Immigration (Fiscal Sustainability and System Integrity) Amendment Bill

Members, we come now to Part 2, the debate on clauses 55 and 56, which are “Amendments relating to fiscal sustainability”. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Thank you, Mr Chair. To start with, Part 2 is equally important to Part 1 because it’s actually half of the title of this bill, which is “fiscal sustainability”.

My first question to the Minister of Immigration is regarding the advice, in a broader picture, from the Regulations Review Committee, particularly when it comes to the levy-setting component of this. Now, as you know, in terms of how we look at levies and the difference between levies, fees, and tax, there are very specific criteria. Broadly speaking, considering some of the things that are going to be touched on in this bill, I wondered if the Minister would consider my amendment, which doesn’t actually change much but simply calls this section for what it is—that it’s not actually a levy, but a bill.

Hon Erica Stanford: What number?

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Ah, yes—very good question, thank you Minister. It is 8.40.35.

The reason I want to raise it as a broader thing—and then we can get into the details of it—is that levies are usually used specifically for the operations of a particular agency in order for them to ensure that there are checks and balances and all ends meet. What we are seeing in this section, and I want to draw attention—and other people will be able to speak to some of the specifics, but, for example, I want to draw the committee’s attention to new paragraph 399AB(2)(a), which is for “the operation of, the public health and education systems”.

The other reason I’m asking the Minister’s support on this clarification between a levy and a tax is that levies are usually also within the general responsibility of the Minister in charge, which usually extends to a particular agency, but not so much in terms of what is being asked here. The Minister, for example, as far as I’m aware—and the Minister may correct us—the Minister of Immigration, who oversees the levy and the immigration levy and Immigration New Zealand, is not the Minister who is in charge of the “infrastructure required for, or operation of, the public health and education systems”. It’s a technical aspect. It’s based on a definition, but it’s a very important definition in the general process, and this is something that if you seek advice from the Controller and Auditor-General, you will find similar advice between levy, fee, and tax.

The first thing I want to ask the Minister is whether the Minister will support my amendment to change “immigration levies” to “immigration taxes”.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I know my colleague the Hon Phil Twyford will have some questions regarding what this levy does specifically. We do support it, in terms of sharing the burden, but my very different question is: what is not in Part 2, relating to the levy, based on the amendment that the Minister of Immigration dropped today? While we accept the changes around electronic monitoring, there are going to be additional costs to the immigration system, and as Lawrence Xu-Nan has said, levies, by definition, have to relate specifically to the purpose that they are created for. It’s very clear in this bill that they are to fund education and health and to operationalise those. That’s very explicit, and it seems like this is quite a separate kind of immigration matter to what we’ve previously been speaking about. Yet we have had changes now—good changes—made to the system regarding mass arrivals, where electronic monitoring, which is a fairly cost-effective way of dealing with people, will be limited. But we haven’t heard anything from the Minister about what the risk mitigation will be for that, and what the funding arrangements will be.

When we’re looking at the costings, the question I have for the Minister is: whether she has conducted a cost-benefit impact assessment on the changes, including costs to immigration, now that she has tabled that amendment? Because that’s something that we have not had time to consider, and it wouldn’t have been at select committee—that’s particularly with the restrictions to electronic monitoring, and considering, also, the additional costs to policing and other things that are going to happen as a result. They are very broad. They are definitely not the subject of what we would expect a levy for. But my question is: if we’re going to look at the totality of the immigration system with these changes, is this the right vehicle? Should there be something in this bill, which includes mass arrivals, to indicate how the Minister is planning to pay for the fiscals on that and, also, the affordability and the sources of revenue for the alternative methodologies, now that we know that electronic monitoring won’t be available?

Just for those who are watching at home, we know that levies need to be certain, they need to be simple, they need to be neutral, and they need to be flexible. Certainly, we can see that, and I know that my colleague the Hon Phil Twyford will have some questions around how they apply to the employment situation. But my broader question, if you like, is: what is missing from this? The part itself does say “Amendments relating to fiscal sustainability”, and I read that as meaning fiscal sustainability of the whole system. How are we going to pay for the mass-arrivals changes previously, if not by a levy? Are we going to apply the tyranny of silos and put policing and other costs elsewhere, or is there going to be a proper costing done that looks at the totality? Then how are we going to pay for those additional measures?

