Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Amendment Bill

Members, we come now to clause 5, “New sections 167BA and 167BB inserted”. Members, please note Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to insert new clause 5H inserting new section 167BAB should properly be an amendment to clause 5, so it will be considered as part of this debate.

Thank you, Mr Chair. This is new sections 167BA and 167BB, inserted by clause 5. This is, effectively, a clause which inserts the ability for regulations to be made “for the purpose of prescribing, or providing for the fixing of, fees and charges payable by a person”, effectively, to cover the cost incurred by the agency and exercising the functions or powers, performing duties, or providing services under Part 13 or regulations relating to Part 13.

So, effectively, what this is doing is it’s saying, well, the clean vehicle standard, which up until this point has been funded via general taxation—there has been appropriation of, I think, around $11.8 million to fund the operation of the clean vehicle standard. Instead of it being paid for via general taxation, it will be paid for via fees or charges, and those will be determined under these sections, and this provides the powers for these regulations to be able to be set.

Now, the reason for having a cost recovery model in place rather than the previous taxpayer-funded model is, effectively, for two reasons: firstly, we on this side of the House believe that, where possible, where particular parts of society or industries are being provided by the Crown, and there’s a benefit to that industry, they should be paying for that. Of course, the argument from the other side is, “Well, the benefit is wider, and, therefore, it should just be covered by everybody.” There’s an argument that can be had around that point, but we’ve decided as a Government that it is our intention that those who import motor vehicles should be paying for the clean vehicle standard and the scheme. That is a fiscal saving for the Crown, but we’ve also made sure that we go through a process to ensure that it is going to be a much more efficient system.

When I became the Minister, I was advised that $11.8 million was allocated to the system. Actually, the real cost of operating it is much closer to $6.4 million. And so what we had was a Government which was overpaying, using taxpayers’ money for a system which actually costs a lot less than is actually required. So we’ve cut cost out; we’ve made sure that it is going to be focused on what the actual cost is and expenses to do the job, rather than simply just allocating a certain amount of money and then spreading that cost across all taxpayers. So that’s what this clause does. There’s obviously a number of elements within it in relation to the people who will be paying. There’s the empowering provisions around different rates or charges or both—may be prescribed or fixed. It’s, effectively, an empowering provision to achieve that purpose.

Then, after this is passed, there will be ability, before it comes into law on 1 July 2025, for a consultation and a process to be under way to determine what the appropriate mechanism is for this to be undertaken in consultation with the industry who will be paying this fee.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Can I thank the Minister of Transport for the fulsome contribution. I still would like—and I’ll continue to remind the Minister—it would be very helpful if we go back to the regulatory impact analysis; a response around that reference. That would just close that one off, I think, and provide some certainty. It could just be an error, but—well, it is an error; we just need to understand what it is.

We’re now moving into the meaty part of this bill. Clauses 5, 6, and 7 are where all the action takes place. So I’ve got a lot of questions that I would like to put to the Minister. Firstly, in the proposed new section 167BA subsection (1), inserted by clause 5, there obviously is the discretion there around “regulations may” do a certain thing, but it talks about “the purpose of prescribing … for the fixing of, fees … to meet, or assist in meeting, the costs”. Now, the Minister has talked about a user-pays approach and a user-pays system. My question is then: shouldn’t it simply be that they either meet the costs or they don’t, and if not, how will that be managed?

As I said, this is an empowering provision. There are a number of elements to it and the Government’s intention is for this provision to enable a process to be under way which will ensure that the costs of operating the system are covered by those, who, in new section 167BA (2), inserted by clause 5, import vehicles, are paying for the cost of running it.

I’ll just indicate in the Chair that this is obviously quite a substantive section, so if members have a series of questions and the Minister—bearing in mind it takes two to tango. If there’s going to be an across-the-board question and answer, I’ll indulge that. Otherwise, we’ll keep moving around generally, depending on how long the questioner takes.

Thank you, sir. Can I move now to subclause (3) in that section, section 167BA, which talks about the different rates of fees or charges that have been prescribed—OK—in respect of different classes of vehicles or on any other differential basis? Could he provide some assurance or understanding for the committee on what that differential basis may look like?

Well, as I said, this is an empowering provision which enables for regulations to be set, effectively, to determine the cost recovery model. So, of course, there are different classes of vehicles; there are different types of vehicles. If you read the remainder of this part of the Land Transport Act, there are similar types of references to this, and, effectively, that allows for an enabling piece of legislation, an enabling type of regulation to be put in place.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you, Minister. The other one of interest to me is subsection (5) of section 167BA—this is inserted by clause 5. This is about the role of the director in terms of either reducing or waiving the penalty for a late payment, and it really is around the process that would guide the director to do so, because what I see at the end of that subsection are the words “if the Director considers it is just to do so.” Now, “just” would mean different things to different people.

So my question is: will there be some guidance provided around how the director—who would have that power to effectively waive or dispose of the penalty, or reduce it—would go about that? Does he see that there needs to be some specific guidance by which they should go about that? Does the Minister of Transport see that he would consider that there is a need for there to be some guidance in the regulations, or would that be something that he would expect the director to in-house, basically, determine?

Well, again, this is an empowering provision. The director is independent and this is enabling the director to be able to make those decisions where it’s just to do so. Ultimately, that provides the director some discretion. There are a number of times and cases where, as the member will be well aware, as an electorate MP, people come and see you in your office and raise issues that may well fit within certain policies but it may not be just. It’s a discretionary provision and it empowers the director to have that discretion, which I think is about fairness.

Thank you, Minister. Can I just refer to the penalty component. Where is the penalty that’s outlined in clause 5 actually identified? Subsection (1) of section 167BA, in clause 5, doesn’t mention, define, or identify the penalty. It talks about only fees and charges. So it’s not appropriate as a penalty to fall perhaps under costs and expenses, as that falls under the agency’s actions or within the sort of realm of the director. In terms of identifying the penalty component, where would that lie?

In section 167BA, my understanding is that section 167BA(4) provides for regulations for the purpose specified in subsection (1). The director may “do any of the things specified … (b) specify the persons to whom any fees or charges, or both, are payable: (c) provide for unpaid fees or charges to be recoverable as a debt due to the Crown.” So there’s a subsection there that provides for that. That’s my understanding.

Thank you, Minister. Can I just refer to the penalty component. Where is the penalty that’s outlined in clause 5 actually identified? New section 167BA(1) doesn’t mention, define, or identify penalty—it talks about only fees and charges. So it’s not appropriate as a penalty to fall, perhaps, under costs and expenses, as that falls under the agency’s actions or within the sort of realm of the director. So in terms of identifying the penalty component, where would that lie?

