Instruction to Transport and Infrastructure Committee

on behalf of the Minister of Transport: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I move, That the Road User Charges (Light Electric RUC Vehicles) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 14 March 2024 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside of the Wellington area, despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.

It is worth noting that the need for this bill before 1 April has been known since 2021, when the previous Government extended its previous expiry date. The previous Government also consulted on the changes that we are making, at the start of 2022. However, they left us with responsibility for making the policy decisions and drafting the legislation, which we have done at pace to allow for maximum possible time for the Transport and Infrastructure Committee to consider it. On that basis, I ask that the House endorse a report-back date of 14 March 2024 for this piece of legislation.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to that motion. Labour opposes this motion because the appropriate amount of time for the select committee to consider this bill is the ordinary length of time, which is six months. The reason for our opposition to the 14 March report-back date is that this bill contains a number of technical changes to the definitions which would apply to the vehicles in question. It also contains some ratings about weights, which the committee should be hearing from experts in order to balance the policy decisions which are being set out by the Government.

On this side of the House, the Labour members do not oppose the work that the Government is undertaking on this and we appreciate the need for pace. However, six months is the appropriate time for the select committee to come to what could very well be a consensus-based position on the appropriate way to take this forward. Because Labour members also see the need for an appropriate way for road-user charges to be levied on light electric vehicles and heavy electric vehicles, but what is in the bill currently may very well need the House to revisit it and use House time again to consider what has been set out in the bill.

The only other opportunity to do that would be in committee of the whole House stage. At this point, it would be inappropriate to do that because Government members do not have the benefit of the advice to take to that committee stage in order to propose amendments to some of those technical changes like the definitions and like the weight ratings. There is no ability for Government members to do that currently. We need the select committee process to be able to do that, and four weeks is not a reasonable amount of time to get the information that we need to be able to do that technical work from the officials or from the public, who should be able to be involved.

There is also some opposition to, then, the need to be sitting without regard to Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196. If there was an appropriate amount of time given to these changes, then there would be no need to disregard those long-held Standing Orders, which allow members to conduct their electorate work—their important constituency work—alongside the work that they are expected to do in this House. Essentially, you have Opposition members who are technical experts in this—and I tip my hat to the Hon Julie Anne Genter, who will be asked in the select committee stages to weigh in on a number of technical matters which she knows about. But she is being asked, as are my colleagues in the Labour Party, to give up what would otherwise be spent representing the constituency work when that is purely because the Government has not allowed enough time in its legislative agenda to progress these changes in the normal, democratic way.

The Labour Party is proposing that the Minister reconsider the motion and put a six-month report-back date in it. Then we will be happy to vote for it through to select committee and to participate in a completely bipartisan way. It is impossible for us to do that on the current motion, and so on the current motion we will have to oppose it.

Firstly, I just want to clarify: I’m pretty sure that I heard the Minister, the Hon Simeon Brown, recommend a report-back date of 14 March. That’s only nine days from now. It’s 5 March today. So that’s not a four-week select committee period; that’s less than a week. And it’s really difficult to see how the public who will be affected by these changes and also other technical experts will be able to develop a submission and submit to the select committee, and for the select committee to have enough time to deliberate and report back. I don’t see how it’s physically possible. So the Green Party would be opposing that motion. And, while I fully support the Labour member Arena Williams’ suggestion for a normal select committee report back date, which would be six months, at the very least four weeks would give the public and the select committee more time—some time—to be able to properly consider what has been put forward. And, again, this is because the bill deals with highly technical matters that have to do with specific vehicle weight classes, and it is really important to get this right—this change is going to have far-reaching implications.

I understand the Government may have set some time frames of its own that it wants to keep to but, given that the bill has only had its first reading today, to recommend a report-back date of next week seems completely farcical and unreasonable, and even though we didn’t support the bill at first reading, if it is going to go to a select committee, at the very least we should have four weeks to report it back. I think nine days is simply way too short to consider everything that needs to be considered from the public. One of the issues that I raised in my first reading speech was the significant discrepancy between what electric vehicle users and plug-in electric vehicle users will be paying on the same trip as a comparable car—that is, a fossil fuel car like a conventional Prius hybrid. According to the Minister’s data that he has given us, they’ll be paying more than twice as much. I think that there is an opportunity through the select committee to ensure that the rates that are set and the bands of vehicle they apply to are more fair. But I don’t see how that can happen if the select committee has to report back in just nine days.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I signalled in my substantive contribution on this legislation some of my questions that I would like answered. As my colleague Arena Williams has pointed to, Labour is supporting this bill. This is policy work that we started, but there are still really important questions that need to be considered, and nine days simply is not long enough to consider those.

