Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill

Members, we come first to the interrupted consideration of the Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill. When we were last considering this bill, Part 1 was being debated. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to take another call on Part 1 of the Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill. We were debating this piece of legislation and a number of tabled amendments last night, and so it’s good to be back discussing this particular part of this legislation and trying to get from the Minister some answers to the questions that I think New Zealanders are wanting answers in regards to, and particularly around some of the very significant powers which this bill gives to the Minister in regards to the decisions.

So we still have a number of questions that we are seeking answers from the Minister for. One of the issues that was debated at length last night was around excluded classes. We had a discussion around the exclusion of utes, and I think that issue was well traversed. We had a discussion around the issue of disability vehicles and we had an assurance from the Minister that there would be some form of exclusion for disability vehicles. My first question to the Minister is: what other classes of vehicles is the Minister seeking to exclude under regulations? Are there other classes that are being considered? My understanding, through written questions, is that the officials already have drafted regulations, and so I’m assuming that that’s an answer that the Minister will be able to answer quite quickly.

The second question I’ve got is in regards to clause 5, which inserts new section 167A(6)(b)(v). This is in regards to the issue, and I think we’d just got to this point yesterday in regards to the overs and unders of the charges. It says here “the imposition and level of fees or charges are appropriate, after considering—whether the estimated revenue to be received from the charges is sufficient to meet the costs and expenses of the clean vehicle discount scheme funded under section 9(1E) and (1F) of the Land Transport Management Act”. It would be good to get from the Minister an answer to the question about actually what is the cost and what is the expense of actually administering this scheme—

💬 Mark Cameron: He didn’t answer me that last night, Simeon.

Sorry?

💬 Mark Cameron: He wouldn’t answer that last night.

No. Well, I think it would be very helpful to actually get an understanding of what that actual cost is, because New Zealanders will be paying for this, effectively. The idea is that there’ll be some overs and unders, and we sort of got some generality from the Minister yesterday. There’ll be some overs and some unders, and it will generally sort of wash out in the end. But the question is: what is the cost of actually administering the scheme on a year-by-year basis? Because, ultimately, there will be a cost—there will be an administrative cost for administering this scheme. There’ll be officials at the New Zealand Transport Agency who’ll be tasked with coming up with the systems to operate it and to make sure that car importers are abiding by the rules and regulations, that they’re paying the appropriate fees, receiving the appropriate subsidies, etc. What is the cost that has been budgeted on an annual basis for that? Because that money, effectively, has to be taken off consumers. This is where the overs and unders, effectively, have to mean that you have to get extra money off New Zealanders to not only pay the subsidy but also to pay the administration cost.

So it’d be interesting to know from the Minister what it is going to look like and what sort of percentage of the overall costs that people will be paying. So if you do buy a higher emitting vehicle—you may not have a choice, as we discussed last night, or you may choose to. Those people will, effectively, be paying the administration of this system. What is the percentage of the money raised which will be going towards administering the scheme?

There’s another question I’d like to ask in regards to clause 5, which inserts new section 167C, “Regulations for purposes of Part 13 (clean vehicle standard)”. The question here is in regards to the issue of requiring vehicle importers to include among the vehicles they import in any given year a minimum proportion of vehicles with zero carbon dioxide emissions. This was another issue which was raised by a number of submitters. Some submitters requested the exclusion of this particular paragraph. So it’d be good to get from the Minister some of the rationale as to why he is dismissing that request to remove this particular paragraph. Effectively, what this paragraph—paragraph (m) in new section 167C(1)—does is it says if you’re importing vehicles, a certain proportion, and we don’t know what that proportion might be, has to be zero carbon dioxide emission vehicles—so, effectively, at this stage, an electric vehicle (EV) in the future, potentially using some form of other zero carbon emission type of fuel.

But the question I’ve got in regards to this particular subclause is, I guess, firstly, who this relates to. Is this relating to the car yard down the road who brings in a bunch of cars and goes to the auctions over in Japan or wherever they get their cars from and purchases vehicles, so they need to make sure that a certain proportion of those vehicles are that they bring in are zero carbon dioxide emissions? Or does it just relate to more of an importer, such as a brand, for example, Honda or Toyota, and that they are therefore required to bring in a minimum portion of vehicles with zero carbon dioxide emissions?