It’s my understanding that new section 167BA(4) provides for regulations “for the purpose specified in subsection (1) may—(a) do any of the things specified … (b) specify the persons to whom any fees [are charged] … (c) provide for unpaid fees or charges to be recoverable as a debt due”. So there’s a clause there that provides for that—that’s my understanding.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I wanted to ask the Minister of Transport if he has received any advice or if there’s been any analysis done on the cost and administrative burden created by having a cost recovery scheme. I understand that the goal of having the cost recovery scheme is to put the cost on vehicle importers rather than more general taxation but, as the Minister himself has said, it’s a relatively low cost of administering the Clean Car Standard—$6 million a year. It’s a very small percentage of the overall transport budget. It’s very small compared to, just for example, I think the Government spent already $1 million investigating the long tunnel in Wellington. So $6 million a year is pretty small in the context of things. Has there been any analysis or work done to consider whether it’s worthwhile having a cost recovery scheme or whether that, in and of itself, is going to create some additional administration?

Well, the New Zealand Transport Agency, as the member will know, has a range of different cost recovery systems in place for a range of different services, whether it’s small things or large things. They do this in their business across—whether it’s driver licensing, warrants of fitness, fines, tolls; they have these systems in place already. As I’ve already made clear, the advice we’ve received is that it will be around $6.5 million per year to operate this system. That is far less than the $11.8 million that the last Government was allocating towards operating it. We want to make sure we’re operating it as efficiently as possible whilst enabling the cost to be recovered from those who are importing vehicles.

Thank you. Thanks very much for that, Minister. I don’t believe you’ve addressed the question about whether the Minister of Transport has received any advice about the cost of the cost recovery scheme—what that will be. The Minister mentioned tolls. Obviously, the revenue from tolls, at least 30 percent of that just goes to the cost of administering the tolls or collecting the tolls. So there’s a pretty large component of cost recovery schemes that is used just to run the cost recovery scheme itself. So has the Minister received any information about that?

I’ll reiterate a question I asked earlier in the debate—I think it was at clause 2—about why the Minister hasn’t referred this part of the legislation to a select committee, given that there’s still no indication of what the design of the scheme will be, and it would make sense for that to go through a select committee process, even if it is a shortened one, and we have a whole year before it’s going to be brought into operation.

So the questions are: has he received any advice, and, if so, what is it on the additional cost and administrative burden of creating a cost recovery scheme for something that isn’t very expensive? Secondly, as a very small percentage of the New Zealand Transport Agency’s overall budget—and why hasn’t the Government considered doing a proper select committee process around the establishment of this cost recovery scheme?

Well, the advice I’ve received is in relation to the costs of operating the system, which is around $6.5 million. It says the importation process is largely self-service. The team receives a high volume of requests to support, from industry at various stages of the vehicle life cycle. So there’s a range of people who operate the system. There’s an automatic system which already does the work, and this simply puts a cost recovery mechanism on top. And the advice is that it would cost around $6.5 million to operate that. That is a lot less than the $11.8 million that was being allocated by the last Government. So we’ve found efficiencies and we are putting in place a cost recovery model.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. The Minister of Transport mentions that, previously, more money was allocated than it was actually costing to administer the scheme. Wouldn’t it be normal practice in Government for the New Zealand Transport Agency to then return any excess funding? Or, presumably, it would be putting it towards other parts of its business.

I’m just trying to understand what the outcome of the Minister saying it’s going to cost less than what was originally appropriated is, because, under normal practice, if a Government agency isn’t using the full allocation, then it just goes back to the Crown. But, again, presumably the process of figuring out how the cost recovery scheme is going to work is going to require some work from public officials. Then there’s going to be the work done by the car importers themselves to determine how much each of them owed, to pay for the operation of the service. So there is some additional administrative cost from running a cost recovery scheme. Has the Minister had any advice whatsoever on what that cost might be?

As I said, the advice I have received is that the cost of the scheme is around $6.5 million per year, and we’re putting in place a cost recovery model so that people who use it pay for it. I know that can be a foreign concept to some parties, but, ultimately, we want to ensure this is a user-pays, cost recovery model. This is an empowering provision which allows that to happen. Over the next 12 months, that work will be under way so that it comes into force on 1 July 2025.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I think it’s really ironic in a way that the Government is focusing on establishing a cost recovery scheme to recover $6 million, which is a tiny percentage of the overall transport budget, for administering a fuel economy standards programme that has wide benefits across New Zealand. It is true that the people who benefit the most when it is quantified as cost-benefit analysis are the people who will be spending less money on fuel as a result of having more efficient vehicles available to purchase.

However, the idea of user-pays—or, you know, individual responsibility; people making a contribution—was exactly the whole point of the Clean Car Discount, which was that people buying high-emissions vehicles were making some contribution to lowering emissions elsewhere in the fleet. The idea that everybody would pull their weight, that those who needed a high-emissions vehicle could still get that vehicle and drive it, but all together we had to make some sort of contribution towards reducing emissions from the fleet—and it makes sense that those purchasing the higher-emissions vehicles would make a contribution.

So, on the one hand, the Government has rhetoric around user-pays and everyone making their own contribution, but in reality it’s the exact opposite. They want polluters to be subsidised by New Zealand; for New Zealand to have a bigger burden of cost in terms of offsetting emissions because we’re not going to make those reductions. It’s very, very clear from the modelling that’s been done that removing a clean car discount means 100,000 fewer zero-emission vehicles on the roads. That’s going to mean higher emissions versus a given amount of travel. If the Clean Car Standard is watered down, which seems to be the intention of this bill, then that could mean hundreds of thousands more vehicles that are higher emissions right at the time when we need to be importing zero emissions vehicles to have any hope of reducing emissions from transport.

Now, the cost of not meeting our emissions target is actually going to be felt by all of us. It’s going to be felt in terms of the Government needing to spend more money on offsets offshore, presumably. There’s going to be higher costs just because we’re going to be spending more money on fuel to get around, and there’s going to be costs to New Zealand because we’re going to be making a larger contribution to, you know, devastating climate impacts. So I don’t understand how, on the one hand, the Government can say they believe in user-pays and people making a contribution, however, in the same breath, they’re taking away schemes that were enabling everybody in New Zealand who was bringing in new vehicles to contribute to a lower average emissions. But, clearly, the Minister hasn’t received advice or isn’t going to share with us the advice of any additional cost of bringing in a cost recovery scheme for the administration of the fuel economy.

