Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Amendment Bill

Members, we now come to the debate on clause 3, “Principal Act”.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This clause is a very simple clause. It states that this Act amends the Land Transport Act 1998. That is exactly what this bill does—it amends the Land Transport Act 1998. Now, I note there are a couple of tabled amendments which seek to add any Orders in Council made by the Governor-General, which make regulations under the Land Transport Act. Effectively, if this Act does make any other changes, those flow through anyway, so there’s no need to actually have that stated within it. There’s also an amendment to add and regulatory mechanisms secondary legislation made under the Land Transport Act 1998. It seems like a very long principal Act. It’s called “principal Act”, so, by adding other things, it is unnecessary and is not how lawmaking is made, and, so, that is actually complicit within the Land Transport Act, in terms of what that does. So there’s no need for any of those amendments to be approved, and we won’t be supporting them.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The purpose of this part of the Land Transport Act is expressed in section 170 of the Land Transport Act and it says, “The purpose … is to achieve a rapid reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from light vehicles imported into New Zealand”. It’s, effectively, trying to improve the efficiency of the vehicle fleet. The main agency that has been responsible for improving efficiency in things that are energy inefficient for a long, long time in New Zealand has been the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority. So my question to the Minister is, and I want to explain why this is relevant, whether he gave any consideration to actually—rather than doing this as an amendment to the Land Transport Act—putting this within the purview of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority under their legislation.

Now, the reasons for that, which I would be interested to hear whether the Minister considered, include the fact that that authority has been very, very effective at improving the efficiency of appliances that we buy every day. And we’re not aware of the background rules that drive the improved efficiency of those categories of energy-using devices because it happens behind the scenes, and they do an extremely good job of balancing this interest between the drive for efficiency and cost. One of the issues that I know the Government will be concerned about—as was the prior Government—is the trade-off between efficiency and cost.

The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority have managed to carry the improved efficiency of, you know, ranges, dishwashers, air conditioning devices, heat pumps, dryers, fridges—most of the things that are used by people in their normal lives that use energy now have efficiency standards that are regularly updated. We do a lot of it with Australia, and it’s done through the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority, and they have great systems and those systems have got public confidence. They, behind the scenes, will be identifying what technological choices are out there from the providers of these appliances, which are not generally made in New Zealand; they’re made overseas, which is also the case for motor vehicles. Behind the scenes, they are ensuring that they’re not driving the price of these appliances too high, whilst they’re also maximising, within reason, the energy efficiency that can be obtained by driving those standards higher.

In those appliances as well, as there are in cars, there are more efficient options and there are less efficient options. And it’s in New Zealand’s interests that we get the more efficient ones into our country so that we use less electricity, less energy, and have less environmental effect from energy production, because, as we know, any form of energy production has some form of environmental effect. So I would encourage the Minister to give consideration to whether this—which really is the expertise that sits in the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority—is the same skillset that is needed to set these standards properly. I suspect if we did it, there would be less public controversy around the standards that he’s going to have to set under this, because the public have confidence in the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority. So my question is: has he given any consideration to the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority?

My second reason for doing that, and he could address this, is, presumably, given that the regulatory impact statement tabled with this bill shows that there was not much consideration of what the effect of this was on costs. The Hon Dr Megan Woods highlighted that in a second reading speech yesterday. Presumably, he has some idea as to how this trade-off between cost and efficiency is going to be made.

Madam Chair, I appreciate the member’s question, but this clause is very clearly around amending the legislation which the standard already exists within. Those decisions were made by the previous Government when the Act was first passed. We are making two targeted amendments to that legislation, and so the bill therefore has to amend the legislation to enable those changes. That Act is the Land Transport Act 1998 which is being amended, and that’s why this bill mentions that Act in this clause.

The expert in legislative design is here—he’s here! And you can see where I’m taking my lessons from, because my contribution to this debate is similar to the Hon David Parker’s, which pointed out that not only are the amendments that the Minister is proposing inconsistent with the purpose of the Land Transport Act and that it would better sit in the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Act; I would also point to the role of the Commerce Act here being a better place for these amendments to sit. Because the Minister is trying to do something different to what the previous Government was trying to do with the Clean Car Standard, and therefore it would better sit in legislation which actually gives effect to that purpose.