I guess the following question from that is if it relates to a major brand and importer—for example, one of those brands. The question is: if they don’t currently produce EV vehicles or a zero carbon dioxide emission vehicle and so can’t currently actually fulfil zero carbon dioxide emission vehicles into New Zealand, does that, effectively, mean they’re unable to continue to import vehicles into the country until they’re able to start manufacturing? As the Minister will be aware, if you’re manufacturing vehicles, it takes time to investigate, to design, to build, and then, of course, test and then bring something to manufacturing. We know that the vast majority of manufacturers have already invested in this technology, but some have not. So therefore they will not potentially be able to meet this criteria in the short term, at least. So does that mean in the short term they won’t be able to bring vehicles into the country under this particular subclause?

The following question, which I think is also deserving of some attention from the Minister is what is meant by a minimum proportion of vehicles? So the question is—well, of course, the legislation doesn’t actually describe what the minimum proportion of vehicles is. I assume that, again, is something which the Minister in his infinite wisdom will be able to decide. What criteria will he be looking at to decide? Is it going to be 5 percent, 10 percent, 15 percent? I mean, for some manufacturers, they’ll be able to produce 100 percent. If you’re Tesla, no problem; 100 percent straight away. So they don’t care what that percentage is. They’re very, very relaxed about it. But if you’re a company which has just started producing electric vehicles, they may not be able to actually bring that many to the market, and they may already have commitments to other markets already. That’s what we’re seeing with supply chains around the world at the moment in the vehicle manufacturing space. Those supply chains are incredibly strained due to a number of reasons and therefore their ability to actually fulfil whatever that minimum proportion of vehicles is could be significantly challenging in the short term.

So the question I’ve got is has the Minister already decided what the minimum proportion is? What is it, if he has decided? What consultation has he had with the industry? Does he believe that the industry is going to be able to fulfil that? And if those particular manufacturers or importers are unable to bring in those proportions in the short term, what those consequences might be for them to be able to continue to import vehicles into New Zealand?

I guess the other question which I’d appreciate some clarification, but I did touch on it at the start, is if you are, for example, an importer, you bring in a bunch of vehicles, you’re not attached to one of the main brands. What does that mean for someone who purchases cars, for instance, from Japan, and sells second-hand used vehicles? Will they also be caught by this? And will that mean that they will have to therefore bring in a proportion of zero carbon dioxide emissions? Noting that the Japanese market doesn’t actually have significant numbers of zero carbon dioxide emissions—they have a large proportion of hybrid vehicles—and that zero carbon emission vehicles is something which is the Japanese market is still developing. So I look forward to some answers to a wide variety of questions on those issues.

Thanks, Madam Chair. Look, happy to provide a couple of responses. I do note that in a number of these areas we are not so much talking about the substance of the bill any more but what might happen as a result of the regulations, which are enabled by the bill, but none the less I’m happy to be as helpful as I can in that area. That applies, for example, to certain categories that might be excluded under the legislation. That’s not actually a matter that’s set out in the bill. That is something that the Minister, through an Order in Council, can consider. I have signalled that we’ll be doing that. Certainly we’re considering that, subject to Cabinet decision making, in respect of disability vehicles, but also special interest vehicles, motor sport vehicles, and low-volume modified vehicles as well. They’re the ones that we’re considering, but, again, that’s actually about what Cabinet now or in the future might determine is appropriate.

The same applies to the member’s other question about the cost of the scheme. It’s not actually a matter that’s in the bill, but the Government has provided adequate funding for the programme to move forward. The set-up costs are approximately $6 million and approximately $8 million ongoing; that’s Crown funded.

In respect of the member’s other question about the—again, these are empowering provisions, I’d point out new section 167C sets up empowering provisions in the bill, and does provide the ability through an Order in Council process for a minimum required number of zero-emissions vehicles to be required. So that won’t happen when the legislation comes in, but the Minister, through an Order in Council, can in the future choose to do that. We’ve signalled pretty openly that we don’t see that happening in the short term, but it’s enabled under the bill. What would happen there would be that the provision would apply to the entity who is importing the vehicles, as defined in the underlying legislation. And in respect of any importer who was not able to source electric vehicles, it wouldn’t be that they couldn’t import any vehicles, but a charge would apply in that instance.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s good to, again, pick up on the conversations that were commenced towards the end of the sitting day yesterday. We’re still on Part 1 of this Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill. I’ve got a couple of questions relating to the detail of the legislation proposed in the Minister’s name. This is a piece of legislation that’s actually quite complicated in terms of its implementation. So if we go to—the area related to category 1 light vehicles in proposed new section 178, “Category 1 light vehicle importer may bank overachievement of carbon dioxide emissions” and then go to proposed new section 179, “Category 1 light vehicle importer may defer obligation” in both those sections there’s a reasonably prescriptive and, some would say, complicated process by which both those objectives can be achieved.

