Road User Charges (Temporary RUC Reduction Scheme) Amendment Bill

Members, we come now to the final debate: clause 4, “Amendments to Road User Charges Act 2012”. The question is that clause 4 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I asked the Minister three questions earlier and he said he would answer them in clause 4, so we look forward to his answer. The questions are: he said that temporary means temporary, but does that mean three months, or does that mean a longer temporary time than three months? The second question is: where would the funding come from if it is longer than three months? The third question is: what projects will be cut if there is not hypothecation funding after three months?

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for the opportunity to speak on this clause of the bill. I want to bring the debate back here to the question I asked the Minister earlier in relation to this temporary reduction, which won’t begin until 21 April 2022. That’s still about 16 days away from this bill being passed tonight. The question I want to have answered is: why is this temporary reduction, which is being passed in urgency through Parliament tonight—why will road users out there who have diesel vehicles still have to wait another 16 days before they can get a reduction?

I’ve been through this time frame a number of times tonight, but, effectively, by passing this bill tonight, the Minister is simply bypassing the provisions in the bill by four days. He’s reducing the time frame for the reduction of a road-user charge (RUC) by four days. Now, I think for most people out there, they would sort of be scratching their head and wondering whether this Government had actually thought about the implications of their announcement when they announced this on 14 March, and I think the reality is that most New Zealanders realise that they didn’t. So I’ve got a tabled amendment which will fix that. It will bring the new rates in on the day after this bill receives Royal assent. That’ll be great news for taxpayers and people who need to purchase their new RUC. They’ll be able to get this reduction much, much sooner than this Government is willing to do, which is still another 16 days away.

The second question I have is following on from my colleague Hon David Bennett. It is a question around the potential extension of these temporary reductions, and I think this is a very important question because from what I understand from reading this bill, is this bill allows for the Minister to, effectively, shorten or extend the temporary reduction period to a date specified in the order. Now, that is quite concerning by the fact that not only could there be—well, I mean, it could be good news for consumers that it could be extended, but it could also be shortened. Does the Government have any intentions around actually reducing the time frame that they have promised? I imagine they haven’t, but what is their intention around extending that, because I think New Zealanders should deserve some clarity around that, and will that also apply to excise for fuel for petrol users for their vehicles? What are the implications around public transport and the announcements they’ve made around that as well?

Look, there are other questions which I think need to be asked around this as well in terms of the issue regarding the people who may have purchased RUC over the last three weeks since the announcement was made and how that works—I think my colleague Matt Doocey made a number of questions during his contributions—and some clarity around how that will work for heavy-vehicle users and also light-vehicle users; what the cost of the licence—I think it’s the overlap licence—will be, and what percentage of their savings will be used up in actually paying the administration fee, and whether the Government has actually considered waiving that fee during this three-month period to ensure that consumers aren’t, effectively, having some of that benefit taken away from them by the fact that they may have to actually use that particular service in order to be able to benefit from what this legislation is doing. I look forward to the Minister’s answers to those questions.

I thank the members for their questions. In respect to the questions that relate to the period of the reduction and the date of commencement of the reduction, I would say a couple of things in response. The first is that when the Government made its announcements on 14 March, they were on the basis of a three-month reduction applying across fuel excise duty (FED), road-user charges (RUC), and public transport reduced fares, and that is what is being provided for in this bill. The date of commencement of 21 April allows Waka Kotahi, as the collector, to establish its systems to ensure that that runs out very smoothly.

It’s important to note that there is no disadvantage to RUC users here because they still get a three-month reduction, which is comparable to the three-month reduction that FED users get. Also the overlap provisions—which have been canvassed in debate already—mean that people who purchase RUC licences in the period beforehand have the opportunity to also obtain benefit during this three-month period, so there is no particular disadvantage there.

I note that Mr Brown’s amendment on this issue has a significant flaw and would create an inconsistency in that it brings forward the date with no consideration to the fact that the collector has to set up its systems to run it smoothly. But notwithstanding that, this would create an inconsistency because it would give a greater benefit to people getting the lower RUC rate than people who get the lower FED rate, which has been set for three months.