One of the things that I am going to point the House’s attention to is in the departmental disclosure statement wherein it talks about the external consultation that happened on the policy document that underlies the legislation we’re examining today. There were over 3,000 submissions; they were far from unified. In terms of what a nine-day select committee period will do to the number of people that we already know have an interest in this policy area, they will expect, and rightfully expect, that there will be a legislative process that they can feed into. It is not an unfounded expectation of people who take the time to lend their expertise into a ministry-led consultation on a particular policy area to understand they’re also going to get a chance at the select committee stage. The pressure and unrealistic expectation that this nine-day time frame puts on those submitters is not something that Labour can support. The people that have expertise in this area that we need to hear from need longer, and it’s just undoable and not realistic.

The second area that I’m concerned about is the kind of advice we need to get to make proper, informed decisions about whether the balance is right between the various technologies. Other speakers have talked about the modelling around—what we need to do is see the modelling and talk to officials about the modelling that is settled on the relative rates for battery electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. The fact that we have the seeming anomaly that has been released from the Minister of Transport that you could, by driving a plug-in electric vehicle—a hybrid—end up paying more than if you were driving a petrol car or a diesel car, a vehicle that ran on fossil fuels. It seems counterintuitive, and members of this House, as good legislators, need the time with officials to understand that modelling, to understand the thinking that lies behind it, and to look at whether there have to be changes made.

We get there needs to be a balance. No one is saying this is easy policy work, and that is precisely why nine days at select committee is simply not acceptable, not doable, and not going to achieve the best outcome that we need for New Zealand. We know we’re here having to alter definitions in the primary legislation because we have hard-wired in technology definitions into our road-user charge (RUC) legislation. This is a rapidly moving field. Are we capturing everything? Are we setting ourselves up for the conversation we also need to have about heavy vehicles that I signalled in my first contribution on this legislation? Do we need to make this more fit for purpose so that we can come to think about what we have to do to incentivise the kind of technologies that we’re going to need to address 25 percent of transport emissions that we have in this country?

The other thing that I simply do not believe that we’re going to have enough time for over nine days is to see the necessary modelling, either from the Ministry of Transport or from the climate commission, around the impact that this change, given that this is happening in a different policy context than the previous Labour Government went out and consulted in, is going to have on emissions, and, in particular, emissions budget 1 and emissions budget 2. There is modelling that needs to be done.

When the Labour Government went out and consulted on the 1 March phase-out of RUC exemptions, we had a Clean Car Discount. We had other measures in place that were driving the uptake of electric vehicles (EVs) and, arguably—well, actually, demonstrably; not arguably—were driving the uptake of EVs at a far greater rate than RUC exemption ever had. I, as a legislator, need to know what impact this is going to have on emissions budget 1, what impact it is going to have on Emissions Budget 2, because this matters. This is why Cabinet requires climate impact statements on Cabinet papers. We have to understand that. The Government that is leading this, the National Party part of that Government that is leading it, signed up to the Zero Carbon Act. The National Party that is leading this say that they’re on target to meet emissions budget 1 and emissions budget 2. If we’re going to make those claims, we have to hear from the experts. As responsible legislators, we need more time than nine days so that we can receive that modelling. That modelling is wholly dependent on various variables—there we go, various variables—that will come in in terms of what that modelling will look like, what will the fleet be in 2030, what will the fleet be in 2035 as a result of this policy action.

This matters. We are talking about a big chunk of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions. We are talking, in our light vehicle fleet, about something we simply have to decarbonise, but I don’t know how we’re going to achieve that. As someone whose vote is being cast in favour of or against legislation, I want the opportunity to hear from the experts and to know what those implications are, and nine days is simply not acceptable.

It’s not just about us as the politicians that will have to sit there and hear it. This is about the submitters. This is about those people who, rightly, think that they’re coming back to have a place in a legislative programme. They gave their expertise in terms of the first initial consultation document that came out. I think it is, frankly, rude of this House to say, “We’ll take your expertise at that policy consultation stage, but, look, we’re on a bit of a rush for a 100-day plan because we’ve got a marketing gimmick as a new Government and we want to get it through, so we’re not interested in your expertise coming to bear on the legislation.” So let’s respect those people that give their expertise freely, and let’s remember that our legislation in New Zealand is better because we do have robust consultation and that we have consultation that happens at a policy level and then we have it that happens at a legislative level. That is what is being denied, and it is also not giving the officials, I would put forward, the opportunity to do the modelling, to prepare the evidence that members need to see to understand what it is they’re voting for.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s not really a pleasure to take a call on this move, but I appreciate the opportunity to outline my opposition to the motion put up by the Minister in relation to this bill.