Because we haven’t been able to have a select committee process, I think it is appropriate that we canvass the arguments right here in this debate today, because this is under urgency, all stages of the bill are going through. Ultimately, these changes will have a substantial impact on New Zealand, on New Zealand’s climate, whether or not we meet our climate targets, but more broadly on the overall impacts of our transport on health, on air quality, on noise. There’s so many ways in which higher emissions vehicles have costs on New Zealand—broad costs—and the goal of the Clean Car Standard and the Clean Car Discount together was to achieve an outcome which meant lower-emissions vehicles on the road.

If we go back to the public consultation that was done by the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority, sometime before we came into Government, on whether or not people would support a feebate, when people were presented with information on how a feebate works, generally there was broad support for it, because there was a sense in which those buying new, highly polluting vehicles should make some small contribution to more zero-emission vehicles on the fleet. In fact, those people directly benefit because they continue to drive the high-emitting vehicles that they need for whatever reason. And no one’s going to presume to know what that reason is, but it’s fair enough that they should make some contribution to getting more zero-emission vehicles on the road, because it offsets—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Is there a question for the Minister?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Well, I’ve given up, Madam Chair, on asking questions—on getting answers from the Minister. So I think it’s appropriate for, on the Hansard, these arguments to be put forward, given that we have not had a select committee process.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and as I’ve stated in previous answers to questions, this is about a cost recovery model. It will charge those who import the vehicles. I think it’s a very simple and clear piece of empowering legislation which then empowers regulations to be set.

There’s a number of tabled amendments in relation to this piece of legislation, or this clause, clause 5. There’s Amendment Paper 42: “replace ‘prescribing, or providing for the fixing of,’ … with ‘reducing and limiting’ ”. That’s not consistent with Government policy. It would not work in practice; limiting fees that don’t actually exist.

In relation to clause 5, another proposal, Amendment Paper 43, to “replace ‘services’ … with ‘back-office administration’ ”, that’s inconsistent with Government policy; potentially limits cost recovery in relation to front-line support services. “Services” is broader and more accurately reflects the policy.

Amendment Paper 44, clause 5, new section 167BA(4)(c): “replace ‘Crown’ … with ‘Agency’ ”. Well, the agency is an extension of the Crown; we’ve already had that debate.

Amendment Paper 45: insert “Before any regulations are made … the regulations will appropriately increase the supply and availability of vehicles with zero carbon dioxide emissions;”. This doesn’t make sense because this is to do with the cost recovery mechanism, which is, effectively, what we are doing here.

Amendment Paper 46: “authorise the Registrar or the Director to decline to process a person’s registration application until the person has paid any fee or charge payable:”. That’s already enabled by new section 167BB and could recreate conflicts regarding the interpretation if mentioned twice, and so we won’t be supporting any of those tabled amendments.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My first question of the Minister of Transport is this. The Minister told the committee—and I thank him for this information—that the budget for this part of the ministry is going down from $11 million to $6.9 million. Can he advise the committee whether that $11 million included the administration of the Clean Car Discount—not the cost of the Clean Car Discount, but the administration of the Clean Car Discount—in addition to this regulation-making function as to the standard?

Hon Members: Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Ah—

Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, Madam Chair, I had a number of questions, but I was trying to do it on the backwards and forwards basis. If—

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): The clock’s still ticking—so the Hon David Parker.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, OK, I call. The next question I had was that I would like to have some dialogue with the Minister as to how it is that the standards are going to be developed, because that goes to cost and, actually, relates partly to the issues I was raising in an earlier clause on the bill relating to whether this should sit with the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority. I hope the Minister will agree with me that one of the trade-offs that is being made in a standard is what is the capital cost of a more expensive, more efficient vehicle, and how that compares with the savings that are made by the user of that vehicle on lower fuel costs.

Those lower fuel costs have two reasons. One, electricity is a more efficient converter of energy to motion than the burning of a fossil fuel, so the same energy content of electricity takes a vehicle further if it’s electricity than it does if it is petrol or diesel because the conversion of petrol and diesel to motion results in a lot of that energy being lost as heat. That’s the essential physical reason. The second reason why electricity is cheaper, in a fuel sense, than petrol is that per calorie, if you like, or per unit of heat, electricity per unit of energy is cheaper than fossil fuels—renewables are.

There are two reasons why the costs are cheaper to the consumer, but those benefits of the cheaper energy price are spread over a long period. The capital cost is borne by the importer of that vehicle on day one, and so in order to compare the benefits of lower costs of, essentially, electricity compared with fossil fuels with the capital costs, there has to be a mechanism to compare the benefits that are received over a period of time compared with the cost that is incurred up front. That is achieved by applying a cost of capital to the upfront costs and comparing it with the benefits that flow over time, which are discounted to take into account the fact that they are not received until a future date in order to compare the cost of this. Now, this is technical work. It’s important work, but what drives the outcome is actually the discount rate that you use.

My next question to the Minister is: does he think that the ministry has got the headline capacity to actually make that proper assessment of the discount rate to do it? Again, I would make the point that this work has been done time and again already by the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority, who assess what is the appropriate discount rate to be applied. Until that discount rate was actually set at a fair level—and there were scraps on this in the early 2000s, when Jeanette Fitzsimons was in charge of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority, when I was the Minister of Energy, and we sorted this out and we got to a decent discount rate. Unless the discount rate is appropriately low, you kill the economics in the cost-benefit analysis. So my first question is: why is it that these costs that are going to be recovered are going to include the cost of doing that cost-benefit analysis again in the Ministry of Transport, when we know that that capability already sits within the energy conservation authority?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a series of questions, but I’ll start with the first set of questions. This is with regards to clause 5, new section 167BA(2), which is around the definition of “The persons” and, in this case, a “vehicle importer” in paragraphs (a) and (b) around the type of vehicle that has not been registered.

Now, going by the cost recovery impact statement, we’re seeing that a lot of the modelling in terms of the cost of the charge that is going to be potentially implemented is on the basis of 300,000 imported vehicles a year. But what I’m not seeing in paragraph (b) is whether it has been specified whether these cars or these vehicles have never been registered, period, or have never been registered in New Zealand. So this is going to be incredibly crucial in terms of that estimated number and the kind of vehicle that we would be looking at that would have this particular charge incurred as a result. If the Minister of Transport, as a first question, wouldn’t mind just clarifying, in new section 167BA(2)(b), whether these registered vehicles are only for the first time being registered here in New Zealand, or are they looking at brand new vehicles, period, or whether that definition needs to be assumed or implicit and doesn’t need to be highlighted.

Again, kind of looking at this in terms of pages 5 and 6 of the cost recovery impact statement and in particular the publicist’s error: “reference was not found.” But looking at the table itself, which is, again, based on the average of 300,000, there’s the “Administration fee ($) partial CR” and, also, “Administrative fee ($) full CR”. Again, when we are looking at that particular definition and that number of the average 300,000 vehicles, it will be really good for the Minister to clarify where some of those numbers come from, because it then determines some of the cost that is associated with it.