The member Ingrid Leary kind of answered her own question in her speech. Essentially, as she rightly points out, we are broadening the levy base in immigration, because, at the moment, we only are able to levy the people who are applying for a visa. We are unable to apply levies to employers, for example, who are other people who get direct benefits from the immigration system but who aren’t contributing towards it. This is exactly what this part does: it broadens it out so that if things like the mass arrivals or the electronic monitoring or any other running of the immigration system which is a defined cost and is set out is able to be contributed to by a much broader base of people and not just the migrants themselves. That’s in answer to that question.

Responding to Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, the levy sets out a finite set of purposes that the levy can be charged for to specific groups. This makes it not aligned with a tax, which is very broad. The provision is carefully drafted so that it is not a broad tax but a very clear levy set out for a finite set of purposes.

Thank you so much, Mr Chair. I do have an amendment 23.20.09. This is in relation to tightening what these levies can be used for so that it is only for the immigration system, and I wanted to understand if the Minister of Immigration would be in support of it. I had some questions in relation to clause 56, new section 399AB, on page 40 and on subsection (2)(a), which is the intent of the wording in relationship to this—and to note that we don’t support this, but at least it’s good that the Minister has clarified that it’s public health and education systems; so “public”. But the language around infrastructure does not specify that it’s public infrastructure, right? So can I just get the clarification of the intent—whether the Minister could foresee these levies being used to fund public-private partnerships, for example, and to contribute to the costs of those. That is important because, effectively, by not clarifying the types of infrastructure more broadly, it leaves a bit of a lack of clarity in the language of it. I’m just concerned around the scope of just kind of keeping it so broad when it comes to the language of infrastructure. Clarification around that would be useful.

The other question I had was, in clause 56, new section 399AB(2)(a)(i) in relation to that, which is in the specification of funding specialist teachers, school property, teacher training, or learning support. This makes an assumption that all migrants use the education system, but can I just ask whether, for example, if you’ve got a single adult coming here who may not be coming on a student visa, may just be choosing to work, may not be pursuing education at any point in their life, as to whether they should also be required to pay a levy to contribute to the education system; or is it only the intent to then target specific visa holders that may be deemed to be using the education system more broadly?

I would also be keen—my third question is in relation to clause 56, new section 399AB(2)(b) in relationship to employers. Now, what work has the Minister done or sought reassurances from industry bodies of employers that there may not be a level of, I guess, lowering of wage growth as a result of the provisions in here? I’ve seen that the Minister has obviously tweaked around some of the wage requirements for visa holders coming here and not all, actually, visa holders have conditions on their visa that require them to be in jobs that they earn a specific amount of wage. Now, what reassurances can the Minister give us that employers may not use these provisions on clause 56, new section 399AB(2)(b,) and as a result of them contributing levies to justify paying lower wages to migrant workers and, therefore, suppressing wages for migrant workers and locals more broadly as a result of those additional costs? If she’s able to provide us some reassurances from industry bodies that this will not happen, that will be useful.

It is a requirement that employers are paying a wage that is commiserate with industry standards for the skill of the person who is being employed—our immigration officers are always checking that. I would also note that we’ve just had a fee review, where we’ve raised fees and have not seen any evidence of the fact that employers are reducing wages to somehow make up for a small fee increase. But built into the immigration system is that when we are looking at an application for someone coming into the country who is, for example, going to be a painter and has a certain amount of experience and skill, we are always looking to make sure that they are being paid at a rate that is commiserate with their skill and experience. There is something built into the system there, but we’ve not seen any evidence, when we’ve done our fee reviews recently, of an increasing fees to employers of, for example, job checks—or when we’re asking employers to be accredited, we’ve not seen any evidence, or I’ve not been provided with any evidence, that wages have gone down as a result of that.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I think it’s fair to say that Labour was intrigued by these provisions, and we remain so—somewhat agnostic about them but willing to go along, really, in support of the principle that if costs can be spread more fairly, then all the better.