In respect of Mr David Bennett’s questions, the bill as it stands establishes a three-month period, and that is what the Government intends for at this point. But it provides an ability through Order in Council to extend that if the Government believes that is justified, but the Government has not made any decision in that respect at this stage. What the Government has done has been to back the reductions to FED and RUC with $350 million to ensure that Waka Kotahi continues to have the same level of funding that it enjoyed were these reductions not to be in place.

Thank you, Minister, for those answers, and that clarifies some of that. Just one of the other issues is that it seems like the Labour Party has assumed all businesses, especially in the road-user charges (RUC) case, run at the same time, but some are seasonal businesses—for example, in the primary sector—and my colleague from the ACT Party will no doubt want to take a question on this as well.

An agricultural contractor, for example, has just finished their autumn work, which is large part of their business. Over the winter, they will be doing very little, and so the next few months they will have little contracting use and little use of RUC, whereas over the last six to eight weeks, they’ve done maize silage and other things like that and will have had a massive transport bill. How will that relate? They’re going to get a discount for the period of time they’re not working, essentially, and having to pay huge RUC at the time that they’re most busy.

I think the Minister assumes every truck is on the road every day for 12 months in the year, and there is no continuity of business, or up and down of a business. He thinks it’s all continuous and there’s no peaks and troughs in how a business operates. I think it’s completely unfair for our rural agricultural contractors that they now will actually have been paying huge amounts in RUC, and through their winter period will actually now be, effectively, subsidising the transport network. It’s the same with Fonterra and other players like that. The winter milk is very small compared with the spring need for transport and even the autumn need for transport.

So what about businesses that are actually going to be negatively impacted, because RUC is not something that they may be having as a continuous amount because their business fluctuates? Has the Government given the ability for businesses to have fluctuation and to be able to look at it as a three-month period over a 12-month process, as often happens in other tax cases like income tax and suchlike, or is this going to be a hard and fast “You’ve got no RUC over the winter. Suck it up.” approach by the Minister?

So would he please answer that question—has he even thought of it?

I was going to call the ACT member, but he’s sat down, so I call Ricardo Menéndez March. If you want the call, just keep calling.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It pays to stand up nice and early.

Just in the spirit of not filibustering, I’ll keep my contributions brief. I was keen to unpack the assertion by the Minister around the expectations he had around this bill having a positive distributional impact. I wanted to understand what is that being based on, who’s going to benefit from this—is it lower-income people or which groups is he expecting to sort of benefit the most, proportionately—and have there been any other alternative interventions considered that perhaps could have a more equitable distributional impact that, unfortunately, may have not been brought forward by the Government?

Just addressing a couple of the questions that have been raised by members, starting with Mr Menéndez March. My expectation is that there would be a positive distributional impact, and that is because transport costs will tend to be a higher proportion of the total household costs that are faced by a person or a household on a low income than they are for a person or a household on a high income. Therefore, any reduction in those costs will have a bigger proportionate impact on that low-income person or household.

In respect of Mr David Bennett’s question about seasonal businesses: the bill is as it is written. The reduction applies for the three-month period between 21 April and 21 July, and I would note to the extent that a business is not purchasing diesel through that period or is purchasing a lesser amount of diesel through that period, they are not going to be facing the cost spike that we are observing at the moment that this policy is designed to mitigate.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, I have a number of questions just relating to the departmental disclosure statement. I’m just—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! The member, I’m assuming, is about to ask questions on clause 4 of the bill.

That’s right, Madam Chair: clause 4. The departmental disclosure statement says there was no regulatory impact analysis undertaken, and what I’m interested in is what is the cost to administer the temporary reduction in the road-user charges scheme, what is the cost to the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA), how many additional staff will be required to administer it at the agency, and will they be employed on a fixed term or casual contracts?

What is the cost to the agents who administer this scheme—that’s where people go to buy road-user charges, say, from their local Vehicle Testing New Zealand or wherever they buy them from in their local town—and what information has NZTA or the Minister received about the cost to businesses to participate in this scheme? Just having had a look at the information provided by Transporting New Zealand offering to assist Waka Kotahi develop a simple scheme that’s easy to administer, it seems that what’s being proposed here in the bill is quite different. So my question to the Minister is: what is the cost to business?