Thank you, Madam Chair—

Hon Rachel Brooking: Aw!

ARENA WILLIAMS: —for the opportunity to take a quick call. I understand that the Hon Rachel Brooking is upset, but she will, I’m sure, have an opportunity to take her call.

I need to bring us back to a few things that the Minister of Transport said in his contribution a couple of calls ago, when he spoke about the Government’s policy and some of the amendments being inconsistent with Government policy. This is the first time that the Minister offered us a view of what Government policy is for his proposed amendments, which has been at issue all morning, as we have made the case that he is amending the wrong Act here and that his Government policy is inconsistent with the purpose of the Land Transport Act—particularly section 170, which sets out a purpose for reducing carbon dioxide emissions over the transport fleet.

When the Minister stood and he said that my amendment to new section 167BA, to replace “for the purpose of prescribing or providing for the fixing of,” with “for the purpose of reducing” is inconsistent with Government policy, that is absolutely worthy of this committee’s attention. This is the first time that we have heard from the Minister that it is not his policy intent, that it is not Government policy, to use the clean vehicle standard to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. That is something that we really should have been able to consider at select committee. If the clean vehicle standard, which was introduced by the prior Government with very broad support around this House, is now not to be used to reduce carbon emissions over the vehicle fleet, is not to be used to contribute to New Zealand’s international climate change obligations, then that is something we really need to understand. I hope the Minister will be able to clarify what he meant when he said that it is not the Government’s policy intent to use it for the purpose of reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

I will be fair to him: I think that what he might have been trying to advance there was that it might be restrictive in some way to specify that the purpose of it is to reduce the carbon dioxide across the fleet. But, really, the question here becomes: should there be a split purpose to also prescribe, to provide, fix, and to reduce, or should we be clear that it is to reduce? In which case, that, I guess, would be a further commitment to the ratchet provisions in the secondary legislation that exists. It’s not an answer to the question for the Minister to stand and say that these are empowering provisions to create further regulatory mechanisms, when we know—and from the comments of the Minister in this debate, we understand—that he’s already given some thought to what those regulatory standards will be when he provides himself the power to set them. He’s already considered what they will be. So he needs to be able to give us an assurance, because this is the only time that the House will be able to have a debate on what he sets the standards to be.

He needs to provide us an assurance that it is the Government’s intent to continue to reduce carbon dioxide emissions across the vehicle fleet. We might disagree on how fast that needs to be. We might disagree on ratchet provisions which give the industry certainty. It’s certainly our position, on this side of the Chamber, that giving the industry certainty in each year is the most important thing Government could do—almost regardless of how fast you go, that providing the car industry with certainty would be the most important consideration. So if it’s not his intent to provide that reduction over time in his regulations, he needs to clarify that for us right now.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and for the questions. There’s been a number of questions. I guess the Hon David Parker is asking questions in relation to the issue which was around who should be administering the standard. Ultimately, I’ve already answered those questions in prior debates, in relation to the fact that the previous Government ensured that it would go through under the Land Transport Act. That is the Act that the last Government put these provisions within, which means that it is managed by the transport agencies. So we’re not intending to change that. We think that they are the appropriate agencies, as they’ve already set up the system. There is already a Clean Car Standard system in place. This is simply just enabling cost recovery for that system.

In terms of the other questions, many of those questions in relation to what the standard should be are quite separate from the debate in this clause, which is in relation to cost recovery for administering it. That is, quite simply, what this particular clause is doing: cost recovery for the administration of the standard. There is a known amount of money that it costs to administer the standard, and this empowers regulations to be made to recover those costs. This doesn’t deal with the emissions standards or any of those particular elements; this is simply about making sure there’s a cost recovery in place.

Kia orana. Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, I know my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking is keen; perhaps she’ll get a future call.

I want to turn to what I guess is a quite specific list of provisions that are contained within this new section 167BA, inserted by clause 5, that’s being proposed. It’s specifically within new subsection (4), and this is about the nature or the purpose of what the regulations will seek to do or achieve. Specifically, I only want to focus on (4)(a), and that references section 168 of the Land Transport Act and identifies a bit of a list. Now, it relates to subsection (4), and, basically, subsection (4) creates a whole list of criteria within which the regulations could seek to address.

What this subsection seeks to do is, basically, identify just five of the criteria that would relate; it doesn’t take them all. I know the first one is around specifying the persons who would be responsible for having fees or charges—or both, actually—being payable. Section 168(4)(ab) is around the provision for the imposition of a person to whom the fees are payable to have a connection with the administration of any payment. There are five of them. The third one is (d), which provides for “the refund, waiver, or the rebate or enabling the refund,” or the charge. Section 168(4)(e) is fixing, or empowering the fixing of, the date by which any fee or charge is to be paid. So that is quite specific. The final one is (f) and that is, basically, around the discounts for early payments, and penalties for late payments, which we have touched on in terms of the late payments.

There are two parts within that particular subsection that might have some relevance—perhaps one more than the other. My question to the Minister of Transport is: why haven’t they been referred or why are they not included in this new section? The first of them is section 168(4)(aa): “prescribe fees and charges payable, or provide for their fixing (including a means by which they may be calculated and ascertained, or a rate at which they may be calculated or ascertained):”. So my question for the Minister is: is that section not relevant, or that component not relevant, in the consideration of this; if so, why has it been excluded from the list defined in new subsection (4) of the bill?

The other is the final one. It’s just trying to cover off whether or not there any other catch-all provisions there. It’s (h), which relates to identifying those fees and charges that are land transport revenue for the purposes of the Land Transport Management Act 2003. Now, we’ve talked previously about the relativity of that particular Act and it not being relevant to being referred to as a principal Act. But there is a question there for the Minister, which is: could it be conceived that fees and charges in this context could be seen as land transport revenue?

Hon Member: Yeah, that’s the issue.

TANGI UTIKERE: That is the issue and it is quite a broad definition, but then it is captured by whether or not it’s for the purposes of the Land Transport Management Act. Now, it might be that that piece of legislation does have—well, it does have some correlation with this Act. But my question to the Minister is: whether (aa) and (h) have on purpose been left out from the relevant criteria in new subsection (4)(a), and, if so, why is that the case?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Despite my excitement, I do not have as exciting a contribution as some of my very learned colleagues have made on, particularly, policy issues and some very good questions that I’ve heard the Minister not yet answer.