The members opposite are interested in this provision, so I will quote from the Standing Orders here—it’s 310, at page 89, at subsection (1) of that part—where the “committee of the whole House considers a bill to determine whether the bill properly incorporates the principles or objects of the [principal Act]”. That is the debate we’re having in this part. This is the only part in which we can do that. So we’ve heard from David Parker that the section that’s relevant for the purpose considerations is 170 of the Land Transport Act. That is really clear that the purpose of that Act is to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the vehicle fleet. This amendment that the Minister has proposed today is not consistent with that part. So it should not be a part of the Land Transport Act. It should be a part of another Act. So whether it’s the energy Act is one consideration that this House should make, and I hope the Minister will give us a more fulsome answer on the role of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Act in providing us with guidance about the standards for energy efficiency.

But as Labour’s commerce and consumer affairs spokesperson, my interest here is in the kind of legislative framework that we are creating for consumers of clean vehicles. And I would suggest that the Minister is actually regulating a market here in exactly the way that the Commerce Act does. He’s providing consumers with a user-pays model that incentivises industry behaviour in another way. In other words, he is creating a framework that regulates an industry that would not act in this way, but he’s giving them a really clear market signal—and a market mechanism, at that—to deal with consumers in a different way and to provide them with different choices. His own regulatory impact statement points to the fact that consumers are the main beneficiary of the clean vehicle standard. That’s not something I agree with, because I would say that New Zealanders as a whole benefit from the reduction of emissions over time.

But it’s clear that if he doesn’t intend to reduce emissions at the same rate that the previous Government would, then the main benefit is to consumer choice, and is to the kind of vehicles that are being offered to consumers in a larger array of vehicles. That is something which is clearly the domain of the Commerce Commission, and the Commerce Commission should be empowered to also make sure that that regulatory mechanism is working in favour of consumers and is helping them to engage with the industry to have a wider range of choice. The Commerce Commission should also be able to consider whether those industry players, and especially the larger sector players who have a bigger share of the market who will be most impacted by this amendment that the Minister is putting forward, like Toyota, are being regulated in the appropriate way. That is why clause 3 of this amendment bill should actually read—sorry, I’ll just find it—“This Act amends the Commerce Act 1986.” Thank you, Mr Chair.

As I’ve already stated to the committee, this bill is making, effectively, two changes to the clean vehicle standard, and those are in relation to what we’ve already debated in relation to the enablement of regulations rather than prescription of legislation and cost recovery. Those choices in terms of where this policy should sit were made by the previous Government, and they decided to put it within the Land Transport Act. We are now making two targeted amendments, and so therefore the appropriate Act to amend is the Act in which the clean vehicle standard sits. So that is what this bill is doing. It’s a very clear clause, and that is stated in clause 3, and we’re not proposing any changes.

Kia orana, good morning; thank you, Mr Chair. I thank the Minister for eagerly addressing the two amendments that are in my name on Amendment Papers 42 and 43. I thought they were all right amendments actually, but he has said that he’s not intending to support those. I understand that’s his position.

I did have a question, actually that I was thinking through, around the interface that some components of this might have with the Land Transport Management Act of 2003. But actually I do want to just thank the former Attorney-General, the Hon David Parker, because Mr Parker has actually, I think, identified—and it’s not something that I immediately turned my mind to—something that I think actually is entirely appropriate when we’re considering clause 3. I did hear my colleague Miss Williams sort of reference that the Minister’s approach in this is a change from what is the current situation in law, and the policy goal or outcome or objective, therefore, potentially, is different. And so when we’re looking at what the appropriate principal Act is for it to be amended, that naturally needs to come into play.

What Mr Parker has identified is if we consider what some of the potential change might be with many of these aspects, is it actually appropriate that the Land Transport Act is the appropriate principal piece of legislation, or is it something more in the energy realm? And Mr Parker, actually—thank you for drawing a distinction there, because the other examples that have been cited around household items are very similar. You know, we’ve already in this debate, as this bill has progressed, talked about the various nature of cars and household use and all those sorts of things. So my question to the Minister is whether or not the nature of the item—in this case, a vehicle—is to be considered as part of that wider suite, and therefore it is purely more of an energy efficiency consideration, and therefore energy. Whether it’s a consumer-related Act or whether it’s an energy efficiency Act, that is important. The reduction of carbon dioxide levels, which the Minister has cited and Mr Parker has cited as well, we will get to that; that’s more specifically related to clauses 5 and 7, around those measures. But my question to the Minister is: does he not consider that the efficiency aspects—that these regulations, if they do come into force in terms of the timeliness of them, are better placed in the efficiency or consumer space?