I wanted to just ask for the Minister of Immigration’s response to a number of submitters—I remember the Employers and Manufacturers Association particularly—pointing out that the kinds of levies that one would anticipate from these provisions would very likely create the perception of double-dipping by the Government—seeking cost recovery through these new levies for things that are fully funded by tax revenue, including the taxes paid by existing migrants, without necessarily any expansion of services.

They also asked, I remember—well, they expressed the view that they would feel penalised for going to the cost and bother of recruiting someone on a temporary work visa from overseas, because the education system that is funded by our taxes here in New Zealand is not producing the kind of skilled workers that they need.

I ask the Minister to respond to that. I think the implication of that question or that concern was that these levies, if not implemented in the right way, could really negatively affect the social licence and public support for the immigration programme.

Dealing with those two things: look, there are considerable costs that are worn by the system that are potentially not accounted for. Remember, setting up the ability to have additional levies on different people, like employers, doesn’t necessarily mean that it will be done, and it means there will have to be a process of a fee and levy review in regulations.

I want to make the point that there are significant costs that fall on our system. If you think about education—I’m putting my other hat on for a moment—we have significant costs, for example, in learning support for migrants who have children who have additional learning support needs. The amount of tax payable in, say, the three to five years that the person is here and potentially using services like teacher-aides or speech language therapists or educational psychologists and the like is something that we want to be able to consider accounting for in levies. These clauses are just giving us the ability to be able to consider that.

I think Mr Twyford probably answered his own question in the second part when he talked about the fact that the education system was potentially not providing the skilled workers that these employers were asking for. Part of this bill is actually saying that we would like to be able to set or pay for, or have employers levied to directly pay for, the upskilling of Kiwis into roles so that they don’t have to employ migrants from overseas. Currently, they are enjoying the benefit of the skilled person from overseas, and the question here is whether or not we should be levying to make sure that we are able to fund education services to upskill New Zealanders into those roles.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to continue. I want to be getting into some of the specific clauses of Part 2. I want to start with replacement section 399(1), inserted by clause 55, and specifically around replacement section 399(1)(c), “education providers that are signatory providers within the meaning of section 10”.

Now, I want to check with the Minister of Immigration in terms of a couple of things. Number one: what is the revenue that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment is currently getting from the export education levy (EEL) already? Because, as the Minister would know, under the relevant regulations, those who are registered are already being charged 0.8 percent of the levy for a tuition fee for a student and those who are unregistered are being charged at 0.5 percent. I used to work at an international school where I had to pay export education levies every year all the time. Under this new requirement, in terms of the immigration levy, would, then, institutes who accept international students be double levied, so the new immigration levy plus the EEL? That’s my first question on that. I think that’s an important clarification, particularly for schools that accept international students and private training establishments that accept international students, as well as tertiary institutes.

In terms of the other thing that the Minister has said, and one of the things that we are noticing as well is schools—and the Minister may have an idea as well that schools often do bring in international students in order to supplement their operational fund and be able to do more things for the schools and for all of their students. If they’re being levied and then the levy is being used as part of the education system, would the school have any guarantee that some of the levies that are put towards it will also come back to them, or will it be something that is more evenly distributed to other ones?

My third question to the Minister is around what the Minister said before in terms of how you’re going to have people here who potentially are on a work visa with children who have additional needs who may be using learning access or a variety of forms of learning access. But I just want to check with the Minister, surely if you’re here and you’re working, you’re paying taxes anyway, and people who are paying taxes as PAYE are already contributing towards the kind of core facilities and infrastructure that a taxpaying person would be eligible for. Therefore, their child, regardless of whether they have paid an additional levy or not, should be able to access the same thing as anyone else who pays the same amount of tax, because it’s not like people who are on a work visa are paying lower tax than people who are permanent residents, etc.

I just want to check what the Minister means when the Minister has just referred to those additional things, or if the Minister can give examples of people who are here who are not paying taxes that contribute towards the public health and education systems.

Thank you so much, Mr Chair. I just wanted to move on to subsection (6) within clause 56, new section 399AB. This is the one that allows the Minister to, by special direction, “(a) exempt any person or class of persons from the obligation to pay all or part of the levy; or (b) refund all or part of a levy paid.” Now, can the Minister of Immigration, please, reassure us that her intention is not to include applicants of the migrant exploitation protection visa when it comes to this levy or people who are applying for the family violence visa as well as part of this levy?