I wanted to cover a few procedural aspects of this bill which I don’t think have been covered by previous speakers.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): I will just note there’s been some speakers on this—we’re not debating the substantive bill. I think the previous speaker, Megan Woods, very skilfully ensured it was about timing, and I’ll be looking for the same skill set by subsequent speakers.

CAMILLA BELICH: I don’t pretend to have the same skill set as the previous speaker, but I’ll do my best to raise some valid points in relation to this incredibly short nine-day select committee process that has been proposed by the Minister.

Now, select committee processes are something that I think the entire Parliament is proud of. It’s something that is notable when people visit other jurisdictions or, when they come and visit our Parliament, they often come and visit select committees. The reason for that is because of how important the select committee is in taking and listening to the views of everyday New Zealanders and providing those views to decision makers, to legislators, and then seeing those changes and issues either adopted or addressed or reflected in the subsequent pieces of legislation. So I don’t think this is a trifling matter. It is fundamentally important to the design of our democracy to have a meaningful select committee process and that is even more important because of the fact that we do have a single House; we don’t have an Upper House which is taking the opportunity to scrutinise the legislation once it’s passed and that gives, in my view, more constitutional significance and importance to the select committee process.

This nine-day proposal that has been put forward by the Minister would mean that the report back was on a Thursday which was a non-sitting day. I think this should be mentioned because this also provides issues for not only members who will be on the select committee and doing their due diligence to consider any submissions that may be made during that very short period of time but also my colleague Megan Woods spoke about the officials, and it’s also important to remember that parliamentary staff, who are part of our select committee, do the majority of the work to report back the committee’s views. It is an incredibly short period of time, nine days, and I don’t think sufficient to consider what is really taking into account new technology and new pieces of technology within the road-user charges system and trying to adopt those.

Often we have changes that are made to legislation—I haven’t gone back and done a calculation of it, but it is something that I may ask the Parliamentary Library to look into, which is the length of time spent at select committee and the shorter select committee processes and the likelihood of amendments coming up in the future, and I surmise that if you were to look into that, you would undoubtedly find that when legislation is not given its full process, then often there will need to be amendments and further House time taken up by fixing errors that are in legislation. So I think that is actually a really significant point to raise.

The other point I wanted to raise is on the structure of the legislation and what indeed it seeks to change. Now, this is not a simple one-line, one-clause bill. It actually has amendments to a primary Act—which is the Road User Charges Act 2012—and then it looks to change secondary legislation, and then my reading of this piece of legislation is that it inserts brand new schedules which would require scrutiny. So it’s concerning when there are—I don’t think there’s necessarily a justification when it’s a simple repeal bill or if it is on a simple one line that’s maybe, you know, a very easy concept for people to consider. This is a complex piece of legislation that looks at primary legislation, secondary legislation, and it also inserts new schedules. So those are all important reasons for having a longer select committee process.

I note in the Minister’s motion he refers to: “despite Standing Orders 193, 195, and 196.” The main Standing Order, as I understand, in relation to report back, which isn’t mentioned, which I appreciate it’s not necessarily required by the motion, but the Minister, in a way, I feel should mention the Standing Order 303, which is the time for a report back. That is set at six months. Now, that is obviously a substantially longer time than nine days and would give the committee a significantly longer period of time to look at the legislation. And we know what happens when select committees don’t meet the report back times. There’s a very, very serious process that they have to go through which involves writing to the Business Committee, which is the committee that is in charge of this House, and putting forward clear reasons as to why they are not likely to meet the report-back date. So that is a very serious procedure that they have to go through, and I think that the fact that has to go through the Business Committee justifies our attention at this stage and I’m glad members are taking the opportunity to debate this particular motion because the converse should also be true: if you want a shorter select committee process, you should be able to back it up with reasons.

I did listen to the Minister’s reasons and, to be fair, I wasn’t convinced at the need for this incredibly short report-back time, because we’re not talking about a report-back time which is half as long, three months. As previous members have talked about, we’re not talking about a month, we’re not talking about two weeks; we’re talking about nine days, including non-sitting days. So that is very, very significant, I think.