I’ve got two questions, and one has already been briefly traversed by Tangi Utikere and the Minister of Transport, and that was around subsection (5) of new section 167BA, inserted by clause 5, which is: “The Director may, at any time, reduce or waive a penalty … if the Director considers that it is just to do so.” And the Minister responded about the discretion of that director. It would be useful to have on the Hansard whether or not the Minister expects that there would be guidance for what “just to do so” means.

But the main point I want to traverse, which I don’t believe has been touched on yet, is the definition of a “vehicle importer”. So that’s it—so we’re at subclause (2). If you look at the definition of a “vehicle importer” in the main Act, section 2 is the interpretation section for the entirety of the Act, and that doesn’t include a definition of “vehicle importer”—it does have a definition of “imported”, but not that.

Then you can go to section 172. It’s important to note that section 172 of the main Act is in Part 13 of the Act. And the parts are important because section 172 says: “for the purposes of this Part”, here are the definitions. So that’s Part 13. Part 13 is “Clean vehicle standard”, and, of course, it’s been traversed much in this debate. In section 172, a vehicle importer means, as the case may require, “(a) a category 1 light vehicle importer:” or “(b) a category 2 light vehicle importer”. But section 172 is constrained by “in this part of the Act”. So that’s Part 13.

Now, we’re looking here at a new section 167BA, and section 167BA is not in Part 13 of the primary legislation; I think it might be even in Part 10. But, whatever it is, it’s not Part 13. Now, then we see at subsection (7) of this new section that we’re looking at, it says: “In this section ‘and section 167BB’, ‘Type A vehicle’, ‘Type B vehicle’, and ‘vehicle importer’ ”—which is the definition that I’m interested in—“have the meanings given in section 172(1).” So, you might say, well, that fixes the problem, but I think it would be much clearer and better drafting—and I’m asking the Minister if he would consider an amendment to section 172 so that those definitions were not restricted to Part 13 of the Act. It could even refer specifically to the regulation-making parts of the Act or it might be better, in fact, that these definitions that are currently found in section 172 of the primary legislation would be better found in section 2 of the primary legislation, which is the general interpretation section for the whole of the Act.

So I think that would be useful to know in the Hansard—what the Minister’s thoughts are on either further amendments of section 172 or section 2 of the primary legislation so that it’s clear that those definitions apply to all of the relevant parts of what will be the amended legislation.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a number of questions about the recovery of costs in administering the clean vehicle standard (CVS). Given that there is no select committee process and officers have not been able to yet determine how to implement the Minister of Transport’s preference for option two as a fee per car, I’m very interested in hearing from the Minister where he will be receiving advice, not just on the administrative efficiency—and we’re all, I’m sure, keen on administrative efficiency as well as vehicle efficiency—but also how the effect of the mechanism chosen will affect the distribution of benefits.

I note that we talked about the general policy statement referring to the cost of administering the CVS and that there are number of benefits issued. Some of those benefits undoubtedly accrue to the individual owner of a new vehicle or the operator of a new vehicle in terms of fuel savings and maintenance spending, but surely the reduction in the social cost of carbon dioxide emissions accrue to the community as a whole, and one could be quite wide in who that community includes. It might not even be just our species.

Given that we are not having an open and robust process through select committee, will the Minister be, for example, seeking advice from, as the Hon David Parker suggests, the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority? Will the Minister be seeking advice from electric vehicle owners, from Electrify NZ? Or perhaps he could look at the cost recovery from the many different countries that have been far in advance of Aotearoa New Zealand in implementing some form of standards. If only we had done this 20 years ago, we would’ve saved so much money; we would’ve saved health; and we would’ve saved emissions. Let’s get on with it and find out the best way of charging for this that maximises the benefit not just to the individual but to our community. Thank you, Minister.

I thank the members for their questions. I’ve already answered or addressed the issue there in relation to how to cost recover. I appreciate there are arguments for different ways in which you could do cost recovery. Either you say that the cost should be recovered from people who use the system or you could say that the cost should be recovered from society at large. This Government has determined, through the policy settings, that it should be recovered through the people who use the system. So we don’t agree with the member’s argument, but I do appreciate that there is an argument in that regard.

In regards to the question from Tangi Utikere in relation to new section 167BA(4), in clause 5, in relation to why paragraph (h) is not referred to—a very good question. That is because if that was referred to, then the revenue could go into the National Land Transport Fund, and so by not allowing it to go into the National Land Transport Fund, it means that the cost recovery is much clearer and it ensures that the money goes towards paying for the running of the system and not just for generally going into the Land Transport Fund.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to ask the Minister of Transport whether these new regulation-making powers that give him more flexibility as to the distinction between type A and type B vehicles—I understand the distinction between different classes of importer. If you have an importer that imports a lot of vehicles like Toyota, then they’ve got more flexibilities between models over a year, and the existing legislation also allows them to bank credits towards a future year if they’re doing better than the required average set by the standard—and that’s a good thing, probably. I’m not sure about the banking point, but it’s a good thing that they’ve all got flexibility within their own portfolio of vehicles.

I wonder if the Minister can tell the committee whether the flexibility introduced by these regulation-making powers increases or changes the ability of the Minister, or gives the Minister, on advice from the ministry, the ability to change the categories between different sizes of vehicles? This is a vexed question because the more specific the regulation is and the more classes of vehicle that are created, the less flexibility there is for the car companies to meet the standard in the most cost-efficient manner. I would hope the Minister is giving himself more flexibility through these provisions because we don’t have the chance to do this through select committee.

The reason why I would be supportive of that additional flexibility being given to the Minister is that if it’s more cost effective for Toyota, for example, to meet its average obligations by importing a larger number of very small, very fuel-efficient cars, or more Prius hybrids, which are obviously cost effective, to actually offset the emissions for a large vehicle that for reasons of utility needs to be a fully internal combustion car, for example—I know there are ute alternatives at the moment, but there might be some greater case for purely petrol or diesel large utes, and it would be more cost effective for consumers in New Zealand, including the buyers of utes, if Toyota could use the ability to bring in more of the smaller vehicles in order to meet the overall average that we’re trying to achieve as a country, which is to overall improve the efficiency of the fleet. We recognise there’s a transition that’s going to take longer for larger vehicles than for smaller vehicles. So my question in respect of that issue is whether that additional flexibility is being introduced.

My second point is just to return to a matter when the Minister wasn’t in the chair. I did ask the question as to whether discount rates—because discount rates really drive the outcome of the cost-benefit analysis as to how hard you drive the standard, because you’re trying to compare the additional capital cost of a cleaner vehicle with the fuel savings. There’s a timing difference, and you reconcile those two numbers by the application of discount rates to convert into current dollars the future benefit of lower fuel costs compared with the additional capital cost which is incurred today. And if you use the wrong discount rate, you actually kill the cost-benefit analysis; you’ll find that nothing makes sense. Those debates have been had ad infinitum within both the Treasury and Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority. I would hope that the Minister is, within these regulation-making powers, able to keep an eye on that discount rate, because if that discount rate is inappropriately used, you will get the wrong outcome.