That question has already been asked by a prior member and I’ve already answered it. Our bill means the Act that the last Government put in place, which determined that the clean vehicle standard should fit within the Land Transport Act. We are amending that Act.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The Minister still hasn’t addressed the fundamental question, though. The effect of the Government’s policy has been to do away with the Clean Car Discount—the rebate system that was being run—and rely now on an efficiency standard. The expertise in respect of efficiency standards should not be re-created in a different department like the Ministry of Transport when we already have it in the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority.

I’ve already read out what was the relevant purpose clause in the energy conservation authority Act, and we should remember, of course, that this was originally designed by the late Hon Jeanette Fitzsimons, a former member of the Greens, who brought to this House the idea that we needed to focus on efficiency. She promoted the idea that we do this in a way that is cost-effective. She knew that when you drilled into these issues and ran a proper cost-benefit analysis, you can actually drive efficiencies that reduce people’s cost of living, reduce the cost to the country, and reduce environmental adverse effects, and it really is a win in every way in which you look at it. We’ve got deep expertise in respect of those issues in the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority.

💬 Tom Rutherford: Come back to the clause.

I want to point out why the—

💬 Tom Rutherford: Clause 3.

The Minister just gets up and he says, “Well, it says this because it is amending the Land Transport Act.” The point that we’re making is that it shouldn’t be. It should be amending the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Act to make that the principal Act that these sections sit within. In support of that argument, I asked the Minister whether he’s considered section 21 of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Act, which shows what the functions of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority are, and they include duties to assist the Minister to prepare and administer a strategy, such as this—

💬 Tom Rutherford: Clause 3.

Well, this is actually about clause 3.

💬 Tom Rutherford: No it’s not.

It’s a bit sad that the members—

💬 James Meager: Cheer up.

Fair enough. I am a happy fellow. I’ll cheer up. Matariki tomorrow—good time to be celebrating things.

Section 21(1)(d) of the Act says that the functions of the authority include promoting practices and technologies to further energy efficiency, energy conservation, and the use of renewable energy. That’s exactly what we’re trying to do with the vehicle fleet, and I’m a bit surprised that having dumped the Clean Car Discount—which wouldn’t have been something that the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority had within their existing ambit—why you can’t just flick this across to the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority and get them to do this work, relying on their deep expertise and experience that they’ve shown over the years. Other functions listed in the Act include arranging for the conduct of research, assessments, demonstrations, reviewing the state of efficiency, publishing relevant information, promoting practices and technologies to further energy efficiency. This is exactly what we want to do.

Now, there’s a bit of a culture war going on in New Zealand at the moment in respect of utes in the farming sector. It’s an issue we do actually need to overcome. I trust the energy efficiency authority—I think most people in New Zealand do—and it would be good if we could come together on these issues rather than find these issues divisive within society, because it doesn’t need to be divisive. So, again, I would ask the Minister to stand and justify why this shouldn’t sit within the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority rather than sit as a very similar service delivery employing more people.

I’m also interested as to whether any cost analysis was done as to whether that would save money. I suspect that would save money, so if the Minister could rise to his feet and tell us how much money is being spent on these initiatives within the transport department—because that’s relevant I would have thought as to whether you could see whether that was likely to be more cost-effectively done within the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority. Because I would hope that the Minister, as he tries to minimise the cost of—I know that these costs now, if they’re pushed up, the Minister’s got the ability to cost-recover them under this legislation, but I would have hoped that he wants to minimise those costs that are recovered even if he believes in their recovery. So I’d be interested as to what the costs are within that ministry and whether any comparison was made as to how that could be more cost-effectively done by adding this function to the very similar functions that the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority already has.

Thank you, Mr Chair. To put the counterfactual to the Hon David Parker’s arguments, and this could have been teased out at a select committee process—we could have heard from the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA) about how they play their role within industries; who they take a regulatory role with. If it’s not the role of EECA to consider the role of industry players in the car sector in the way that they self-regulate currently their standards for cars that they bring in, then isn’t it not useful to have protections for consumers of those cars? So if the Minister is trying to change the way that the clean vehicle standards works, not for a policy goal of reducing emissions and of improving energy efficiency across New Zealand’s various sectors, but if he does have a different policy goal and that is to empower consumers to have more choice in the vehicle market, then isn’t that the role of the Commerce Commission?

