixed in respect of different classes of vehicles or on any other differential basis.”—it does sort of occur to me, under that “differential basis” wording, I mean, could there be a category for people that do not have choice? Because, ultimately, I don’t think anyone disagrees—let’s incentivise EVs.

Although the Minister did make a statement—I wrote it down—that consumers, and I’m paraphrasing here a bit, would save money; we all know, you know, the importers and the retailers have put the price of EVs up. So I’m not sure anyone’s going to save money; some people are going to make money. But, of course, it’s actually disappointing that with a group of New Zealanders who are increasingly marginalised under this Labour Government—and that’s regional New Zealanders—there’s actually no pragmatic solution within Part 1 of where they clearly could be supported when they do not have a choice. And I’ll be interested to hear the Minister’s response to that. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Over the course of the last few speeches there has been quite a bit of general commentary on the issue of utes, which I know is deeply felt by some members of the committee—it doesn’t particularly pertain to this part of the bill, but I just want to make the point: the fact is that the Minister considers those factors of supply and demand and those factors of consumer demand which we’ve already covered in discussion there. I think that is where the Minister, whether it’s myself or another Minister will consider the range of vehicles that New Zealanders do have access to.

There was one specific question which I do want to respond to. It was raised by Mr Simpson who—sort of, I’ve got to say—sort of pinched the glory for Mr Brown’s Supplementary Order Paper and got in there and kind of introduced to the committee, but fair play, I guess, and that was about the transparency of the discount on fuel labelling. I just want to confirm for the benefit of the member and for the committee that that will be transparently set out in regulations, that there will need to be clarity on the labelling about the discount on the vehicle, that’ll be the vehicle fuel economy regulations, which will be prepared subsequent to the legislation being passed. I can give assurance that members of the public will clearly be able to see on the labelling what the base price was, what the discount was, so that there’s no way in which that can be fiddled with.

Of course, it will be in the interests, actually, of the retailer to be transparent about the discount. We’re already seeing that in the advertising which is coming through. The retailers want to say what the discount is because it’s attracting people to buy their vehicles. But, to avoid any doubt, that will be extremely clear in the labelling legislation.

Look, I think all of the other points were largely policy points about utes; I have provided a response on that. There won’t be an exemption to those vehicles but we are providing greater choice. It’s important to point out, if you listen to members opposite, you’d think there was a ban on these vehicles; there’s not. There’ll still be exactly the same choice that there is now and, actually, increasingly, there’ll be more choice. All of the key players that we talked to in the sector do tell us that in the coming years we’re going to have a reasonable supply of both hybrid and electric vehicles coming in, which is what we’re already seeing in the international market.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to draw attention specifically to Supplementary Order Paper 119 in the name of my colleague Simon Court. It is a very small amendment, but it very much deals with one of the major issues and complaints about this legislation and the concerns that we’ve been hearing up and down the country—particularly from rural New Zealand but by trades people as well, who just say that the supply is simply not going to be there, the options are not going to be there.

I would like to hear the Minister’s thoughts on the Motor Trade Association saying that the industry will simply not be able to meet the targets and that penalties will flow on straight to consumers, and what his thoughts are about this and the cost of living over the medium to long term. And I also wonder if the Minister would be willing to admit a bit of an inconvenient truth here, which is that the supply and variety of vehicles will just not be available in the time frame stipulated by this bill. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I thank the Minister for his contribution. Look, I just wanted to come back to Part 1, new section 167A(6)(b)(iv). And the point here is around consideration by the Minister that the imposition of the level of fees and charges are appropriate after considering “the anticipated impact of the fees and charges on the market;”. And so what I’d like the Minister to articulate to the committee is: what is the analysis that he has considered and the advice that he has received from officials in regards to the anticipated impact on rural New Zealand as a result of not providing an exclusion particularly for utes, as a result of this legislation?

I wanted to clarify that because I was a member of parts of the select committee process in which the fifth largest producer of motor vehicles in the world provided a submission categorically around the fact that the availability of electric utes in the New Zealand market is not going to be something that we’re going to see in at least a couple of years. And even then, the reality is that these will be left-hand drive vehicles, which will then have to be productionised in terms of scale for a right-hand drive market. So we’re going to deal with a period of time in which consumers and the good, hard-working Kiwis in rural and semi-urban New Zealand—it’s not just rural, semi-urban as well—will be faced with the impact of fees and charges articulated in subparagraph (iv) there at that market. And the Minister has an obligation in subsection (6) “The Minister must not recommend the making of regulations unless the Minister is satisfied”. He has provided no substantiation of the evidence that he is confident that this will not have an impact on those members of the market. And so I would call on him to give us a degree of confidence around that.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The Minister’s probably going to say, “Not utes again.”, but I just couldn’t help taking another call on this point, because while the Minister did enjoy, obviously, a wonderful summer holiday going to Ōtorohanga and Te Kuiti when the sun was shining and they had not been any rain for a period of time, if he had come this weekend when, actually, Marokopa and places further out like Piopio and various areas had been flooded, he would not have had a practical way with an electric vehicle either to power it up or to actually get out of Marokopa altogether. The mud was deep. I know that the Prime Minister, when the Canterbury floods happened last year, actually travelled in a ute to go and have a look at the damage. I happen to know that after three floods on the West Coast of the South Island, maybe Maureen Pugh may never have come back to work on occasions if she had not been able to get into a ute to cross certain parts of the country.