My third question for him in the short time I’ve got before I need to sit down here is: has the Minister considered just handing this whole thing over to the private sector? I know that a long time ago—like back in 2005 to 2008 when Jeanette Fitzsimons and I were looking at these issues—we considered giving the whole thing over to TradeMe. TradeMe were willing to set up a secondary platform which sits behind their main market platform but uses the same technology. They could very, very simply run a scheme, so long as the scheme is simple to run. And that’s why, if you set an average that’s declining over time and have simple rules and not too many classes of vehicle, you will find that the industry can do that through a platform that encourages trading between themselves as well as averaging within their own fleet in a way that would minimise the costs to the country.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank members for their questions. The question in relation to the type A and type B vehicles is defined in section 172 of the Land Transport Act—it can be declared by regulations, and is unchanged in this bill. In relation to the question around the discount rate; I mean, this is ultimately simply around the cost recovery. This particular clause is talking about the cost recovery, not the wider legislative place in terms of where this sits. We have made it clear in previous answers to previous questions that we’re not changing where the operation of this sits—those were determined by the previous Government. But the third question is an interesting point in terms of outsourcing it, effectively, to the sector. It’s not something we had considered, but I always remain with an open mind.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good to hear the Minister of Transport always has an open mind, because we’ve still got a lot to get through, and I think he might, you know, continue to do that as well.

Minister, I want to move to the reality that if a Minister was to create regulations under this provision—and thank you for also clarifying the suitability or not of paragraphs (a), (aa), and (h) of section 168 of the primary legislation. But if the Minister is to go on a process of basically putting regulations in place, there is a requirement for the Minister to consult with such persons as the Minister considers appropriate. So what I think would be really interesting to hear from you, Minister, is: what would guide you in determining who you would consider as appropriate, or what would guide new Ministers in the future as to who would be appropriate? Because one of the common themes as this bill is progressing through the Parliament over the last day or so has been around the fact that we understand that you have undertaken consultation in bringing this bill to the House. We have yet to hear, from you, in this Chamber, who the specific industry participants were, around consultation, even though that has been raised with you, Minister.

I think there are two things here. One is the opportunity to confirm the nature of the consultation that you’ve had in bringing to the House this particular provision to create regulations. The other is how the Minister expects to go about consulting prior to making regulations—which I think is actually a sensible thing, if we are to have regulations, that there is some form of consultation. But it’s even more important when those sorts of decisions and considerations are taken whilst the House is under urgency, but also whilst there is no select committee process. I know that other members have referred to this, about the lack of a select committee process. I am certain that if this was in front of a select committee—well, I know that if this was in front of a select committee, there would be industry participants, there would be others from all around the country, who would submit about who they consider might be appropriate for the Minister to consult with in the process of making regulations. I know that for a fact because some of those industry participants have been in touch with members of this House to indicate that they feel aggrieved that they haven’t been part of this process.

I think there is a responsibility on the Minister to identify who he would consider as appropriate participants. They don’t need to be identified specifically in the primary legislation—I’m certainly not seeking that. But what I am seeking is some understanding and some context around who those industry participants—or maybe they’re not within the industry. Maybe it could be that the Minister opens up—it might be a little bit unwise—a broad invitation to anyone. I don’t think that would really meet the purposes of having regulations—to ensure that there is some expediency around that. But I would like to hear from the Minister who he would consult with.

One of the questions that has been put to the Minister throughout this whole process is: has he consulted with environmental groups? The primary purpose of the Land Transport Act, in terms of this section that we’ve touched on previously, is around the reduction of emissions. We can still talk about whether this bill is the appropriate place or not. But, actually, I think it would mitigate some of the concerns that have been raised, if the Minister was able to identify exactly who it is that he has consulted with in terms of bringing this to the Parliament. But also, if he was the Minister who was going to be executing or making these regulations under this Act, if it is passed, who would he consider as appropriate to, effectively, get on the phone to or to allow for a process to seek their feedback before he embarks upon issuing those regulations?

Members, my view is that the consultation aspect has been well canvassed and the Minister has addressed them, so I am looking for new material about the substance in this particular clause. I call the Hon Julie Anne—

TANGI UTIKERE: Point of order. Thank you, Mr Chair—Madam Chair, my apologies.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Thank you.

TANGI UTIKERE: Madam Chair, I just seek your guidance on that because I am not aware of any response from the Minister to date in committee—not once has the Minister referred to any individual, any industry participant or organisation that he has actually consulted. So you’ve made the determination that that has been canvassed. I would encourage you to reflect on the Hansard, but I am not aware of a single response from the Minister to date—and I have been here for the huge majority of the time that the Minister has been in here. I know there was a different Minister in the chair for a period—that Minister did not take any calls to provide any responses.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Understood, and the point of order is noted. Thank you, Mr Utikere. The questions about consultation have become repetitive, and I’ve noted that in the documentation.

TANGI UTIKERE: Point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Is this a different point of order?

TANGI UTIKERE: It’s about how repetitive nature would apply in this context. Speakers’ rulings are very clear around the requirement for a Minister to address a question. If a matter has been raised by members under urgency, yet that matter has not been addressed or answered or addressed, how can that surely be repetitive? All the Minister needs to do is stand up and say, “I’ve consulted with X, Y, Z.”

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I understand. We’re going to move on now—I’m going to call the Hon Julie Anne Genter.

TANGI UTIKERE: Sorry, sorry, but, Madam Chair, are you indicating that consultation has been addressed?

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): It’s not my role to referee—if the questions are being asked and not answered, that is up to the Minister. But the questions have been asked; it was one of the first questions, when I took over the Chair, that was raised—it’s been raised several times. I’m simply indicating to members it’s becoming repetitive, I’m looking for new material in the body of this clause.

TANGI UTIKERE: Point of order. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I accept what you’ve just said there. The issue, however, though, is, are you now saying that if members under urgency are posing questions to the Minister and the Minister refuses to address the questions, that members of this House are no longer able to ask those questions? Because that would be quite a deviation as to how Standing Orders have been interpreted up to this point in time.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I understand the member’s frustration. I could invite the Minister—I’ve already called the Hon Julie Anne Genter. I could invite the Minister to address the question—I cannot make him answer.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Because clause 5 is about the cost recovery scheme, and we’ve got the cost recovery impact statement, I wanted to ask the Minister of Transport a couple of questions. Obviously at the end of that statement, it says that they have not been able to consult with the industry on the effects of the proposal, that there are questions they would need feedback from industry on, like, “What administration cost would industry incur as a result of the proposal?”, “What method of recovery would have the least impact on industry?”, and “Would the proposal have disproportionate effects on smaller importers?” That was kind of my question, because it says in the statement that the Minister’s preferred option is a per-car fee.