Neither of those policy goals, which the Minister may have here—I think he’s being a bit clearer that he has the first one, which is about an energy efficiency clean vehicle standard. But neither of those policy goals are met by the purpose of section 170 of the Land Transport Act being amended with this clean vehicle standard that he is proposing. Because it’s relevant for us in committee stage, when we haven’t had a select committee to consider, particularly under Standing Order 310, which I alluded to earlier, the purpose of the principal Act. The principal Act doesn’t have a purpose of protecting consumers and it doesn’t have a purpose of setting an efficiency standard across all sectors. Its purpose is really clear; it’s to reduce carbon dioxide emissions across the vehicle fleet.

This amendment could do entirely the opposite of that. It’s possible that this amendment—and my colleague Camilla Belich has more to say about this. But it’s quite possible that the Minister’s amendment would introduce a dirty vehicle standard, because this House will have no oversight over that. It’s not being done in primary legislation; it’s being done via Orders in Council. So if it’s the policy position of the Minister to in fact create a dirty vehicle standard, then that would completely fly in the face of the purpose of the Land Transport Act, which he is seeking to amend.

That’s fine. That’s a choice that’s available to this Minister. It’s a choice that he will be answerable to voters for. We will not be able to scrutinise that on this side of the House. But it’s not fine to put that in an Act which has an explicit purpose of reducing the carbon dioxide emissions. That would fly in the face of our legislative design principles. It would fly in the face of proper lawmaking. It’s not OK for the Minister to just say that because there was a clean vehicle standard in the Land Transport Act before, he’s sort of powerless to change that. There was a clean vehicle standard which reduced carbon dioxide emissions—that’s the point. So I want the Minister to stand and tell us, well, should he be deleting the clean vehicle standard entirely and creating some kind of other energy measure or some kind of other consumer protection? Why are we in the Land Transport Act at all if his policy goal is not to reduce carbon dioxide emissions?

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to take a call on this, because I don’t believe we have heard answers from the Minister of Transport. The purpose of the committee stage is for us to be able to, as Opposition members, or members from around the House, actually get answers from the Minister, and this question has been put to him: how is the principle of the legislation—and you have to go to the Land Transport Act to find the principle—consistent with the bill that he has put in front of the House? One of the key purposes of a committee stage is to look at the bill in front of us—

💬 James Meager: Clause.

—and to see how well the particular—this is actually a really good point, thank you, Mr Meager. The point that Mr Meager was making is that we’re actually looking at clause 3, the “Principal Act”, and that clause 3 says that it amends the Land Transport Act. When we look to Standing Orders and we wonder, you know, what is the purpose of the committee stage, we look to the Standing Orders and we see Standing Order 310 and we see that, in 310(1), the purpose of the committee of the whole House stage is “to determine [if] the bill properly incorporates the principles or objects of the bill as read a second time by the House.” Now, the question before the committee is: does this bill properly incorporate the principles and objects of the Act? This is the only time we can talk about this, because this is where the principles of the Act are outlined.

Now, the Minister could have put a different purpose in this bill. He could’ve put a more substantive purpose in this amendment bill; that would be totally within his ambit. He’s chosen not to do that—he’s chosen not to do that—and the reason we know that is because it’s not in front of us. So the only thing we have to do is to go back to the original principal Act, which is the only time we can talk about this, in clause 3; look at the Land Transport Act; look at the relevant part—we know that we’re amending Part 13. When we look at Part 13, we see that the object is “to achieve a rapid reduction in carbon dioxide”—not just a reduction; a rapid reduction, and when we look at this piece of legislation, do we see a rapid reduction? No; we see possible increases in carbon emissions. That is inconsistent with the object of the principle of this Act. It is a question before the committee that the Minister has not answered. I saw him looking at his phone—I hope he was looking at this section. I hope he was researching how he can answer, as the Minister responsible for this bill, how there is consistency with the principle of the primary principal Act that we’re discussing in the amendment bill that he is putting through.

The response that we have heard to date is that the last Government amended the Land Transport Act 1998, so he too, while amending the Land Transport Act, has also chosen that particular piece of legislation. Now, that logic doesn’t follow. It doesn’t follow, because there is a duty under the Standing Orders to make sure that the amendments are consistent. The question put by members of the Opposition is: how is it consistent? We haven’t heard an answer to that yet. I know that there is a desire to have a back and forth and to have engagement, and I think it would actually be a disservice to this committee to take a closure motion and move on to another part where we cannot discuss the principal purposes of this Act without having a response from the Minister.