So three questions there, and my fourth question is: what alternatives were considered by Waka Kotahi NZTA when coming up with a scheme to give temporary relief to those businesses who need to purchase road-user charges? Thank you, Minister.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. As signalled by my earlier contributions, I think it’d be important if the Minister wouldn’t mind tying off just some of the questions around the road-user charges (RUC) collector, whether the Minister thinks there’ll need to be an increase in the number of RUC collectors to facilitate this initiative, and a specific question around new section 42E in clause 4, at “b” in the formula, where it says that the RUC collector considers what would have been “reasonable to purchase”. I think it would be helpful for the committee to have a bit of detail about what will drive that decision. Thank you, Madam Chair.

In response to a couple of those questions, the administration costs to Waka Kotahi as the collector are estimated at approximately $2.15 million and they will be met by the overall funding envelope of $350 million that the Government is providing. There’ll need to be a small number of additional staff who are employed to oversee the system. I believe that might be in the vicinity of around about eight to 10 temporary staff for the duration.

In terms of costs to businesses, these are very limited indeed. The cost of purchasing a licence depending on the circumstances is around $3 to $7, depending on the type of licence, which is much more than offset by the benefits of the reduction that is in place here.

In respect of new section 42E and Mr Doocey’s question about Waka Kotahi’s ability to conduct assessments, I note that this is something that Waka Kotahi does in the normal course of events within the RUC system, so there’s a well-developed understanding of how they do that, and, really, I think the answer to Mr Doocey’s questions are in the following parts of new section 42D, is it, we’re talking about—new section 42E, which outline the measures that Waka Kotahi will consider. This can include the advice that Waka Kotahi has provided to the public and can include a consideration of the purpose and intent of this piece of legislation in terms of understanding what is unreasonable.

As I’ve said publicly, there is a bit of a common-sense thing here. If someone regularly purchases a 5,000 kilometre licence for a three-month period and then suddenly pops up and wishes to purchase a 25,000-kilometre licence, then there would be a question to be asked.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, just with reference to your previous answers that the cost to administer would be about $2.15 million, has any consideration been given during the development of this proposal—because I understand it’s happened very quickly—to what more fundamental reforms of the road-user charging (RUC) system could be undertaken to simplify it, because it’s clearly become far more administratively complex to manage over the years since it was first introduced in the 1990s. So is there any work being undertaken or any lessons that have been learnt, any insights gathered, from this rapid development of a policy which will help inform the agency as to, potentially, how to reform the RUC system going forward?

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I just want to continue with one last line of questioning around the road-user charges (RUC) assessments. The Minister of Transport has mentioned a common-sense approach being taken. How will the New Zealand Transport Agency be actually determining which people who purchase RUC licences—will they have a number of triggers inbuilt into the systems to actually check that they are being reasonable in their purchases?

I guess my question is: of that $2.1 million, I think, that was referred to by the Minister as to the cost, what percentage of that cost is actually going to be undertaken in terms of this assessment process, with people with clipboards making determinations of whether someone is purchasing too much, too little, or enough? What is “reasonable”, because I think we would all want to say—yes—we don’t want people necessarily going in abusing a reduction but also we also want to ensure that we’re not overburdening people with regulation and people with clipboards.

On that point, I guess the question which we started with—which the Minister hasn’t answered—is around: is the Government intending to extend this? Because if they are intending to extend this by another three months, well, then, the issue of actually going in there and determining whether someone is purchasing a reasonable number of kilometres or not is actually less important because the Government may wish to extend this temporary reduction for some time. So, actually, what is unreasonable under a three-month period may not be unreasonable under a six-month period, and, therefore, a lot of bureaucratic time gets spent only then to have to, potentially, do it again. So I think some clarity from the Government could actually not only be helpful to consumers but also be helpful in terms of just reducing some of that bureaucratic stuff which is going to take place, and, potentially, even save some money for the taxpayer. I look forward to the Minister’s answers.

In answer to Mr Court’s question: no, the broader future of the road-user charges (RUC) system is not being considered as part of this work. But the Ministry of Transport does have a broader policy programme in place around the broader future of the transport revenue system, including RUC.