Can the Minister speak to how he feels that is fair—if, for example, there are importers of lower-value cars, they are going to have to pay a higher percentage of the cost recovery relative to the vehicles they’re selling, as, you know, it’s a higher percentage as a price of the vehicle and perhaps the number of vehicles they’re importing relative to those who import small numbers of very expensive cars. So if we have importers who are importing large numbers of relatively inexpensive cars, particular second-hand vehicles, if we go with the preferred option of a per-car fee, then they will pay more, relative to speciality importers of brand new, very expensive vehicles. I’m just wondering, if the Minister could let us know: is there any chance that he will opt for a different option, what will the consultation look like after this bill is passed in the design of the cost recovery scheme to ensure that it is fair, that it’s not having a disproportionate impact on some importers relative to others? Yeah, I’d invite the Minister to speak to that.

I thank the members for the questions. In regard to the issue of consultations, of course there are two different issues in relation to it. One is that this clause is relating to cost recovery. There are standard consultation processes in place in relation to the consultation for setting regulations, and it is intended that those processes will be under way. There is a 12-month period for those regulations to then come into force, so there’s plenty of time for that to happen. And, of course—

Tangi Utikere: With who?

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well, that’s a good question and I intend to consult with people who import vehicles—is the intent.

So the second question is in relation to some of the issues around cost recovery. We’ve had a large number of questions around cost recovery. There are lots of different ways in which cost recovery can be done. Of course, this is an empowering provision which allows for a model to be put forward and for cost recovery then to be made of the cost of running the system.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I actually just have two short questions for the Minister of Transport on this, and the first one is on new subsection 167BA(3), inserted by clause 5, which is talking about “Different rates of fees or charges, or both,”. So the first question for the Minister is: in the cost recovery impact statement, it talks about fees but not necessarily charges, and I wanted to get some clarification from the Minister to provide an example of what those fees or charge could look like or both—particularly the “or both” bit—and whether that is something that has been considered.

The second part is actually around new section 167BB, inserted by clause 5, which is around ”Regulations relating to power of Registrar and Director if fee or charge unpaid”. This particular part, particularly new subsection (1), talks about “to decline to process a person’s registration application”. So, essentially, what we’re looking at is sort of like if you don’t pay, you don’t get the good or a small sanction-type thing. I wanted to kind of get a sense from the Minister, if the Minister wouldn’t mind clarifying: in this context, what does that look like and what sort of options have been made available to the Minister in putting this subsection together, looking at some of the process around this? If there is a declination of this particular process for registration, is there a duration of the pay and then they get the vehicle? So, yeah, I think that level of process-based questions around 167BB will be really, really helpful in clarifying and having on the Hansard.

And just a reminder, the first question is: what does the “or both” in terms of both fees and charges in subsection 167BA(3) potentially look like? Thank you.

Well, thank you, Madam Chair. The questions all relate to the point that this is an empowering provision which allows for regulations to be set.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a short call from me and also related to new subsection 167BA(3) in clause 5. At the end of that sentence, it says, “or on any other differential basis.”, and this phrase—or the whole phrase—is also found in the primary legislation in section 167B(3), “or on any other differential basis.”, and also found in section 168(2). But I’m wondering what it is that the Minister is thinking might be a “differential basis”, given that this has to apply to persons that are either a vehicle importer and an applicant for registration of a type A or type B vehicle—and those are, of course, defined in section 172 of the Land Transport Act that I was talking about earlier, and these are light vehicles. A differential basis: is there some thinking about what it might be—say, an individual importing a car from Japan themselves versus those vehicle importers, rather than an applicant, with the difference between that. And, in subsection (2)—I think it would be very useful for the Hansard if the Minister could comment on what he is considering a differential basis might be in the context of that subsection. Thank you.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

I’m getting close to accepting a closure motion.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the Minister of Transport for providing a response to the consultation question. I think that is very unfortunate that he has adopted a very narrow approach to this. This is the first time in this House, while this bill has been progressed, that we have heard from his own mouth that, basically, the only people that are going to be consulted as part of any of this process are importers themselves. There is a much wider scope of industry participants who perhaps would’ve liked to have had an opportunity—not just for this bill but to be considered. The Minister has confirmed for the committee that the only people who are going to be considered on his watch when it comes to setting regulations are importers themselves—no one else. That is shameful and that’s pretty unfortunate.

I want to—actually, thank you, Dr Xu-Nan, for identifying new section 167BB, inserted by clause 5, because I had a question about that as well, and I hope the Minister is able to address it. Minister, your response said, “Well, this is an empowering provision.” Well, yes, it is, but it’s also giving an empowering provision to the registrar or the director to undertake a particular course of action. I think, in fairness, Dr Xu-Nan has identified that as an issue, and you still have not addressed his question.

My question is slightly different to my Green colleague, and that is—it refers to the fact that the registrar or the director could actually, if the regulations are authorised through Order in Council, decline to process a person’s registration application until the person has paid a specified fee or charge that they’re liable for. Now, my question is: is the registrar or director only able to decline registrations for application purely on the basis of the fee not being paid or met, because it seems as though that’s what that refers to in that particular new subsection (1), or will there be other grounds for the registrar or the director to decline an application?

It’s a very narrow area that I invite the Minister to respond to and address, and it is around that empowering provision—yes, I get that, but does it limit the registrar or the director to only decline a registration application? The Minister seems very familiar with importers, it seems, at the moment. If they make an application under the system—I get that regulations may be made under this clause to allow the registrar or the director to, basically, reject or decline the application, but is it correct, Minister, that they could only do so on the basis that the fee is not being made; there is no other way in which, under this provision, a rejection may exist or may follow?

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Kia ora, Mr Chair. I’m just looking at, and continuing on, some of these spaces, but I’ve got a slightly different angle, and I may be wrong here but I’m willing to be corrected by the Minister—just looking at, obviously clause 5, new section 167BB(2), the type A vehicle or type B vehicle.