Now, there are some visas that people have to access as a result of, well, tragedy and hardship that people experience. I think the powers that this levy grants the Minister are pretty broad. I don’t remember her giving us explicit clarification and reassurances that some of those visas that are for people who are finding themselves in particularly vulnerable situations will be exempt from having to contribute to those. I noted that this is a line that could allow the Minister to, basically, exempt people—part of these powers. I think it would be good for the Minister right now to give us that reassurance in relationship to the powers that the Minister is given.

Now, one of the subsequent questions, following up on my colleague Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan, is also, as part of the signing of this part, whether she sought advice to allow her to have a picture as to whether migrants in the medium term’s contributions through tax towards education and health are greater than the resources they utilise. I have seen some documents showing that migrants are actually net contributors to the tax base due to the fact that they can’t access things like welfare and things like other public services while they are working. The reason why I ask this is that it is concerning to be building this narrative that somehow migrants, compared to the general population, utilise or extract more resources from the public system, as opposed to what we have seen in some papers in relation to migrants actually contributing to a greater degree to the tax base than they take as a result of the utilisation of public services. To me, that puts into question the justification and this narrative that we have heard that, somehow, migrants need to contribute an additional level of resourcing for these systems—so whether she sought any advice or analysis on the kind of contribution versus intake of public services from migrants.

The second question which I referred to earlier is: which groups of visas has she already pre-emptively chosen to exclude—for example, migrant exploitation protection visa or people who are experiencing family violence?

Just running through that, currently exempt from levies are people who are applying for domestic violence visas, refugees, and migrant exploitation visas. These exemptions already exist currently for levies. As we work through the fee and levy review and go through the regulations, then further exemptions would be considered at that time, and that’s what the bill sets up the ability to do.

I just want to make it really clear that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment doesn’t receive any of the export education levy, it is for a completely different purpose under a different Act, and is, as I think the member knows, for quite a different, separate purpose, not for helping to contribute to the costs and broadening the base—contributing to the costs of running the immigration system.

The second part of this, the levy that we are considering and putting the vehicle into this bill, if we were to levy for different purposes outside of what we do now—like health or education, for example—a levy must fund specific purposes, like specialist teachers, teacher training, or learning support, for example. Just to the previous speaker’s point, we already, under the Immigration Act and under the levy, have the ability to levy for things like English as a second language funding, so we already do that because we acknowledge that it is a direct cost mostly borne out by migrants. But what we’re acknowledging in this bill is that there are more costs that should be directly payable, to a proportion, through a levy by migrants. That is because they are here for a shorter period of time, and as I’ve already mentioned, they must be for specific purposes that are directly linked to those people. That’s why it’s very clearly set out that there has to be a relationship there.

Thank you, Mr Chair, and really appreciating the Minister of Immigration’s engagement with these quite important questions. I have to put it on the record that I was approached by the international students at Otago University about a year and a half ago, who are really concerned at the jump in fees for them to be able to study at Otago. So while we cautiously support this idea of spreading the fee load, I’m concerned that we might end up with a two-tier system where we have employers who are able to afford and support students, or if students are in a particularly advantaged situation because it is clear that somehow their fees will be more affordable, whereas other students will not be able to do that. So just seeking an assurance, really, that we’re not going to be creating subclasses of migrants who are really feeling the pinch from these fees and levies.

Well, they’re levies and they pay university fees, but I do take the Minister’s point that there are costs involved with manaaki-ing people into New Zealand. The Minister herself brought into the debate and talked about the fact that the wider costings borne by the immigration system are not captured within this. We do have the wording in Part 2, “fiscal sustainability”. What we haven’t seen or heard from the Minister is what the fiscals are for the new mass arrivals regime. I am sure, given the duration of time that this has been considered across Parliament, including by Ministers under the previous Labour Government, that setting up what a mass arrivals scheme would look like and the impact of that on immigration, on airport operational capacity, on the cultural training and safety that might be needed for enforcement officers, for the ability to use information and data to track the 24-hour time frame to see whether there is something that qualifies as a mass arrival. Then also there are processes needed to be able to efficiently deal with people if there were, I think, 30-something people coming in at one time.