So, first, if we come to the issue relating to a category 1 light vehicle importer being able to bank overachievement of carbon dioxide emissions in terms of the target, the legislation states that “If the actual average vehicle carbon dioxide emissions across the fleet of vehicles imported by a category 1 light vehicle importer in an obligation year are less than the fleet target applicable to that importer, the excess reduction in emissions may be carried forward to the next obligation year (banked) in the vehicle importer’s carbon dioxide account in accordance with the regulations.” Now that creates, of itself, some issues that relate to accounting, recording, and stylistically for the vehicle importer. I asked some questions towards the end of the session last night about the definition of an importer, how many vehicles would be required each year to become an importer under the legislation, and I’m still hopeful that the Minister might answer that question now we’re into this continuation of the debate.

So going back to that part about being able to bank overachievement of carbon dioxide emission targets, I’m keen to know what the rationale for that process is. Wouldn’t it have been tidy and neat to have just had an annual process, and either the emissions targets were met or they weren’t met? Simple, black and white kind of thing. But this process of being able to roll over to a second year seems to me to be a degree of complication that will cause some concern and angst in the sector. And then similarly, proposed new section 179 refers to the same category 1 light vehicle importer being able to defer an obligation. Now this section says “applies in relation to obligation years 2023, 2024, and 2025.”, so it’s limited in that aspect. But a “ vehicle importer may apply to the Director, in accordance with the regulations, to defer their obligation to meet the category 1 light vehicle importer fleet target for an applicable obligation year (year 1) until the following obligation year (year 2).”, and so it goes on. This, again, formulaic, heavy on regulation approach seems to be fraught with difficulty from an administrative and logistics point of view. And so my question, really, to the Minister is: what is the rationale for both the ability to bank, and what is also the rationale for the ability to defer obligations as set out in this part of the legislation?

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you, Madam Chair. There’s still a range of areas in this Part which still need to be discussed in terms of the impact that this legislation has. I’d like to ask a question of the Minister in relation to Subpart 2, which is regarding the “Clean vehicle standard” and new sections 175 and 175A, inserted by clause 7.

So section 175 sets the targets for reducing carbon dioxide emissions, and, again, this was another issue which was raised significantly by submitters in the select committee stage, with a number of submitters raising different points in relation to whether they were too fast or too slow in terms of reducing the emissions. But the question, I think, which was particularly raised was in regards to the emissions reductions set out in the 2026 and 2027 year, with a number of submitters raising the point that the drop between 2025 and 2026 was going to be challenging in terms of being able to meet those particular targets. I know the Minister’s talked about how ambitious he is and how he is wanting to create change, and we wish him, you know, good luck if that’s what he wishes to do with this piece of legislation. However, the reality is also the fact that the market needs to be able to actually deliver, and as we’ve talked about before, the risk here is that the market is not able to deliver the number of vehicles and therefore, either people pay for higher emitting vehicles and pay the taxes and the charges or they simply hold on to existing vehicles for longer. That was something which I think is a significant risk of this piece of legislation.

So the issue that was raised in the departmental report from officials was the suggestion to actually amend the emissions target for 2026 from 84.5 grams for type A vehicles to 90 grams and for type B vehicles, from 116.3 grams to 139 grams. I’d like to ask the Minister why it appears he’s rejected that particular piece of advice or proposal from officials and also why he seems to have rejected the advice, which was for the 2027 year, to have those targets set by regulation instead of being put here in the primary legislation, which is currently where it is at.

So that brings me to the second question, to which, I guess, his response will be: “Well, I’ll be reviewing the targets anyway in June of 2024, and that’s my opportunity to sort of deal with those particular issues.” The question I’ve got there in regards to this particular section is symbolic of the challenges in this legislation in that, effectively, again, it just gives the power to the Minister. So instead of the industry having certainty leading up to 2026, now the industry is going to have to wait to see what he or she—whoever the Minister may be—will decide at that point. But, again, the review has a number of criteria here in terms of what the review must take into account, but then it says, “The review may be undertaken by any method the Minister considers appropriate.”—any method. Effectively, the Minister could decide however he or she wishes for this particular review to take place. From my perspective, that doesn’t sound very methodical when you’re dealing with something which is actually—these are big industry players having to plan ahead and the Minister, effectively, has the power to simply just decide how he or she wishes to undertake a review. So whilst a review sounds like a good idea—particularly as the market changes and manufacturing and technology capability no doubt only improves—the other point here is, actually, this just seems to be another power grab by the Minister to decide.