I’m also aware that other members have ideas about how this might be improved and I haven’t had a look at it yet, but I do understand my colleague Duncan Webb has tabled an amendment to this motion which he’ll be seeking to speak to, which undoubtedly will increase the amount of time—I’m looking to my colleague to confirm that: that is correct, he’s confirmed—that the select committee would be able to look at that.

So I think that nine days is too short. We’ve talked about the staff that it would impact, and I wanted to note that we are in a situation, an environment, where the Government has been looking for cost-cutting measures. We haven’t heard that Parliamentary Services is exempt to that. So placing extreme requirements by this House on staff members in that type of environment I think is very concerning. We don’t want to be in a position where the report is not of the standard that we would expect, and we don’t want to be blaming staff members retrospectively for missing a submission or not reporting something as eloquently as we would like when the reality is that this House is placing them in a situation which is untenable for them to be able to complete their job with that incredibly short report-back time.

So I think those are all of the procedural elements that I wish to raise on this bill, but I would just reiterate that I would urge the Government and Ministers to reconsider a longer report-back time. As members have said, we do actually support the content of this bill but we’re in a situation where we’ve had urgency—there is a select committee process here, but it’s not long enough. I don’t think we should start with no select committee and then think, “Oh, aren’t we so happy, we’ve got nine days.” We actually should start by looking at the procedure as it’s outlined in Standing Orders and the Standing Orders that we always usually look to like Standing Order 303 and working back from there, not starting on the basis of no select committee.

I move, That the motion be amended by adding the words “but not on Saturdays, despite any Standing Order to the contrary.”

I move this amendment because I am aware that good legislative practice requires the full attention of members, and this Government has been pressing us rather hard. It’s under Standing Orders: committees can in fact meet at any time, other than when the House is sitting, and under Standing Order 48, which talks about the House—I’m assuming that extends to committees not meeting on a Sunday. So what we have, by this instruction, is the ability for the chair of this committee, the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, to call a meeting at any time, including a Friday after the House has sat, which, under the select committee Standing Orders, is set aside, essentially, as a day of pause, perhaps for constituency work. But not only that, it could also, under the general Standing Orders, call a meeting for the Saturday. Whilst you might still set Sunday aside for a day of rest, it is my contention that given the fact that, for example, we’ll more likely than not be sitting to midnight on Wednesday night and sitting extensively on Thursday, the committee will then also quite likely be sitting on Friday, notwithstanding that it is a sitting week, and then quite possibly Saturday. That’s just not good legislative practice—not only that but it’s actually not good for the health and wellbeing of parliamentarians.

So I have moved this amendment—and I won’t speak to it for a great deal longer—for, essentially, both those bases: so that the quality of scrutiny given to this piece of legislation is up to the standard that the New Zealand public can deserve, so that members of Parliament can have some respite from their legislative duties and come back to it fresh, at the appropriate time.

Now, I gave a nod when perhaps I shouldn’t have, because this motion as tabled does not in fact extend the time, but I would suggest that if the House is happy with this amendment—and I hope it is. I have never been to a select committee that met on a Saturday, but, then again, I’ve never been through a period of urgency such as this Government has imposed upon us.

As my colleague Megan Woods said, this bill is substantive and important. It’s closely linked to our climate goals—emissions deserve the full scrutiny of the select committee. How are we going to truncate that into the period of time—nine days, I believe—that we have without sitting in truly extraordinary circumstances such as sitting on a Saturday, I don’t know.

So my amendment is a very brief one. I would suggest that when the leader of the House, or Ministers in charge of legislation come to these select committee instructions, it would be appropriate not only to say, “We can include this” but also to rule out days such as Saturday, to rule out meeting after 6 p.m. on a non-sitting week, when people are in their constituencies, perhaps, and try and have some family time. Show that we can achieve both those objectives: the objective of good quality legislative scrutiny, not scrutiny by exhaustion, and also looking after our members so that they can return to their important legislative tasks and their important constituency tasks with the appropriate degree of energy and attention.

So I won’t trouble the House any longer with debate on that amendment, but I do hope that the Minister will seriously consider it. It would be extraordinary to sit on a Saturday, and it’s not really much of an ask for the Minister and the Government to rule that out on that amendment.

Kia orana. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do want to take a call on this referral motion.