There must be costings on that, and I’d really like to know from the Minister, since she did raise herself that this is a broader systems cost that is not contained in the levy—it would be good to know what the cost to the taxpayer is. I really appreciate the fact that it’s not going to be pushed into this levy and that we’re not suddenly seeing an expansion of powers that extend it from operationalising health and education and then going to mass arrivals. But she has talked about broadening it further. We don’t really know what that broadening means. The Minister has talked about particular educational things that might be included, but there must be some specificity, I think. I know the Minister draws on education because she has that portfolio and knowledge, and also immigration, but I’m really curious to know—and for the Hansard—what does she foresee as the benefit of broadening those powers?

Then, secondly, where are the fiscals, or can she share with this committee the costs of the mass arrivals? I’m assuming that the cost of doing this well is going to be, ultimately, a huge cost savings for taxpayers. But I will remind you that the Minister did mention that herself, and that’s why I’m asking, because under Part 2, when we’re talking about sustainability, we’ve got this wedged into two very different parts of an immigration question. We want to take a systems approach and it would be good to understand the fiscals for both of them.

It’s a very nice try from the member, but she raised mass arrivals, not me. I’ve made the broad point that in order to run the immigration system we need to levy. There will be costs that fall. In the fee and levy review and in regulations that we set, those will be taken into account. It’s actually irrelevant to Part 2.

Also, if the member wants to know the direct benefits of the proposed levy, I suggest she looks at clause 56 inserting new section 399AB, “Extended immigration levy”, because it’s laid out in subsection (2) quite clearly.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I had a question in relation to the provisions in new section 399AC, inserted by clause 56, which we haven’t touched on yet. This is in relation to: “Before recommending the making of regulations for the purposes of section 399AB, the Minister must consult any persons and organisations the Minister considers appropriate,”. Now, I understand that obviously this is left broad enough for any Minister of any Government to do this consultation, but has the Minister already set out, or sought advice on, who she foresees will be the organisations and the people that she intends to consult with? Would she be able to give some clarity on, and put on the record, the range of bodies that she will look to consult—for example, will unions be part of that; which industry bodies will she be prioritising; and when it comes to persons, is it going to be sort of like immigration lawyers, experts, etc.? I think some clarity over that would be useful.

I think, particularly, in the context of the public trust being tested, in relation to who Governments choose to consult with in relation to policy design, it would be good to put it on the record. If she hasn’t done any work in relation to the provisions of new section 399AC or hasn’t lined up any organisations or people, I can accept that, and it would be good to have that clarified as well.

I wanted to ask whether—or why—there aren’t any, by the looks of it, reporting requirements—and I know that we could potentially get them through Official Information Act requests—but who she is consulting with and, kind of, a bit of an explanation as to why she may have included some organisations and bodies compared to others. I’m just keen to also get the Minister’s clarification on this.

I wanted to follow up on the previous engagement, and I thank the Minister around her engagement on the exclusion of some of the visa categories that are specifically for vulnerable people. She did not necessarily give a commitment that some of these visas would be excluded; it’s just something that would be looked into—which takes me to my colleague Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment 8.40.36, which specifies victims of family violence resident visa, refugee family support resident visa, dependent child resident visa, trafficking victim resident visa, and any other refugee, vulnerable person, or protective person visa categories.

Now, I know that the Minister already talked about the interaction with some of the other regulation-making powers that exist in the current legislation that we have. But without giving us an explicit reassurance that some of these visas will be excluded right now, it’s hard for us to have faith that some of these won’t be captured. We’re happy to rescind that amendment if the Minister is able to give us that reassurance that those visas won’t be captured, as opposed to just letting us know that she’ll look at it at some point. Because I don’t think that gives certainty to people who often are in extremely precarious situations that they may not be burdened by additional costs.

I particularly raise this because for people on the migrant exploitation protection work visa, even just the cost of applying for those visas can be a bit of a barrier, and additional costs, through this levy, could end up becoming a disincentive for people to report exploitation, if they know that they could be burdened with additional costs.