Now, I know that the Minister was at Fieldays recently and unveiled the new electric ute. The thing I’m just trying to understand with the type A and type B vehicles—again, I may be out of scope here, but I’m just trying to get a bit of understanding—is that they’re fully electric; they’ve also got diesel. But they also are more than just a vehicle; they’re actually a generator. They’re something that can be used around the farm or for tradies—that type of thing. And so is there any clarification needed when we talk about the type A and type B vehicles, with, I guess, the change in vehicle usage, the change in technology, and the nature of what a vehicle actually is now? I’m just trying to sort of get some clarification in terms of whether that creates any challenges or whether anything should be considered when looking at this part of clause 5.

Again, I’m sure that the Minister was super excited to be there and to see technology at its best and to be moving forward. But when we talk about vehicles nowadays, it’s a generator. It’s more than just a type A or type B vehicle. I wasn’t there when you visited the ute, but I did go and see the ute afterwards, but it did raise some questions for me just to figure out what that could look like. So the type A, type B vehicles—yeah, is that purely just a vehicle for transportation or is it now becoming more than that? That’s not only an office; it’s a generator; it’s many, many other things.

Tangi Utikere: Where would the line be?

GLEN BENNETT: Yeah, where is the line? What does that look like? So if the Minister has any thoughts on that. Again, I’d really appreciate it if I have missed something here—I’m really happy to understand that. But, firstly, I think it’s exciting to read some of the articles about BYD—it’s BYD, the company that imports them now, isn’t it? I’m just really, really keen to understand that, and if the Minister would like to inform me, I’d appreciate that.

Thank you, Mr Chair. We still wait for a response from the Minister of Transport around those specific questions that have been posed around new section 167BB(1), inserted by clause 5, and I really do think that is important, because it might be actually that there is a bit of a gap that has been highlighted. If the Minister can confirm that the only basis upon which the registrar or the director could basically decline the registration application was purely because of a lack of a fee being paid or whether it was a partial fee.

I mean, last night in the House, the Minister referenced that we’re talking about a very small amount of money. He talked about it being only between $5 and $20. All of that adds up. I mean, he has himself cited what that adds up to in terms of the overall budget lines for this. So it would be quite helpful, for the benefit of the committee, if the Minister was able to identify that. But the point I was trying to make is: if this was, in fact, the only way in which an application could be declined, is the Minister aware of any other processes that might interplay with this? So, for example, if there is information that comes to the attention of the director or the registrar that is not purely related to the fee component but something else, perhaps, I think that would be quite helpful for the Minister to be aware of as well.

I want to just also refer to the Amendment Papers that are in my name, because the Minister did very kindly say, at the start of this process, basically: “No, no, no, no, no, not gonna support any of those.” We’ve had a—

Hon Simeon Brown: I gave reasons.

TANGI UTIKERE: You did give reasons for that. However, you also said, Minister, that you have an open mind and we’ve had quite an opportunity from yesterday to talk about these sorts of things. So I want to just briefly go through those, because it is important none the less. But before I do that, I’ve noted the Minister’s reference around who he would consult with and he tells us that it’s just importers, basically. So I know, for example, I’ve certainly received feedback as recently as this morning—someone says that they see this as a lack of consultation over the bill and that there are shifting market conditions, all of these sorts of things. Now, I hope that the Minister perhaps would think again around some of this space.

This one here I quite like; I think it’s quite apt. It refers to handpicked allies that the Minister might only be consulting with. I think that is very detrimental to the process if he’s only going to handpick the people who he might want to—

Ryan Hamilton: Speculation.

TANGI UTIKERE: Well, “Speculation”, right? So we hear that it’s speculation. We haven’t actually heard anything else from the Minister except to say it’s only going to be importers.

Hon Member: Excellent.

TANGI UTIKERE: Is that correct, Minister? It’s only going to be importers?

Hon Member: They’re saying “excellent” on that side of the Chamber.

TANGI UTIKERE: Right. So we hear, then, that it’s actually only going to be importers and that’s it. Well, the Minister has an open mind; we might hear something different.

Now, I just want to look to those Amendment Papers that are in my name. Amendment Paper 42, clause 5—this is seeking to: “replace ‘prescribing, or providing for the fixing of,’ … with ‘reducing and limiting’ ”. That actually ensures that there is kind of like—what do you call it—a sinking lid sort of approach that we continue over time, and we’ll get to this a little bit further, but it has been accepted as clause 5, so I hope the Minister might consider that; he might change his view with his open mind.

Amendment Paper 43 refers to replacing “services” with “back-office administration”. The Minister had referred that he wasn’t into supporting that particular amendment. I don’t know whether he has changed. I know his Government have a particular view about back-office administration that they seem to make clear from time to time.

Amendment Paper 44—so this again—no, I’ll tell you what, Minister. I’ll concede that you’re probably accurate on that one in terms of your response. I’ve suggested replacing “Crown” there with “Agency”, but you’ve answered that previously and it might be that I’m prepared to maybe just resile from that particular Amendment Paper, given the Minister has, I think, actually adequately answered or addressed that particular question. So I don’t have an issue with us, effectively, not—that’s number 44.

Amendment Paper 45 actually inserts a new section 167BA(1), and this is actually making sure that prior to the exercise of any of these regulations, that those sorts of factors are considered.

So I wonder whether the Minister might particularly actually address the concerns that have been raised by Dr Xu-Nan and myself.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Many of those questions that members have raised I actually answered right at the start of the debate when I went through each of his tabled amendments, as he acknowledged, in relation to each of them, and gave reasons for why we’re not supporting them. In relation to the member Glen Bennett in relation to type A, type B, those definitions are not being changed in this piece of legislation.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that Tangi Utikere’s amendment to clause 5, new section 167BA(1), set out on Amendment Paper 42 be agreed to.

The question is that Tangi Utikere’s amendment to clause 5, new section 167BA(1), set out on Amendment Paper 43 be agreed to.

The question is that Tangi Utikere’s amendment to clause 5, inserting new section 167BA(1A), set out on Amendment Paper 45 be agreed to.

The question is that Tangi Utikere’s amendment to clause 5, inserting new section 167BA(4)(ba), set out on Amendment Paper 46 be agreed to.

The question is that Tangi Utikere’s amendment to clause 5, new section 167BA(4)(c), set out on Amendment Paper 44 be agreed to.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 5 to replace “for the purpose of prescribing, or providing for the fixing of,” is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment that has not been agreed.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 5 to replace “services” 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 5 to replace “Crown” with “Director” be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 5 to delete new section 167BA(5) be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 5 to delete new section 167BA(6) be agreed to.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to insert new clause 5H inserting new section 167BAB is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment that has not been agreed.

Members, Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to insert new clauses 5F and 5G should properly be located after clause 6, so we will address them at that point.

Clause 6 Section 167C amended (Regulations for purposes of Part 13 (clean vehicle standard))