And the next subsection says: “In conducting the review, the Minister must consult such persons as the Minister considers appropriate.” Again, the Minister can, effectively, decide who he or she decides to talk to. That’s something which I think is a significant concern, and the fact that the industry is not even a required component of that review.

So I asked the Minister a number of questions there—those proposals, those proposed changes, and then in regards to how this review is actually structured.

I’ll respond to the questions from Mr Simpson and Mr Brown because they sort of go together. Mr Brown’s raised questions about the targets, their level of ambition, and the review mechanism. The targets do represent a level of ambition, although I note that by 2027, they effectively take us through to what would be about that the mid-range of what comparable countries are looking to achieve by way of the targets that they have in place, noting that many of those countries are actually in the process of increasing the level of ambition that they have. So I’m very comfortable with the way that they’ve been set.

But the point I make here, this is coming to Mr Simpson’s question, is that we’ve built considerable flexibility into the scheme through the ability to defer and through the ability to bank and through the ability to transfer. That means, for example, if in years one, two, or three an importer is perhaps finding it a little bit difficult, and perhaps that is because they’re waiting for a cleaner supply of vehicles to come on stream, they have the ability to defer any of their obligations to such a point where they might well be able to overachieve and balance it out. Similarly, the ability to transfer means that those firms who overachieve are able to transfer those credits to those in the industry who don’t.

So as I said it in the debate yesterday, when we were also traversing this territory, the scheme is designed to support importers to meet the targets, and those points that Mr Simpson raises—the banking, the borrowing, the transferring—are about effectively providing a market mechanism within the system—common in virtually all the overseas schemes that we’ve looked at, by the way—to enable them to do that. And that to some degree—in response to Mr Brown’s question, even though the targets are ambitious; I agree—will support importers to be able to do that.

I’d also note that in 2021, after the implementation of stage one of the Clean Car Discount, within a few months we already at a national fleet level reached the 2023 targets, such was the positive effect of a Clean Car Discount in getting cleaner vehicles into New Zealand. So I’m actually quite positive about the ability of our sector to adapt and to get the outcomes that everyone wants in this space.

In respect to the review mechanisms, I just note to Mr Brown that there has been a change to the legislation here to specifically set out the review and the things that must be taken into account as part of that. This is a pretty standard methodology within the legislation. We talked yesterday about the questions about whether particular organisations should be defined in the legislation. I gave my view that that’s a little bit of a problem—you don’t necessarily know who the organisations might be in a few years’ time—and gave my commitment to make sure that we engage widely and in good faith. And, of course, any Minister who doesn’t do that will potentially face a challenge in the making of those decisions.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to ask the Minister whether—and if not, why not—there is not exemption for selected sectors until meaningful alternatives are available, particularly for the rural sector, for farmers, for contractors, etc. I note this is a matter that has been raised by Federated Farmers. I also note that Groundswell—it’s been one of the key issues that they’ve raised as well and it’s quite a sensible one because what they’re saying is there aren’t any alternatives available yet and so why not make an exemption for those sectors that do not have a realistic alternative until that alternative is available?

Farmers and tradies say the Government’s clean car package is an unfair tax on them because there are no realistic alternatives available at the present time. You know, without being too silly about it, they can’t take a Tesla out the back of the farm, and a Nissan LEAF isn’t going to cut it either. So there are electric utes in development overseas, and they look great, the farming sector tells me, but right now they’re not here, they’re not available, and they probably will be about $200,000—throwing out a figure there—when they do get here. So the rural sector can get behind this with a recognition that those utes aren’t yet available so they can do their job and keep the economy going.

I note the comments by Central Otago beef and dairy farmer Ben Gillespie, who with his wife, Anna, last year won an environment award for the approach they take on their farm, when he said he was on board with the sector doing more to address its impact on climate change but this measure missed the mark. I’ll just speak briefly about them. They were commended for preventing negative environmental impacts. Their farming operation includes buffer zones, precision irrigation, and a “right pasture, right time, right place” philosophy. They’ve established two new wetlands, an onsite nursery growing native plants for riparian planting—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): I’m going to require the member to come more specifically back to Part 1.