Finally, my other question is in relation to how the Minister would foresee decisions on how the funding that is acquired through the levy would be distributed between infrastructure, public health, and education? Particularly, I wanted to seek guidance and clarification from the Minister as to whether she would see the distribution of those funds between those three entities that are noted as part of a budget process, or whether she’s got any sort of clarification as to how she foresees those three bodies that are being named, in terms of decision making, when it comes to the distribution of those three. I would appreciate the Minister’s engagement. But, particularly, the one I care the most about is the one on new section 399AC, which we haven’t touched on.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Thank you, Mr Chair. And just a very quick question from me and it’s a new point which is really around section 399AC, in clause 56, where we can see in subsection (2), “At intervals of no more than 5 years following the commencement of this section, the Department must review the amount and method of calculation of any extended immigration levy.”

I’m keen to understand why it’s five years. I know that’s quite an ordinary drafting time frame, but it’s a pretty fluid situation at the moment with the cost of living. We have seen big rises in immigration fees, as I mentioned, for international students who are really concerned.

Would it be fairer to reduce that amount and make it annual or perhaps every two years, especially taking into account the impact of the levy on those who are applying for visas? We don’t see any weighting in the way the bill is currently drafted that really prioritises them, and therefore there is a real risk that in terms of these levies, along with the increasing cost of living, the rules just roll over and they’re not fit for purpose for the context.

Would it be useful for the Minister to consider a shorter time frame? Did she actually consider other time frames or was this just put into the bill because it happens to reflect something that already existed in the previous bill?

In relation to that last part, it’s not in scope of the bill, so it wasn’t something that we considered.

Can I just answer the questions relating to the previous speaker. Firstly, in terms of what the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment spends in terms of those levies, it will be reported on exactly what is collected and then how the money is distributed. So there is accountability in the system. I just will make the point that the migrant exploitation visa is free. There are no costs for it. So while the member is concerned that it might increase by a certain percentage, it’s a free visa. But I’ve already made the point that any extensions to the levy base will be considered through regulations and the fee and levy review. But all of those things are currently exempted.

Now, in terms of clause 56, new section 399AC that the member talked about, essentially, the people who we are going to consult, as you would expect, are the people who are affected. It will be made public by Immigration New Zealand, who has been consulted with.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I actually have a really short question, and if the Minister of Immigration will just nod, that is sufficient for me. Thank you to the Minister for responding to the question around export education levies, but one of the things we didn’t hear from the Minister is: does that mean that education providers will be double levied—one for education export levy and one for this? That’s all.

They’re two completely different levies. One is in a completely different Act and is for a completely different purpose. It is, essentially, an insurance scheme for when an education provider falls over. To protect our reputation, we pay back the fees of the impacted students. It is a completely separate thing in a completely different Act. The member shouldn’t conflate the two. This is a completely different proposal to broaden the levy base to people who are benefiting from the immigration system, like export education providers, and like employers who currently might pay a fee, like an employer, but do not pay a levy.

Now, if we want to broaden this and have a more fair system, and, in answer to previous question, maybe reduce the levies that we currently levy on migrants, then we need to have a broader base. It is fair and reasonable to expect that people who are benefiting from the immigration system should be equally charged a levy so that they can, essentially, pay for the benefits that they are currently getting but are not contributing towards.

The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment deleting clause 55 be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 55 and 56 be agreed to.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 56, new section 399AA, be agreed to.

The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendments to clause 56, amending the heading and deleting new section 399AB and 399AC, be agreed to.

The question is that Ricardo Menéndez March’s tabled amendment to clause 56, new section 399AB(2)(a), be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 56, new section 399AB, inserting new subsection (4A), be agreed to.

The question is that Vanushi Walters’ tabled amendment to clause 56, new section 399AB(8), inserting new paragraphs (c) and (d), be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Phil Twyford’s tabled amendment to clause 56, new section 399AB, to insert new subsection (10), be agreed to.

The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the lunch break. The committee will resume at 2 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 12.57 p.m. to 2 p.m.

Part 2A Amendment relating to repeals, transitional provisions, saving provisions, and related matters