In answer to Mr Brown’s question about what the triggers will be for Waka Kotahi to conduct assessments: that will, effectively, be managed by them operationally and won’t be set by this legislation. In terms of the cost of the assessment within the $2.15 million: I don’t have precise information about that, but I understand it’s probably a minority of that, and I have answered the question already about whether the Government intends to extend the three months. The legislation as is put down is for three months. The Government has not at this point considered extending it further.

Just two quick questions for the Minister at this point. The first is: does the Minister consider this to be a fossil fuel subsidy? The second is: can he confirm that in three months’ time, this subsidy will come off?

No, I don’t consider it to be a fossil fuel subsidy, because, of course, neither fuel excise duty nor road-user charges are actually the cost of the fossil fuel in existence. They are a levy that is, effectively, added to the cost of the fossil fuel that is consumed to fund transport infrastructure.

In respect of the second question, I think—sorry, I’ve just sort of lost the train slightly. I think it was a question about three months again?

Chlöe Swarbrick: Three months—will it go?

Is it three months? So, yes, again, this has come up a couple of times in debate. The intention in the legislation is for this to be in place for three months. The Government has not considered extending it beyond that at this stage.

With regard to the Minister’s point about this not being considered a subsidy, it is, of course, the case, however, that these RUC charges, as well as the other charges on petrol, are—from my understanding—hypothecated in the Government’s Budgets. I understand that with regard to this specific legislation change in the amendment and the regulatory changes made with regard to petrol, they have been backfilled with COVID-19 funding, but none the less this would have otherwise been a hole in the Government’s budget which would have, effectively, been the equivalent of a subsidy, given that this is money now being made up from other pots of money within the Government coffers.

Madam Chair, I have two or three other questions for the Minister, and forgive the fact that I am appealing to a number of different resources on my desk at the moment. But it just may be of interest to other members in the committee that Aotearoa New Zealand is a member of what is called the Friends of Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reform, which Aotearoa has been a part of, I might add, since the National Party was in Government and formed a review in 2015. It was established in June 2010, for those who are interested and following along at home. It is an informal group of non-G20 countries aiming to build consensus on the importance of fossil fuel subsidy reform.

So, to that effect, and referring to the kind of mission statement inside of the Friends for Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reform, is the Minister concerned that as New Zealand has historically considered itself a kind of leading member inside of the Friends of Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reform, these moves keep domestic prices for oil, gas, and coal—as have, typically, the other members of the Friends of Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reform—artificially low? I will leave it at that point for now.

Just briefly in response: no, I don’t share that concern, although I understand where the member is coming from. This policy is being implemented because we do have a real concern about some of the cost of living pressures that New Zealanders are facing. I repeat my earlier comment: to the extent that there’s a reduction here, it’s not actually a reduction on the cost of the fuel—I know it seems like a fine distinction—but it is a reduction on the levy that the Government places on that fuel. I think the contextual point that I can add that might give the member some additional comfort is that of course this is part of a broader package to reduce transport costs, and I’m very pleased and proud that alongside this we’ve also brought in half-price public transport fares, which I think do go some way towards incentivising people to travel in a way that is more climate-friendly.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Two questions, if I may, in building on some excellent contributions from my colleague Simeon Brown. I refer you to clause 4 and new section 42D in regards to when assessments may be issued. I’m interested in a little bit of context from the Minister just around some of the considerations around enforcement of these assessments, and, in particular, the practicality of enforcement, taking into account such a short period of time at which these changes will be in effect, which has been noted as three months. So that’s the first question.

The second question is in relation to clause 4 and new section 42B. I think this was touched on a little bit earlier by one of my colleagues—probably again, no doubt, Simeon Brown. But in regards to the cost-benefit analysis, or lack of, that was undertaken in regards to this portion, I would be interested from the Minister in terms of what was undertaken in that regard. What assumptions were made, in particular, around how the underlying fuel price would change over the next three months? I’d be interested to understand, particularly, what officials had advised around the forecasted changes to fuel prices and how that allowed the Government to come up with the position of where they’ve set the price in terms of that cost-benefit analysis. So those are the two questions and I’d appreciate a response from the Minister.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister, earlier this evening I asked you whether you had considered, or whether officials had considered, alternatives to the methodology that was arrived at for the temporary reduction in the rates of road-user charges (RUC)—in particular, the administration of them. Stakeholders have written, concerned that the RUC system is already excessively complex. It doesn’t lend itself to the administration of discounts. The framework for claiming a discount will be resource-intensive for those businesses which need to claim discounts—particularly for those that have many vehicles, like the kinds of road transport operators who, say, haul food to supermarkets, haul gravel from quarries to roading projects, or even who haul fuel around the country or concrete and other materials for building.

So their concerns were quite valid and other methodologies were proposed, which included not necessarily giving a cash discount of 36 percent but, potentially, extending the kilometres available for road-user charges holders—people who have already paid for kilometres—extending them by 36 percent, because that seemed to be a much more efficient way of administering the scheme, by giving people who have already paid for road-user charges and who have large fleets of vehicles on the road bringing things to shops and building sites and to people’s homes and who are using diesel-powered vehicles a 36 percent extra distance. So, Minister, those are concerns raised by the peak body, Transporting New Zealand. They’re valid concerns and, Minister, could you please respond to those concerns—that is, what alternatives were considered, and is this the most efficient scheme that officials considered could have been delivered?

Addressing the questions from Messrs Watts and Court, I believe, in respect of the question about how assessments might be carried out—for Mr Watts—I have addressed that now on several occasions to other members. In respect of the question about cost benefit, it doesn’t necessarily fit into clause 4, nor do the questions about what forecast we might have about fuel prices going into the future. I think the best that I can say there is that the advice from officials is that there is still considerable uncertainty, given the international situation, as to how fuel prices will track, and so we believe, as a Government, it’s best to be decisive and provide a good discount at this stage to assist people with those cost issues.

In respect of Mr Court’s questions, my response, really, is that in a very short space of time, we have been able to stand up this reduction, which will be available to the sector. So while there are some complexities, I think the current system will work well and it will provide that 36 percent discount on road-user charge rates to the sector. It wouldn’t necessarily be easier or simpler to do this in a different way like, for example, extending mileage. There would still end up having to be an interaction between those holders of road-user charge licences and the agencies to do that, so I don’t know that there would actually be any efficiency there. I also note that, in fact, most large fleets are generally already on e-RUC, so the administration is automated and carried out by electronic service providers. So it’s often quite a simple and seamless process for them.

Before I take the next call, I just want to remind the committee again that this is the debate on clause 4, which is amendments to the Road User Charges Act 2012, and while I have already indicated to the committee that due to the circumstances we are finding ourselves in this evening of not having had a select committee process, I will allow fulsomeness and some latitude. None the less, we are considering clause 4, and so your comments and questions must relate to amendments to the Road User Charges Act 2012. I’m pretty sure that those members who are experienced can work their magic and stay within the Standing Orders.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So, in relationship to Part 4 and the changes to temporary reduction in rates of road-user charges, I just wanted to understand the precedent setting of these changes, in terms of this not being the first or the last time we’re going to see geopolitical events have an impact in the cost of living or fuel. So does the Minister expect to have this bill, basically, set a precedent where every time a similar geopolitical event happens where there’s an impact on the cost of living, we’re relying on lowering the cost of fuel in order to help families meet the cost of living, or does he expect to explore other options that perhaps are more thoughtfully considered and where there is a better impact?

I move, That the question be now put.

Obviously this amendment bill relates to changes to or reductions of road-user charges, which does have substantial impacts as far as Budget goes. So, as far as Budget goes and as far as the Government coffers go, I do have a number of questions outstanding for the Minister. I’d note that, before, the Minister indicated that he has an expectation with regard to distributional impacts. That expectation, of course, exists in the absence of an impact statement with regard to regulation.

So, as far as that goes and also the absence of a climate impact assessment, and noting that transport emissions are the fastest growing emissions profile in the country, and the upcoming emissions reductions plans, I ask the Minister with regard to whether he has any response to a statement from the Friends of Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reform, of which Aotearoa New Zealand is a member. They say—and I quote—“Fossil-fuel subsidies are a poor social welfare policy and counter-intuitively tend to benefit wealthier consumers.” That is, of course, in quite contradiction to what the Minister has just outlined with regard to his expectations, particularly given that the Government announced these reforms, of which this amendment bill is a part, in relation to increased cost of living pressures.

So too I’d like to ask the Minister, with regard to the cost impacts of this legislation, about the alternative interventions that were considered. He himself just referenced in his contribution in response to other members in this part of the debate the fact that, of course, half-price public transport was part of the bundle of announcements. It is, of course, the case that in just doing a back of the napkin calculation, the fossil fuel subsidies that exist inside of that part of the announcement are more expensive than the cost of extending free public transport across Aotearoa for everybody for a year, and not for three months, as this bill would do—

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: It’s not in the bill.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —for a 25-odd cent reduction to road-user charges—Dr Duncan Webb.

Pertaining to both of those parts around, particularly, the cost of living, which, of course, this bill was introduced in order to progress, and, also, to the impacts on Government Budget, those are the two questions to the Minister around, particularly, does he agree with the Friends of Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reform that fossil fuel subsidies are a poor social welfare policy and counterintuitively tend to benefit wealthier consumers; secondly, did he consider those alternative interventions of similar Budget impact, noting that there was substantially less money set aside for that half-price fee public transport; and, perhaps, thirdly, on that distributional impacts point, as raised by the Minister just before, given that there wasn’t any front-loaded consideration or officials’ consideration of this, but on the expectations as laid out, will there in future be a review as to those distributional impacts in reality?

In answer to the questions from the last couple of members: firstly, to Mr Menéndez March, the Government has responded to the circumstances that are in front of it and is providing relief to New Zealanders through these changes, including this bill. He’s asked whether we would do it again in the event of a future event. The answer is that we would have to consider the particular circumstances at that time and come up with the best response.

In answer to Chlöe Swarbrick’s questions, I’ve been reminded that we did receive formal advice from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade that changes of this nature are not officially considered domestically or internationally to be fossil fuel subsidies. I do stand by my comment earlier on that these changes will be progressive in their distributional impacts. Consider family A on an annual household income of $60,000, who has to spend $100 on their fuel every week, and household B with household income of $200,000 per year, who does the same. The percentage impact on household A’s budget will be more favourable as a result of this policy.

These are the interventions that we’ve considered in the transport space. We have put in place a range of other interventions as part of our 1 April package, but, obviously, they are not a part of this bill or this part.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I just wanted to go back to section 42C in clause 4 of the bill. I appreciate the Minister has commented before around the fact that the three-month duration, of which this clause kicks in, is not up for debate, but I wanted to understand why that’s the case when there is a significant amount of reporting, particularly out of the US, that actually diesel prices are growing and going up considerably more than non-diesel, and also the fact that these supply chain issues of which ships and other factors that are using diesel are not looking to be returning back to normal levels any time soon. So in regards to section 42C in clause 4, I’m wanting to get more context and comfort around how the Minister has come to the position that, actually, three months is all that is required, particularly in regards to diesel, when internationally all the signals are that things aren’t moving back to normal by that point?

I’m happy to answer the member’s question briefly. Three months provides a good impact for household budgets, and we’ve applied that consistently across this bill and the other changes to fuel excise duty and public transport. But, as has been noted in this debate, some flexibility has been provided, potentially, to vary that by Order in Council in the future if we determine that was justified.

I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

The question is that Simeon Brown’s tabled amendment to clause 4 replacing new section 42A(1)(a) to read “beginning on 14 March 2022” be agreed to.

The question is that Simeon Brown’s tabled amendment to clause 4 replacing new section 42A(1)(a) to read “beginning on the day after Royal assent” be agreed to.

The question is that Simeon Brown’s tabled amendment to clause 4 to replace new section 42B(3)(a) be agreed to.

The question is that Simeon Brown’s tabled amendment to clause 4 to insert new section 42CC be agreed to.

The question is that Simeon Brown’s tabled amendment to clause 4 to delete new sections 42D and 42E be agreed to.

Madam Speaker, the committee has considered the Road User Charges (Temporary RUC Reduction Scheme) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move, That the report be adopted.

Motion agreed to.

Report adopted.

Third Reading