So these are people are walking the talk to really ensure that they are addressing climate change. They’re addressing the environmental impacts, they are addressing biodiversity on their farm. They are fully on board with this. They’ve been recognised as regional supreme winners for their approach on-farm and they just saying, “Look, can you just listen to us? We want to engage, we want to have electric vehicles, but the ones that we need are just unavailable yet.” So why not have an exemption for selected sectors until meaningful alternatives are available?

Order! Before I take another call—and I will take another call—Part 1 is the substantive part of this bill; there are a number of technicalities and I am trying to follow closely as members speak. And there is a newly introduced Minister’s tabled amendment, which brings the proposed amendments up to 10. So it is complex. But what I am looking for now is contributions and questions to the Minister in the chair that related directly to Part 1. I’m not looking for a wider debate, which may well be more suited to what is going to be a subsequent third reading. So with those words I will accept a call.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for your guidance and advice. Just before I commence my contribution, at this point I just want to thank the Minister for his positive engagement to the questions that are being asked. It’s appreciated on this side of the Chamber. This is technical, complicated legislation, and it is imposing a new regime on a sector that isn’t used to such a thing. So they’re coming to terms with it, just as members of this House are. I want to, in this contribution, speak to the provisions in section 177, and then 182, inserted by clause 7, which are kind of similar, except that the first one, section 177, relates to category 1 light vehicle importers, and section 182 relates to category 2 light vehicle importers. The questions I’m particularly wanting the Minister to answer relate to the specifics of the dollar figures chosen for inclusion in what is black-letter law when this legislation will be passed.

So section 177 creates, at subsection (2), the charges from 1 January 2023—and this is for light vehicle importers. It will be $22.50 per gram of carbon dioxide in excess, multiplied by the number of used vehicles in the fleet, and $45 per gram of carbon dioxide in excess, multiplied by the number of new vehicles in the fleet. Then, from January 2025, it bumps up to $33.75, and then $67.50. So my first question is to the Minister: why and how were those figures determined? What was the rationale? What was the reasoning? What was the mathematics? What was the science, if you like, behind the selection of those very precise dollar amounts? And in a time when we have now rapid—some would say out of control—inflation and increasing concerns about the cost of living, is it appropriate and wise, in this legislation that has a limited time frame—and we accept that on this side of the House—to actually set the fees in the statute? Because changing them, if it’s necessary, either up or down, will, I think, as I understand it, then require a change of legislation by way of amendment to be brought back through the House, to go through a process again. And that seems to me, on the face of it, to be something of a cumbersome exercise when, maybe, it could be that the dollar figures that are set out and calculated in both sections 182 and 177 could be achieved a different way.

So my primary question to the Minister is: how and what was the rationale to land on those precise dollar amounts? And those are just a couple in the legislation. I’m not going to waste the time of the committee in going through all the other parts of the legislation where there are specific and detailed mentions of precise dollars and cents terms. So if the Minister could answer those questions, I’d appreciate it.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the opportunity to take another call. I’d like to, in this instance, ask the Minister to answer a question in regards to what appears to be a tabled amendment that the Minister has recently hand written for us in regards to clause 11, new section 243(1B). It amends new section 243(1B) by saying replace “any charges prescribed” with any fees or charges prescribed under section 167—and I think that’s 1J, or is it IJ; not quite sure by the handwriting there. But it’d be helpful just to have the Minister answer exactly what the purpose of this tabled amendment that he’s just written in and put on the Table actually will do, and why he has brought this tabled amendment so late to this debate. I think it was tabled at 7.40 p.m. tonight for consideration. Thank you.

I would just ask, is the Minister not concerned by comments by industry, or industry types, like the Motor Trade Association (MTA) that penalties will simply wind up being paid for by consumers, perhaps even on electric vehicles themselves, if they’re trying to spread the costs out. I’d also ask, and this relates to a Supplementary Order Paper as well, SOP 119, but, you know, adjusting it slightly, why wouldn’t the Minister consider creating at least a stand-down period of, say, five years, for example, for the rural sector and for tradies, just to allow the manufacturing, allow the sector to actually create new vehicles and do a bit of catch up so this is actually a little bit more relevant.

Just briefly, in response to a few of the questions that have been raised, the first from Mr Simpson questioning the levels of fees that are set out in the legislation. The fees were consulted on very widely, going back to 2019 when the previous Associate Minister first kicked off engagement around the clean car standard with the sector. They went through a very significant consultation exercise. They were roughly halved from the original proposals that were put forward in response to engagement with the sector, and they’re designed—as I said in comments yesterday—to kind of get the tension right within the system. We don’t want them to be so exorbitant that they do add significant cost into the sector but, also, they are designed to put some positive pressure on, within the system, to send the incentive to get stock of cleaner vehicles. I note, in response to another comment, by definition the scheme can’t be inflationary because it basically nets out at zero in the end so, in as much as there are fees which are in the system, on the other side there are discounts within the system as well, so there is no overall impact there.

In answer to Mr McDowall’s question, there’s no scenario under which a zero-emissions vehicle would end up attracting fees, under either the standard or the discount. In answer to Mr Brown’s questions about the tabled amendment, this is a point that officials have picked up—admittedly relatively late in the piece—which is just about the consistency of language across the legislation, where fees and charges are referred to consistently across other parts of the legislation, and they weren’t in those parts. There’s no significant flow-on effect from that, but it was important to have consistency of language in the legislation.

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to take another call on Part 1 of the Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill.

I’d like to ask a question in regards to category 2 light vehicle importers. And this is where vehicles are imported vehicle by vehicle and where charges are placed upon those vehicles dependent upon their carbon dioxide emissions. My understanding of this is, effectively, that each of those cars gets treated as an individual car rather than the type category A light vehicle importers, which, effectively, are looking more of a fleet level in terms of what are the charges and the overs and unders. And the question I’ve got in regards to the charges, it says in the new section 182(2), in clause 7, that “The charges are,—from 1 January 2023,—(i) $18.00 dollars per gram of carbon dioxide by which a used vehicle exceeds its target; and (ii) $36.00 per gram of carbon dioxide, by which a new imported vehicle exceeds its target;”. My understanding of the difference there is that a used vehicle will come in later in its life, and therefore it has a shorter period of time. But the question I’ve got in relation to these charges—is there going to be a cap on the maximum amount that can be charged based upon these particular charges? And so if I was to import a used vehicle and it exceeded the target and I had to pay $18 per gram of carbon dioxide, what would be the maximum fee, if possible—is there a maximum fee? It doesn’t seem to be that there is any sense of maximums set out in the primary legislation, so I assume that is something which may be considered as part of the regulations. If it is part of the regulations, is that something that the Minister has determined, that it will be a maximum fee? Will that maximum fee therefore also be different between the two different types of vehicles? So if I have imported a used vehicle I would assume, therefore, that the maximum fee for a used vehicle would be about half that of what the maximum fee of an imported vehicle would be.

And so I guess the issue which may become apparent here is that if those maximum fees were the same, then there’s effectively a disincentive once the new vehicle exceeds a particular point; actually, you’re effectively creating an opportunity to bring in more higher emitting vehicles without actually that continually—costs just continuing to go up. So the question there is: is it just a raw “This will be how much you will pay if it exceeds the target for every single gram?” And will there be a maximum fee? And if so, will those maximum fees differ between a used vehicle and a newly imported vehicle?

In answer to the member’s question: there is not a maximum fee. It’s not really possible to compare the way it plays out across used or individuals because, as the member notes, for the used vehicles the fee will apply on an individual basis. In respect of new importers, the clean car standard applies across the average of emissions imported by that importer over the case of a year, not to an individual vehicle.

I move, That the question be now put.

The question is that the Minister’s amendment to clause 7 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 128 and the tabled amendment to clause 11 be agreed to.

The question is that Simeon Brown’s tabled amendment to clause 4 excluding utes from the definition of a light vehicle be agreed to.

The question is that Simeon Brown’s tabled amendment to clause 4 excluding disability vehicles from the definition of a light vehicle be agreed to.

The question is that Simeon Brown’s tabled amendment to clause 5 replacing new section 167A(5A) be agreed to.

The question is that Simeon Brown’s tabled amendment to clause 5 inserting a new section 167D be agreed to.

The question is that Simon Court’s amendment to clause 7 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 119 be agreed to.

The question is that Simeon Brown’s tabled amendment to clause 7 amending new section 172 to exclude utes be agreed to.

The question is that Simeon Brown’s tabled amendment to clause 7 amending new section 172 to exclude disability vehicles be agreed to.

The question is that Simeon Brown’s tabled amendment to clause 7 inserting a new section 172A be agreed to.