So the Minister may well say, “Not utes again.” and have a holiday on State Highway 3. State Highway 3 is a wonderful place to travel, but it’s not remote rural New Zealand. The hills are achievable. You don’t need a four-wheel drive to get up them. I just think that forcing a tax on people who don’t have an alternative at this point in time is very short sighted, particularly as I said again before that we don’t have the renewable electricity anyway. We’re burning Indonesian coal to get it. It’s a very short-sighted thing to do in the name of climate change. If there were vehicles available, we’d all have them—we’d all have them. The Minister said, before, “You’d think we were banning them.” Well, I think people know that you’re not banning them, but I can tell you that those utes and a Ranger have been the top-selling vehicle because people know that they’re going to need those vehicles and they know the impracticalities of what the Minister is going to introduce.

So I’d like the Minister to tell me, in his other role, and I know it’s a bit away from the bill, but he’s also the health and safety spokesperson for Health and Safety at Work—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! The member really is getting and straying a little bit far from the bill. Can we—

Yes, I am straying.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Well, I’m inviting the member to come back to Part 1.

Yeah. So I’ll come back to Part 1 and I’ll ask the Minister how people are going to cope in rural New Zealand if they don’t have available these utes, other than having to pay the taxes that the Minister’s demanding of them.

I’ll respond fairly briefly to some of the points that are made here, which largely amount to “we think that utes are good in some places” and I think are quite general in their nature. I want to draw members’ attention to one of the considerations which is identified here before the Minister must make regulations, which are the international and domestic climate change ambitions and commitments we’ve made. Now, under the draft emissions reduction plan that we are consulting on—which derives from the independent climate commission’s recommendations—the overall goal is that by about 2035, we need to have around about 30 percent of our fleet being zero emissions. By 2035, about 30 percent of the fleet needs to be at zero emissions. But if you would listen to the members on the other side of the House, they are creating a sort of doomsday scenario in which everyone is forced out of their vehicles on the implementation of this legislation, and that is simply not true. The members also make the mistake of not properly reading through the legislation and actually what it sets up, which is a regime which through the standard and the discount incentivises cleaner vehicles over time. It doesn’t go from zero to 100 at once.

And so between high emitting vehicles and zero emissions vehicles—primarily electric vehicles, but potentially other fuel sources as well—we also have lower emission petrol vehicles, we also have hybrid vehicles, and they are probably most likely to be one of the answers to the challenges that the members opposite are raising. I would invite those members to actually think about how we make this transition across all parts of our country instead of just kind of putting up this poster and saying that what we’ve got now is what we want and that’s never going to change. The world is changing in respect of the provision of these vehicles, and this is actually about how we help New Zealanders to get there. Because when those hybrid utes start to come on to the market, it’s this scheme—it’s this scheme—which will make them more affordable for people to buy.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I couldn’t help but rise in response to that. What a mischaracterisation by the Minister. We are not proposing a doomsday of getting out of cars. What we’re saying is the difference on this side of the House is we back New Zealanders to make the right decisions. We want to give them the carrots; these guys want to give New Zealanders the sticks because they don’t believe New Zealanders will do the right thing. And they’ll bring out a stick from the beltway of Wellington, and smack regional New Zealanders around with it.

I want to point out—look, coming back to the title, Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill—we’re not just talking about electric vehicles here. When you look at what the Minister referenced in his last response about being appropriate for international and domestic climate change ambitions—no one disagrees with that—but even in the Minister’s own comment to a previous question, when we asked about the carve-out of utes because some occupations do not have a choice under this bill, the Minister said, “Well, they’ll be coming on stream in a couple of years”. Surely there’s going to be an unintended consequence there, because some of the emissions savings is around fuel efficiency—cars that are more fuel efficient.

So if you’ve got a dirty gas-guzzler and you know, at the moment, you’re going to be charged a tax to replace that ute, and you’ve got no other choice, then you’re going to sit on that gas-guzzler for longer. Why not give that farmer or tradie an incentive to shift? But that’s not what they are looking at. This is not pragmatic; we’ve clearly outlined, under Part 1, new sections 167B and 167A in clause 5—there is a pragmatic approach where some New Zealanders could get a carve-out because they do not have choice.

On this side of the House, we’re pragmatic and we want to give people carrots, and we know that New Zealanders—given the right framework and the right settings—will make the right decisions.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just very quickly, Minister, I’m fascinated to know what official advice he’s actually had on any supportive infrastructure that would be needed in rural New Zealand—i.e., charging stations, etc.? When would it be readily available, and what sort of additional cost—notwithstanding this is already an expensive exercise for rural New Zealand farmers and communities—would it add to their overall costs of running the business?