So I ask again, Minister: how is the bill that you have put in front of the House consistent with the aims and objectives as in the principal Act, the Land Transport Act 1998, as outlined in section 170 of the principal Act? How is that consistent? Please don’t say it’s because the last Government did it, because we already know that that logic doesn’t stack up.

I have already answered the question in relation to the reason we’re amending the Land Transport Act 1998. It is because the last Government chose to put the clean vehicle standard into the Land Transport Act. This Government is committed to a clean vehicle standard. We’ve already debated that as part of clause 1, which had a wider debate on the bill. This particular clause is incredibly narrow and this simply enables the amendment to this Act.

Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank the Minister of Transport for that answer but he still hasn’t addressed this fundamental issue that I had asked, which is whether consideration was given to whether this could be done more cost effectively through the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA) and whether—given that the Ministry of Transport now has no Clean Car Discount to administer, the ministry’s just left with the efficiency standard—that could be more cost effectively done through EECA.

Now, I’ve heard the Minister in the chair say on a number of occasions that there are two purposes of this amendment Act, one is to impose a cost recovery mechanism and the other is unrelated to this point. But in respect of the cost recovery issue, if those costs are now to be recovered, surely, and there is no—

💬 James Meager: Clause 5!

No. Well, the operative clause as to where that cost recovery comes in is there, but the question as to whether that is best done through the Land Transport Act or putting these functions across to the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority actually rises in this clause 3. We know from the cost recovery impact statement that this issue is not addressed here. So I’m interested to know whether any consideration was given by the Minister or his ministry, and indeed whether he had any advice from the Ministry of Transport, as to whether this could be cost effectively done through EECA.

I’ve gone through previously why that so logically sits within their purview, and I just need an answer from the Minister as to whether he did receive any advice on this point from the ministry, because if he didn’t, I think he needs to admit that to the committee. He can admit that to the committee and then I can’t rattle on about this any longer because the Minister will then have addressed the question. But the Minister at the moment has not informed the committee as to whether any consideration has been given as to whether this could be done more cost effectively through EECA, given they are the agency charged with energy efficiency more broadly across the economy.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

We have now covered quite a bit of material. I’ll take a call from Mr Utikere, but we’ll be looking for some pretty new material.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Kia orana, good morning to you. Look, I am surprised on two fronts. One is that members opposite are seeking closure motions when many of these issues—well, there are at least two issues that have not been addressed or answered and I’ll touch on both of them. But the second is the Minister of Transport has said that this is a very narrow clause, and he is probably quite right around that, but even though it is narrow, there is still an expectation that Ministers in the chair will address the issues that have been raised.

My colleague Mr Parker has raised some around any advice that has been sought, the basis on which I think would actually be very important for the Minister to provide a response to the committee around that, because on this side we are still trying to understand why it is that it’s the Land Transport Act that is sought to be amended without any consideration for any of the other ones. Now, if we were in a process where we had a select committee process, we would have actually had an opportunity as a select committee to perhaps seek that advice ourselves directly from the Ministry of Transport, perhaps invite the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority to provide some response around that. What the Minister is saying is that we don’t have that opportunity and therefore the House is none the wiser. This is an opportunity for the Minister to say, “Well, no. Actually, there was no advice sought.”, or “I didn’t ask for any.”, or “It did come back and it was suggested that this was the appropriate measure or way to proceed.”

What the Minister is instead saying is, “Well, we’re going to amend the principal Act as the Land Transport Act because the former Government had it this way.” What is different with this is that the whole policy proposal and the potential objectives are very different from what the former Government had and what is currently in legislation. What I say to the Minister is: since when did former Governments seem to bind future or current Governments around actions that they could take? That’s something that he has not considered or addressed.

When we’re looking at what the purpose of this particular bill is, it is around—well, actually when we look at section 170 of the principal Act, as my colleague Miss Belich has said, it is around, effectively, the rapid reduction of emissions. Now, there is no certainty in this bill that there will actually be a rapid reduction of emissions, because the proposal is that this would be given over by way of regulation. So the Minister still has not provided to the committee a response, particularly around—not just the advice, whether it was received or not—whether or not there is actually any other avenue to address some of the other issues that have been concerned, and I invite the Minister to provide an answer around that.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I really appreciate the opportunity to raise with the Minister, now, some new points around my amendments. He has told the committee that he is not willing to accept my amendments. These are amendments that, despite the heckling from the other side of the Chamber, we have not had an opportunity to consider in this part.

My amendments—the Minister has said they are not necessary, but I need some explanation about why that is, because I want to understand whether the impact of his decisions put forward in the proposed amendments from him would in fact change regulatory decisions or decisions made under secondary legislation empowered by the primary legislation that are already in place. I want to know the impact of his future decisions under the regulatory-making powers in his amendments on previous regulation, because what we’ve got here is potentially a situation where regulations which were made under a previous Government’s regulation-making powers, which were different in the primary Act, will now be amended by his regulatory-making powers, which he proposes to give himself in this primary Act.

So it’s a difficult situation. It’s not open to scrutiny in any other way, because that’s not something that the Regulations Review Committee would be able to consider, because that’s the interaction of two pieces of secondary legislation which were made under a different primary Act. I think that the amendments, here, that I have proposed limit the Government’s risk and limit the ability of people who are affected by those regulation-making powers to bring a challenge against the Minister. So I want to know whether the Minister has had advice on his risk, if he doesn’t give us somewhere—and I grant that perhaps clause 3 is not the place that he wants to do it, but that is where I would do it. So if he is not giving himself cover, if he is not giving himself in primary legislation the ability to reject claims made against him, because of this regulation-making power that will conflict with previous regulation-making power, then what is he relying on to give himself the assurance that he’s not opening up the Government to further risk?

I believe I’ve addressed the questions which are in relation to the Act and where this is amending the Land Transport Act. There’s been a range of other questions. I think some of them are best placed for—like that last one—clause 7. But the answer to all of the questions is very clearly the Land Transport Act enables the Clean Vehicle Standard and its regulation-making powers. We are amending, through this bill, those Acts, and that is exactly what we are doing, and there’s no further comment to make on that.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Tangi Utikere’s amendments to clause 3 set out on Amendment Papers 42 and 43 are out of order as not being in the proper form of legislation.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendments to clause 3 are out of order as not being in the proper form of legislation.

Members, we come now to the debate on clause 4. Clause 4 is “Act binds the Crown”. The question is that clause 4 stand part.

Thank you, Mr Chair. This is, again, another very simple clause within the bill. The Act binds the Crown because this Act binds the Crown, and it’s a standard clause. I would note there’s an amendment proposed which inserts—and I quote—“including those Crown entities defined in section 7 of the Crown Entities Act 2004”. That is not necessary because Crown entities are an extension of the Crown; therefore, it is an unnecessary change.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I think Mr Rutherford was so quick to his feet that he was obviously wanting to make a contribution—

💬 James Meager: Yield!

So—you’d like me to yield? I’m very happy to yield my time to the member for him to make a contribution.

💬 Tom Rutherford: I move that debate on this question now close.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): No, now, that’s out of order. Now, I think the member has been here long enough to know that that is not—when the member yields, there is expectation that there’ll be some contribution to the debate. The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 Tom Rutherford: I withdraw and apologise.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I will resume my time after yielding it to the member. You know, isn’t that fascinating? There was a real opportunity there to have a contribution from the Government. I don’t think we actually have had any opportunity—well, no, I’ll withdraw that; we have had plenty of opportunity for members opposite to make contributions on this. It’s very, very unfortunate that, you know, the invitation to yield my time, which I was happy to do—and Mr Rutherford decided to head down a different path, which is rather unfortunate. But it is becoming symptomatic of how this Government is treating the process of urgency, this process where we haven’t had an opportunity for members of the public to—

💬 Joseph Mooney: Relevance.

Relevance—well, the relevance is that this is a Government that wants to seek to use parliamentary procedure to shut down debate after having a single call. I think that is actually unprecedented. I don’t think I’ve ever experienced—certainly in my time here, albeit short—a Minister speak, take the very first call on a contribution in committee stage, and then the very first call that’s allocated is to myself; I barely got under way and then members opposite suggest that they’d like me to yield, and then the only thing that they want to say is they want to shut down the debate. I think that is absolutely outrageous.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): And the Chair has dealt with that, Mr Utikere.

Yes, thank you—thank you, Mr Chair. Now, the amendment that I have—we’re turning now to clause 4, and I guess this is a clause that does bind the Crown. I infer from the Minister of Transport’s response to my suggested amendment that’s on Amendment Paper 43—seeks to amend clause 4—that he says that it’s not necessary because they are already part of the Crown. I think that is what he was referring to—getting a nod of the head there, so that’s what it is. So I wonder whether that is the case, because the Crown entities themselves are identified in the Crown Entities Act, and specifically as listed within section 7, and there is a bit of a list there that provides some riders that relate to the meanings of Crown entity and the categories that exist thereof.

So my question to the Minister is: has he reached that particular view as to whether they are Crown entities, whether they are autonomous Crown entities, whether they be independent Crown entities—and there is a distinction and difference between those—based on specific advice? If so, where did that advice come from—so that we can effectively understand the position that he’s in.

Thank you for the opportunity, Mr Chair. I wish to take a brief call on the point here about my amendments—there are three—that seek to clarify, particularly, the point about who the regulations that the Minister of Transport is proposing to give himself the power to make will apply to and how they will open up the Crown for further risk, because in my previous contribution, which wasn’t answered by the Minister, I proffered a question to him about how his regulation-making power under this new principle legislation would amend regulations that have been set out under a different piece of primary legislation, which would now be extinguished by his amendments. So there is an interaction there between industry participants who have, say, ordered cars in June last year that are due to be delivered in June this year, because it’s quite common for the industry to place orders in New Zealand a year out. And so how the regulation-making powers of the Minister that he is providing to give himself interact with the regulations as they existed at that time is absolutely of interest to this House. Given that it hasn’t been through a select committee process, we’re unable to determine the impact of the differences in the regulations on industry participants.

What I’m proposing there is a clarification about how this Act binds the Crown and who it binds, because for Crown entities, the transport legislation picture is complex. Often the Office of the Auditor-General, when they come in to explain it to select committee, laugh at my silly questions about it, but I have learnt that there are a number of Crown entities and other entities in that picture who will be subject to those regulation-making powers too, and they will be open to challenge by industry participants and consumers. And it’s actually not crystal clear in any Act whether that’s set out in section 7, as Tangi Utikere has provided for, or whether that’s in the Standing Orders of this Parliament and subsequent advice. It’s not clear which entities we are referring to when we say the Crown.

So it would be useful for some primary legislation to set out—when the Minister is using his regulatory powers in this Act to amend regulations that were made under an old Act, which is no longer in force—who is open to challenge, who is open to legal risk, what kind of legal risk was created for those entities, particularly about Crown entities? It’s the Second Amendment that I’ve put forward, and I’d like the Minister to address that.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Given that the Minister of Transport hasn’t been able to answer my question about Crown entities, I want him to focus then on the role of the New Zealand Transport Agency—of Waka Kotahi—in this regulatory system. I want him to tell the committee how his regulation-making powers will be applied to those two entities. I also want him to consider how regulatory bodies like the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA) and like the Commerce Commission—which, as we’ve already discussed, have a role in enforcing these standards on behalf of the industry and on behalf of consumers—might have a role in this, and how his regulation-making powers might impact on the regulations that apply to them.

I would like the Minister to consider whether giving some fuller explanation in his proposed clause 4—which is short, but could be longer—would be helpful to those other regulation-oversight bodies in clarifying their role when it comes to his regulation-making powers, because what he’s proposing in his primary amendment is to give himself regulation-making powers under the Land Transport Act which could impact on a number of different regulation-making bodies. He says, “the Crown as a whole”, but does he intend to create regulations which create new requirements of EECA? Does he intend to create regulations that create new requirements for the Commerce Commission? He’s told us that his policy intent does touch on the ambit of both EECA and the Commerce Commission in terms of his role in impacting not only the market via a market mechanism for cars but for consumers in providing them with more choice. Those are the policy goals which his own regulatory impact statement articulates very clearly, and not the goal to reduce carbon dioxide in the vehicles fleet.

Those two policy goals are what he’s told us are his goals. His regulations are likely to create regulations which impact on those two regulation-making bodies, and I would like to know whether he would clarify who it binds and whether he intends to create new binding recommendations for those regulation-making bodies.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Thank you, Mr Chair. We haven’t had a response from the Minister of Transport, so there really is no other option for members on this side of the Chamber except to continue to put the—

💬 James Meager: Oh, not another letter!

Well, here we go. I mean, members, they love to pose the questions and, really, it’s an opportunity to respond to them, but the reality is this: we have posed questions to the Minister; he has yet to take a call. What members are seeking on this side of the Chamber is for him to simply address the issues that have been raised. My colleague Miss Williams has touched on some of the specifics around Crown entities. I’ve referred to what is cited in section 7 of the Crown Entities Act. All that’s required is the Minister to simply get up and provide a response. It’s the information that we’re wanting over here.

I want to just double back to something that was raised earlier, and it is of relevance, Mr Chair, because it relates to the information that is currently before the committee in urgency to make decisions on whether we will support particular parts of this bill. I have yet to receive a response from the Minister in relation to the regulatory impact statement which has informed the decision-making capability, capacity, and ability of members of this House. It’s important because it relates to page 6. Again, we’re waiting for a response from the Minister around referencing within that document. For your benefit, Mr Chair, it’s page 6 and it says “Error! Reference source not found.”, and then it goes on to provide some information.

This is Budget-sensitive information that is available to members of the House. We do expect on this side of the Chamber that where there is information where it simply says there’s an error, it needs to be rectified. So we’ve asked the Minister what is the issue with that, what is the nature of that, and we’re yet to receive a response. So I think it would be helpful even if he takes a call and says “Look, we don’t know.”. Or maybe it’s a formatting error—I don’t know. But when it appears in a document that’s tabled, what’s really important is that we need to understand that—the way in which this Act would seek to bind the Crown—and I don’t think that there is any dispute around that. Where there is perhaps some unease and a little bit of a lack of information is to ensure that the other components, where decisions may be taken or made, that that still exists.

So, for example, if we get through this process and actually the Minister suddenly sees the light and thinks, “You know what? The policy objectives and outcomes of this particular piece of legislation are such that actually it shouldn’t be fully within the Land Transport Act; it might be somewhere else.”—if there is another entity that is formed at some point in the future that might be responsible for delivering on some of the policy outcomes and objectives of the Minister, I guess it could be argued that that could be amended at that point in time. But is the fact that this Act binds the Crown—does it fully cover the independent Crown entities, the autonomous nature of other Crown entities and others? Those are questions that have been put to the Minister and we are yet to receive a response.

The whole way that this works is that members should feel free to put questions to the Minister, and the Standing Orders were changed to allow the Minister to respond to those questions and to those issues. So if the Minister continues to sit there and not actually address the questions that have been asked, that is a very poor strategy, I would suggest, because it means that—and I’ve said this before—we’re none the wiser and we have to keep asking the question.

All the Minister needs to say is, “Well, actually, no. I’ve addressed that question because of XYZ.” or “I’m not sure of why there’s an error.” I mean, he is free at any time to take some advice around this. But the responsibility is on all members of this committee to be asking questions in this space and the prime responsibility—

💬 Arena Williams: Yep, 85.

What is the reference there, Miss Williams?

💬 Arena Williams: Speaker’s ruling 80/5.

Right. So that should help—is that we need to be engaging. But it’s also actually a sole responsibility of the Minister in the chair to assist the committee through this process and to address the questions that have been put. And until that happens with this specific clause, we’ll continue to seek calls until the Minister provides a response.

Well, Mr Chair, I’ve been listening to the debate, and the answers to all of those questions are that this is a clause that is inserted into legislation everywhere. It is an Act which binds the Crown; the Crown includes Crown entities. This is the exact same clause which is in the primary legislation that’s been amended. And so whilst it’s a very curious debate that the Opposition members are seeking to engage in, the answer is incredibly clear. This is how parliamentary practice undertakes the amendment of legislation, by putting a simple clause in which says: “This Act binds the Crown.” That is exactly what it does.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that Tangi Utikere’s amendment to clause 4 set out on Amendment Paper 43 be agreed to.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4 to include a reference authorising regulations to allow applications to be declined until specific fees or charges have been paid is out of order as not being in the proper form of legislation.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4 to include a reference to Crown entities is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment that has not been agreed.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4 to include an explanation of the meaning of “the Crown” be agreed to.

Members, Arena Williams’ tabled amendments to insert new clauses 5B, 5C, and 5D should properly be inserted before clause 5, so we will address them now.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to insert new clause 5B is out of order as being outside the scope of the bill.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to insert new clause 5C is out of order as being outside the scope of the bill.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to insert new clause 5D is out of order as being outside the scope of the bill.

Clause 5 New sections 167BA and 167BB inserted