Land Transport Management (Time of Use Charging) Amendment Bill

Members, we come now to our final debate—clauses 1 and 2, title and commencement.

Thank you, Mr Chair. My questions relate to clause 2, which is in relation to the commencement. What is pretty clear here is that it is proposed that the Act would come into play on the first anniversary of it receiving Royal assent—12 months after that.

Now, my recollection from the select committee is that we didn’t really have much conversation or discussion around this. I don’t think there’s much in the report around this. Obviously, there’s a desire across the Parliament to have this legislation in place, but my question is around the timeliness and the suitability of having it as a 12-month, first anniversary kick-in. There is actually quite a lot of content in this bill that relates to some of the preparatory stuff and steps that would be undertaken. I guess there’s nothing to informally prevent some local councils or others thinking about what might kick into play when this bill comes into place.

My question to the Minister is very simply: does he believe that the 12-month provision, or the first anniversary of Royal assent, is appropriate? Usually that’s the case when there are certain steps that need to be taken. A lot of the steps that are being outlined in the bill are steps that could be done as soon as Royal assent is actually given, rather than having a period of time before that, effectively, gets under way.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I do have a similar question to the previous speaker Tangi Utikere, but, I think, from a different perspective. In Part 1 of this bill, people have talked a lot in terms of the consultation mechanism, and so there is a pertinent question of whether 12 months is sufficient when we’re looking at the ability to bring this bill into effect. I guess that the question, again, is: what happens if some of the regional authorities haven’t quite managed to finish some of the processes and some of the consultation? Particularly, I’m thinking of some of the areas that potentially have more challenging relationships with what is potentially the board, or the scheme, or the mechanism that is being defined here—and I’m thinking of some of the recent challenges we’ve been seeing in terms of Auckland Transport.

That’s kind of my first question, I think, and another question, if the Minister wouldn’t mind responding and just kind of indulging me a little bit, is this. I’m curious to know why in some bills we see commencement dates coming into force one year after Royal assent, and, like in this case, it says that it’s the “first anniversary”. What is the difference between 12 months, or one year, and the first anniversary? That’s just my own—

Hon David Seymour: It’s about the same thing.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: It’s the same, but why word it differently, then?

Laura McClure: Oh, come on—do better than that.

Dr LAWRENCE XU-NAN: Oh, I feel like, as lawmakers, we ought to care in terms of wording, and generally, I think, for many of us, we all should have a little bit of curiosity. Again, I will be taking that in mind the next time we have a members’ day, because I feel that we do allow for a much broader conversation during the committee stage when you’re looking at any bill, and I don’t see why one side of the House should be treated differently from the other side of the House.

If the Minister wouldn’t mind responding—that wasn’t the crux of my question. The crux of my question is whether 12 months is sufficient, but also what then happens if it’s insufficient? At the same time, some of the mechanisms we see here in this bill—it talks about reviews. I say to the Minister, thank you for answering my previous question around it being by Order in Council, but it also mentions that that particular thing would give a specific deadline as well. How, then, do those deadlines interact with the commencement date of one—sorry, not one year, but the first anniversary of the Royal assent? Those are my three questions.

Just before I call the Minister, I presume that the member wasn’t accusing the Chair, or any Chair, of treating one side differently from the other. I presume that he was saying that members treat each other differently and expectations differently? I take—

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: I do agree.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): —it that that’s what he really meant.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan: Yes, thank you, Mr Chair. I wholeheartedly agree with you.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Thank you for clarifying that.

Mr Chair, thank you. My understanding is that the particular phrasing used in the commencement date is the preferred phrasing provided by the drafters of the legislation to indicate a 12-month or a one-year or a first anniversary after the Royal assent.

Now, the reason for that length of time, to Mr Utikere’s question, is to allow for sufficient time both for, I guess, local authorities to prepare for what this might look like in their area but also to allow for a series of regulations to be developed and put into place prior to the commencement date. Then, of course, once the bill comes into force, that will trigger the ability for those entities, councils, and enforcement agencies to start thinking about how a particular scheme might come into place. Then there are consultation requirements and the establishment of boards and all those things that come into force after then. A year is a sufficient amount of time, we think, for people to prepare for the appropriate regulations to be passed. Then, once the bill is in force, there will be some time before a scheme is implemented, because there are those public consultation requirements and the actual practical implementation of it to go into place as well.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment.