Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Amendment Bill

Good morning, members. The committee last night, when we left the Chamber, was discussing the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Amendment Bill, and the debate was on clause 1, which is “Title”. We traversed a reasonable level of discussion around title, and we also got some clarification from the Minister of Transport about some of the Amendment Papers, that he said he would not be changing the title.

Now, I know that Speaker’s ruling 127/1 is relatively broad ranging; however, I think we’ve been broad ranging around the title. So if anyone wants to take a call on title, I’m going to be very strict on title, and then I’ll be listening very carefully to make sure it relates and then we can traverse the other parts.

Kia orana, good morning, Madam Chair. It’s great to see you in the Chair given you were there at midnight, when we left off.

Look, I firstly want to thank the Minister for his response at the late hour last night—going through each of those suggestions—

💬 Hon Simeon Brown: Very happy to.

Very happy to do that—it’s unfortunate he didn’t do it earlier, because then I wouldn’t have had to go through that list but appreciate that got the answer in the end there. Still not quite clear—perhaps with the benefit of some sleep overnight, the Minister may have thought about that Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s response, and we’ll work with that. But I’m satisfied with the responses around my Amendment Papers. This—

💬 Arena Williams: No, no.

Other members may not be, but I take the point around the broad nature but it being specific.

There is one point that I do want to raise because I think this is important. The information that has been made available, and had been tabled, that we’ve been able to access and have a look at—I draw the Minister’s attention to what is the regulatory impact analysis, and if we turn to page 6, there are two points that I want to tease out with the Minister, and I’m doing it at this early stage because it does set the tone for what might follow. One is in relation to the availability of appropriate information before the committee so that we are able to consider things appropriately. Now, when we’re looking at the table that’s referred to as “Table 2”, just above it, there is effectively what says “Error! Reference source not found”.

💬 Hon Dr Megan Woods: I found that; I had that highlighted.

Well, thank you, Dr Woods. I think it’s actually really important. This is a Budget-sensitive document, as is indicated. It has effectively referred to levels of information that relate to the average of 3,000 vehicles that are imported and the potential cost recovery that’s associated with that. Now we’ll come to that later in clause 5, I think it is. But this is a fundamental issue in terms of where this information comes from and the basis on which this document has been provided to the committee.

So my question to the Minister, and he may need to seek advice around this, is what specific reference is being able to be provided there? Because if there wasn’t anything, then OK, fine. But the fact is that there clearly is a reference that basically looks as though it’s just not there or it has been redacted, which would be very unusual—

💬 Hon Dr Megan Woods: Or removed.

Or—yes—or may actually exist somewhere else. So that’s the first one.

The second one is at the top of that page; it talks about the calculation rates. And this is important because my colleague Miss Williams and I both have Amendment Papers that relate to Budget measures. And so this talks about the calculation being in depth via consultation with the sector and with Waka Kotahi. So my two questions are: what is the reference, if he’s able to provide that? And the second one is still around the consultation, which we have yet to hear from the Minister around, so that the title of this bill is adequate based on the very limited consultation that he’s had.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just circling back to where we were last night, the Minister in his really fulsome and helpful answers to my colleague Tangi Utikere indicated his clear direction that this bill is a bill about the targets that relate to cost recovery within the system. So I want to speak to two of my amendments only, in clause 1, because he has given a really—

💬 Hon Dr Megan Woods: Come back to the others later.

Well, the Hon Megan Woods is saying “I’ll come back to the others later.” But I hear your direction, Madam Chair; I’m not going to go through every amendment, but I just want to talk about two.

The first is on that cost recovery point. As I’ve heard various speeches around the Chamber, there is still confusion about whether this measure is a taxation measure: is it a behavioural change measure, or is it a cost recovery measure? We’ve heard from the Minister, though, in his answers to Tangi Utikere, that it is a cost recovery measure. In which case, Minister, I have an amendment for you that will help this committee to be clear on what is being done here by this bill. So my proposal is to delete the words “Clean Vehicle Standard” and replace them with “Regulations Relating to Cost Recovery of the Clean Vehicle Standard”. That will make this much clearer.

The second amendment that I’d like to hear from the Minister on whether he would support, from me—it is different to the one put forward by Tangi Utikere—is whether he will accept a deletion of the words “Clean Vehicle Standard” and replace them with “Targets for Reducing Carbon Dioxide Emissions”. This is a different point, Madam Chair. The reason why this would be different to what the Minister has said is he stood here and he said, in answer to a question from the Hon Megan Woods at about 11.45 last night, that there would still be a clean vehicle standard even if he were to change the standards in such a way in the schedules that they would be less onerous on the industry.

What we’re trying to gather here is: is the Minister committing to a clean vehicle standard which does further reduce the carbon dioxide? In which case, we would love that; we would be really keen on that. So we want the Minister to commit to that change by making a change to the name of the Act, which makes it really clear that he is intent on reaching New Zealand’s carbon goals on an international stage, that he will do his role as the Minister of Transport, and that he will commit to making sure that his portfolio, and the sectors that he is responsible for, is contributing its part to Simon Watts’ responsibility to deliver on New Zealand’s climate goals. So he should rename his Act “Targets for Reducing Carbon Dioxide Emissions”. I look forward to his answer on my two questions.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just noticed that the Minister might be taking a moment to consider the questions that have been asked about consultation, asked both by the Hon Julie Anne Genter last night and then was reminded again this morning by Tangi Utikere, and of course, the letter from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, asked by the Hon Dr Megan Woods last night. Still no answers to those questions.

Then just this last very good point made by my colleague Arena Williams about what the title means, as her first point. I agree with her second point about reducing emissions. Of course that would be a great thing to say, but there’s some irony to be speaking here about an Act that now enables the Minister to make regulations when, of course, we were here in December last year arguing about an Act that already enabled the Minister to change things—the Clean Car Discount that was—by regulations, but for some reason we needed to do that by primary legislation back in December. And here we are, when we do actually need to do something by primary legislation to enable changes to the making of secondary legislation. So I would be keen on the answer to Arena Williams’ amendment about removing “Clean Vehicle Standard” and saying “Changing Regulatory Powers”.

Also, I heard the Minister say in one of his first responses last night that what the bill is about is user-pays not Crown-subsidised—those were his words as I recorded them. So would the Minister also consider that as an amendment, so that it is “This Act is the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standards Enabling User-pays and Not Crown Subsidies) Amendment Bill.”?

I thank the members for their questions. I think we’ve traversed many of these subjects already, including all of the tabled amendments that have been put on the Table. I made it very clear the Government’s view is that the title of this bill is the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Amendment Bill, as it amends the legislation in regard to the clean vehicle standard.

The question is—

💬 Tangi Utikere: Madam Chair. Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I’ve started voting—no, there were no calls, I’d started voting.

The question is that Tangi Utikere’s amendment to clause 1 set out on Amendment Paper 42 be agreed to.

The question is that Tangi Utikere’s amendment to clause 1 set out on Amendment Paper 43 be agreed to.

The question is that Amendment Paper

The question is that Tangi Utikere’s amendment to clause 1 set out on Amendment Paper 45 be agreed to.

The question is that Tangi Utikere’s amendment to clause 1 set out on Amendment Paper 46 be agreed to.

The question is that Tangi Utikere’s amendment to clause 1 set out on Amendment Paper 47 be agreed to.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 1 to change the title to include “: Budget Measures” is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment that has not been agreed, which was Amendment Paper 42.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 1 to change the title to include “: Targets for Reducing Carbon Dioxide Emissions” is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment that has not been agreed, Amendment Paper 43.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 1 to change the title to include “: Regulations Relating to Cost Recovery” is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment that has not been agreed, Amendment Paper 44.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 1 to change the title to replace “Clean Vehicle Standard” with “Budget Measures” is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment that has not been agreed, Amendment Paper 45.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 1 to change the title to replace “Clean Vehicle Standard” with “Targets for Reducing Carbon Dioxide Emissions” is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment that has not been agreed, Amendment Paper 46.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 1 to change the title to replace “Clean Vehicle Standard” with “Regulations Relating to Cost Recovery” is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment that has not been agreed, Amendment Paper 47.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 1 to replace “Clean Vehicle Standard” with “167BB” be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 1 to replace “Clean Vehicle Standard” with “167BB and 167C” be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 1 to replace “(Clean Vehicle Standard)” with “(Clean Vehicle Standard and Levy Charges)” be agreed to.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 1 to replace “2024” with “2025” is out of order as not being in the proper form of legislation.