A great deal of advice, but none of it relates to Part 1 of this bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for opportunity to take another call on Part 1 of this piece of legislation. The question I’ve got is in relation to the tabled amendment which my colleague Scott Simpson touched on earlier in regards to the clear advertisement of the fees and charges or the discount. The Minister, effectively, answered half of the question that was put in regards to these tabled amendments but was very careful in his reply to not answer the other half. My tabled amendment says that when it comes to the clean car discount or the clean car standard, the amount that the Government is increasing the cost of that vehicle should be transparently put in the advertisement for the cost of the vehicle, and if there’s a discount, the discount should be clearly advertised as part of the cost of the vehicle.

There’s a number of reasons for this, but the Minister was very quick to say, “Well, yes, of course, of course, I agree with that. In fact, I’m going to ensure that, through regulations, the discount is advertised.” But he didn’t mention anything about the fees or the charges. What he’s trying to do is pull the wool over New Zealanders’ eyes by advertising how gloriously amazing his scheme is in terms of the discounts, but, actually, when it comes to the fees or charges, “Well, no, no, no, those have to be hidden away. We can’t talk about those. We can’t disclose those, because, actually, I don’t want people to know how much extra they’re paying for their vehicles.” If we can have it one way, Minister, why can’t we have it both ways? Because this scheme relies on robbing from Peter to pay for Paul. If you’re going to rob from Peter, Peter should know how much he’s paying; if you’re going to give to Paul, he should know how much he’s getting. So my tabled amendment, effectively, says, when it come to the clean car discount or the clean car standard, both of those fees and charges or rebates should be transparently placed as part of the advertised cost of the vehicle. The question is: why does he just not simply adopt my tabled amendment, which seeks to do that, and which will allow for that transparency to be put forward out there, in terms of the market, and people to make those decisions?

The other point I would like to make in regards to that point is that, for a consumer who’s going to buy a new vehicle, it’s actually important that they know what the actual value of that vehicle is. For instance, if I’m going to go and buy myself a $25,000 ute and the price of that is actually $29,000 and I don’t know that $4,000 of that is actually a tax—it’s probably going to be more than that of a tax—but the actual value of the asset that I’m purchasing is $4,000 less than what I’m paying, as a consumer I should know what the actual value of that particular asset should be. Of course, that has an impact if you’re a business, in terms of the value of asset that you put on your business’s balance sheet, in terms of those accounting practices. There may be implications in terms of what banks are prepared to loan against the value of that asset, because the resale value may not be as high as what you actually paid for it. So, in terms of asset financing, that could potentially become an issue for the banks. So the question here is—actually, the value is really important, and if you’re getting a discount on the vehicle, it’s also important that you know what the actual value of that vehicle is that you’re purchasing—even though it may have a discount attached to it.

So the question here is: why not pass that tabled amendment, make it abundantly clear to consumers so they know what they’re paying, they know what they’re getting, and they know what this Government is taking at the same time? I ask the Minister to address these issues. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Very happy to address that issue and to clarify for the member that the Vehicle Fuel Economy regulations will include provision for both the discount or the charges that apply for the clean car discount scheme.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Earlier in the committee’s discussions I asked the Minister about the revenue and where it would go, and I specifically asked a question relating to whether it would go into the consolidated fund or where, and the reply came back from the Minister that it would go into the National Land Transport Fund. But the question I have is relating to clause 6, where it says, “In the heading to section 168AA, replace ‘national land transport fund’ with ‘Crown Bank Account’.”, so I’m interested to know from the Minister quite why that would be. Is the replacement of the National Land Transport Fund, as he has answered earlier, with Crown bank account—does that mean that there’s going to be some kind of intermediary slush fund where the revenue will be collected, and if it is going to be collected in this sort of intermediary slush fund, who will administer it, how will it be administered, who will have control over it, and what will happen to those funds during the period of time that the revenue is held in the “Crown Bank Account” which is not the National Land Transport Fund?

So it seems to me that there is an area that is grey and uncertain in this matter, which I think the Minister needs to make clear. As we know, as my colleagues have made very clear in this discussion and debate so far this evening, this is a Government that likes to tax, likes to collect money from taxpayers, likes to have big buckets of money that they can then try and dole out and use for a whole range of petty political party policies of the sort that they have become famous for.

And then there’s a second matter that I’m quite keen for the Minister to answer a question on, and it relates to the “Interpretation in this Part”, new section 172(1), in clause 7, and it says that “category 1 light vehicle importer means a person who carries on the business of importing new or used light vehicles and whom the Director approves as a category 1 light vehicle importer under the regulations”. Now, I didn’t have the opportunity to sit on the select committee, so forgive me if this has been defined somewhere else, but I’m keen to know what the director will choose as a definition for someone who carries on the business of importing new or light vehicles. Is that someone who imports one vehicle a year, is it someone who imports two vehicles a year, or is it someone who imports three or four or five? What is the quantum? What is the definition? When does a person who acts as an importer become someone who meets the designation of being by the director, someone who “carries on the business”? What is the definition of that? So if the Minister could give me an answer, I would appreciate it.

With apologies for the very excellent questions asked, but the time has come for me to report progress.

House resumed.