Can I thank my colleague the Hon Dr Duncan Webb for tabling an amendment. What I take from his contribution is that he has done so within the context of the House currently sitting under urgency—something that members of this House are becoming very familiar with, unfortunately—but also that the ability for the select committee perhaps to fully scrutinise in a way that is appropriate would be better served by, effectively, this House issuing, as part of an instruction of the referral, a requirement for the select committee to not sit on a Saturday. Whilst that might improve the referral motion, I still have some fundamental concerns about the very short time frame that this bill is seeking to have in front of a select committee. I did touch on that in my contribution earlier and did indicate that I would be seeking a call to speak to that later.

The House is in a circumstance at the moment where it will, as we understand it, sit in urgency. It’ll sit through till midnight tomorrow after commencing at 9 a.m. in the morning, with the possibility of Thursday and, who knows, possibly into Friday. Now, my colleague Dr Webb talks about the wellbeing of parliamentarians, and I think that is a very salient point: that there would be members of this Parliament who would then potentially roll into a Saturday to hear submissions in a rather discrete period of time. So I’m supportive of Dr Webb’s tabled amendment because it basically will allow for a committee, if it is a nine-day period still, to still use its time more effectively. I think, actually, members of the public would think that’s the same view.

I also make the point that the House is in urgency. Part of the urgency motion that the Minister moved is the repeal of the Auckland regional fuel tax. Members of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee no doubt will be involved with that particular item. So, again, it’s not simply about members re-diverting their attention from being in the House or being in select committee, but the nature of items that have formed part of the urgency motion are such that there are dual responsibilities to members on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. Certainly, while members may be subbed off, as a member of that committee myself, I would like to hear the submissions that are presented; those who will avail themselves of even a truncated period of time to speak to the submissions, to raise the issues and the concerns.

So while I am supportive of Dr Webb’s tabled amendment, I still think that the nine days in total is still completely inadequate and unsatisfactory. So, on the one hand, certainly support the amendment, but the substantive motion still is significantly deficient. Because we are talking about a piece of potential legislation, as my colleague Camilla Belich touched on, involves primary legislation. Not only that, it includes secondary legislation, and that it also inserts some new schedules as well. And that happens from time to time: members opposite; members on this side of the House will know that.

But by allowing a simple nine-day window for these matters to be addressed and actually for people to get organised and to submit to the process, I think, is shutting the door on these individuals. Let’s remember that this is a bill that, yes, the Minister earlier talked about had been signalled by the former Government. This is a Government that has decided to leave it very, very late in the piece towards its 100th day—that’s what the Minister indicated in terms of his explanation earlier this afternoon.

But this is also something that has only recently come to the attention of the House that it’s going to be on the Order Paper in terms of being dealt with under urgency. Now, that means there are people out in the community who will not have known that this was actually something that is going to be scrutinised by the Parliament. Yes, there’s an argument for saying, “Well, you know, things were due to expire at the end of March.”, but there are people out in the community who undoubtedly will not know. Actually, even with a nine-day period of select committee—where usually it’s months, as we know—this will probably go through that process of “the House is of that view” and still there will be people who would have liked to have submitted on this bill who will not have even known that it’s actually made its way through the House or to a select committee.

So to say that we’re going to refer this for nine days is completely inadequate. The only explanation that we have heard in this House as to why the nine days is related to the 100-day plan for this Government. That is the only reason.

Camilla Belich: Arbitrary.

TANGI UTIKERE: Now—it is arbitrary. So surely there are opportunities that need to be made available.

I want to just note that the departmental disclosure statement that I have touched on previously—there is a lot, I think, being relied on the fact that there was public consultation back in 2022. A lot has happened since 2022, and there might be individuals outside of some of these particular freight and trucking sectors where this is what it said: most submissions were received from the freight and trucking sectors. Now, there will be people like my constituent who sent an email through to me recently, who indicated that, actually, he doesn’t mind having to pay a road-user charge for his electric vehicle but he has real concerns about the weight variance. And this is the absolute mechanism by which those concerns would be aired. Now, my concern is that by, effectively, truncating that period, you are shutting off the opportunity for many to want to be able to contribute.

So I won’t go on any longer except to say that I think Dr Webb’s tabled amendment is a sensible one in the circumstances. But that certainly, in my view, does not override the unfortunate circumstance that the substantive motion of nine days’ referral to the select committee is currently before the House.

In the absence of any other speakers, I will go to the question. The question is that the motion be amended by adding the words “but not on Saturdays, despite any Standing Order to the contrary.”

I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Legal Services Amendment Bill.