edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
3. Question No. 3—FinanceTIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato) to the Minister of FinanceQuestion No. 3—Finance3. TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato) to the Minister of Finance: What changes come into effect on 1 July?Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: Next week New Zealanders can expect after six years of struggle some relief to their back pockets. A number of promises the coalition Government campaigned on will be delivered next week. These changes will be good news for Kiwis who are sick of being punished for daring to drive a car in Auckland or owning a home and there will be good news for parents who have been slammed by the cost of living crisis.Tim van de Molen: What benefits will parents see from next week?Hon CHRIS BISHOP: On behalf of the Minister of Finance from next Monday we're putting more money in the back pockets of Kiwi parents to give them extra support to take precious time off to bond with their newborns. The maximum weekly rate for paid parental leave will increase from $712.17 to $754.87 gross per week. We know many families are struggling with high costs including childcare. That's why starting next week families with young children will be supported with a partial reimbursement of early childhood education (ECE) fees. Through our FamilyBoost scheme families can claim up to 25 percent of their ECE fees to a maximum of $150 per fortnight. This is a major coalition campaign commitment and forms part of our overall tax plan.Tim van de Molen: What do Aucklanders have to look forward to next week?Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well on behalf of the Minister of Finance from next week this Government will be ending the Auckland regional fuel tax. This will make Auckland motorists 11.5c per litre better off and in difficult times that is a significant saving. Despite abolishing this tax we are delivering a record investment in transport including in Auckland with money set aside to fix and prevent potholes on the State highway and local road network and funding for public transport services increasing compared to the last three years.Tim van de Molen: What do homeowners have to look forward to next week?Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Well the tax relief keeps on coming. Brightline tests for residential property goes back to two years on 1 July ending the previous Government's stealth capital gains tax. Of course from 31 July just the end of next month more than 1.9 million Kiwi households will benefit on average by $60 per fortnight when our personal income tax relief package comes into effect.
2. Question No. 2—JusticeHANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato) to the Minister of JusticeQuestion No. 2—Justice2. HANA-RAWHITI MAIPI-CLARKE (Te Pāti Māori—Hauraki-Waikato) to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by his statements and actions?Hon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): on behalf of the Minister of Justice: Yes. I particularly stand by my statement yesterday that the Government is reforming sentencing to ensure criminals face serious consequences for crime and victims are prioritised.Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: What role does he believe Te Tiriti o Waitangi plays in the criminal justice system?Hon NICOLE McKEE: On behalf of the Minister of Justice I believe that the Treaty of Waitangi does play some part in our everyday lives. However what's more important is that New Zealand society as a whole is protected from serious violent crime and with the latest New Zealand crime survey results coming out and telling us that there were 1.88 million victims of crime last year in New Zealand the focus actually needs to be on protecting our communities as a whole.Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke: How then can he justify the removal of Te Tiriti o Waitangi provisions from legislation especially from legislation that has been designed to address breaches of Te Tiriti within the criminal justice system?Hon NICOLE McKEE: On behalf of the Minister of Justice the focus is on our communities and our victims of crime. We will justify any improvements that we can make to legislation to ensure that our communities are safe.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister if the brightest legal mind in the Māori world back then Sir Apirana Ngata who got a law degree in two years flat—a record for any legal student in this country—did not believe that it had a connection why would somebody with no training think there was one?Hon NICOLE McKEE: On behalf of the Minister of Justice I think what we need to do is actually come back to the core responsibility of this Government to protect our communities to make sure that our victims are recognised and to lock up those serious criminals who have no respect for the law for New Zealand or for victims.
Therapeutic Products Act Repeal Bill — First Reading
Uffindell Sam; Kuriger BarbaraSAM UFFINDELL (National—Tauranga): What a pleasure it is to listen to my friend Todd Stephenson over there—that was very good. Hey look this piece of legislation at its first reading fulfils a coalition agreement between National and New Zealand First. We're repealing the Therapeutic Products Act. Later this year we will get together and we will consider proposals for fit for purpose legislation. We will come up with new regulatory solutions for natural health products. I note that the current Therapeutic Products Act caused a lot of concern from that segment and rightly so. Look Labour's approach didn't work; it wasn't popular. We are repealing it. I commend this bill to the House.DEPUTY SPEAKER: Carlos Cheung. The reason I say that is we're on a first reading and we cannot pass on the Te Pāti Māori call.
Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clause 7
Williams Arena; Brown SimeonARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you Madam Chair. Madam Chair I realise and take into account your guidance about the number of questions that we have had about the effect of essentially whether the primary legislation can still exist and doesn't need to be repealed alongside the Minister's policy goals. The reason we need an answer on that Madam Chair—and I'm going to ask the Minister again so he can have another go before his speech—is that we've had a Minister here resolutely continue to tell the committee that he is making a policy decision which only brings forward his ability to make decisions and so there is no appetite from him in this stage of the debate to entertain that he would commit to setting ambitious targets which will meet New Zealand's climate goals. There's no intention to commit to the standards that already exist in the legislation that rachet up the requirements on the industry. This is a problem Madam Chair and I'm going to offer him an opportunity to answer now because he'll get back in that seat at the third reading and he will tell us that he is ambitious for New Zealand's climate goals. He will tell us that he is responsible as the Minister of Transport for reducing the carbon dioxide emissions of New Zealand's fleet. We have heard that from Ministers of the Crown today in question time. We hear it from the Prime Minister weekly. And so I am going to ask the Minister: is he committed to using his new regulatory powers which he has come to the Chamber and proposed in this bill to ratchet up the requirements on the car import industry and will he commit as the Minister of Transport to using his new regulatory powers which we cannot scrutinise to improve New Zealand's carbon dioxide emissions?Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): I thank the members for their questions in relation to this clause. As I've stated on a number of occasions this is about the regulation-making power being extended from what it is post 2027 to 2024. Now in the Act already there is a range of considerations that have to be taken into account when setting those standards and those are the things that I will take into account when considering the review which is currently under way.Now I note that the member Tangi Utikere has been asking me to respond to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment's letter which I think is a fair question. Effectively the comment he is seeking in that letter—one is around timing. We've already debated that. The other one is around again more prescription around the use of the regulation-making power and what I would put to the member is that there is in the Act already a range of considerations that have to be taken into account when setting the standard which is exactly how I will undertake that.
Brooking RachelHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you. It's a very short point and that is: what the Minister of Transport just said gave us no comfort. To paraphrase somewhat he said Well it was always open from 2007"—I'm getting my decades mixed up; 2027. "It was always open from 2027 anyway and so that's all I'm committing to."—nothing about there will be the minimum of what's in the current Act at the moment with the standards he's repealing. Given that answer my question was also: where is the policy analysis about that? A very simple question."
Cheung Carlos; Kuriger BarbaraDr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): I move That debate on this question now close.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I'm going to take a couple more questions but remembering that it's quite a narrow part and the Minister has engaged in answering a number of questions. So I'm going to go back to the Hon Rachel Brooking.
Genter Julie AnneHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Was it important for clause 7 to delete the existing targets for 2025 2026 and 2027 because the Minister of Transport intends to water down the standard for 2025?
Utikere Tangi; Brown SimeonTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you Madam Chair. I thank the Minister for his earlier comment on Amendment Paper 43. I know that he has said that that will form part of the review but I'm interested Minister: do you think it is a way in which some of the concerns could be mitigated by effectively allowing for a reduction? Well not even a reduction actually; just the targets as they currently stand for the current year to remain static through to whenever a regulation-making sort of date would kick in.The other one is I'd just remind the Minister that earlier in the day he did say he was going to provide a response to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment's letter specifically in relation to clause 7 so he may want to take up that opportunity given he'd signalled that earlier in the day to do so.Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Thank you Madam Chair and thank you for the opportunity to respond to some of those questions. The Government's position is that—and I think it's clear in the legislation—we are providing consistency with what the law says post-2027 and what it will be post-2024. That is the regulation-making powers will be used to set targets. We've made it very clear we support a standard but we're going to undertake a review. That review will provide advice in relation to setting those targets. There's a number of tabled amendments in terms of these issues. Some of them are inconsistent with Government policies such as Amendment Paper 42 which says to replace '2024' … with '2028'." That of course is inconsistent with the intent of the Government.There's others which seek to delete subclause 2 which again would be inconsistent with the Government's position which is that we are seeking to be able to use the regulation-making power which already exists within the Act to be able to make those amendments."
Williams ArenaARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you Madam Chair. Following on from that line of questioning from Julie Anne Genter I have an amendment in my name that would allow for this. The point that she has made is the right one: we're not disputing the Minister's ability to create for himself new regulatory-making powers that would apply from 2024 but those could exist alongside the primary legislation particularly 175(1)(c) to (e) whereby he would be able to set other targets and a number of other things that are set out at 167B in the primary legislation that aren't covered by what is set out in the primary legislation between 175(1)(c) to (e). It would be really useful if he could comment on the interaction between section 175(1) of the original Act with section 167B of the original Act.But what I want to ask is also given that he has said there is no intention for him to remove 175(1)(b) from the primary legislation—that's not an amendment that he's proposed—he is essentially creating a power for himself; he's got a regulatory-making power which will apply between July and December of 2024 alongside the primary target in the Act: those primary legislation targets that are set out in 175. He himself has just told the committee that his regulatory-making powers can exist alongside the primary legislation. I'd like to hear from the Minister why then that cannot be the situation in 2025 2026 and 2027.
Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clause 6 (continued)
Brownlee Gerry; Kuriger Barbara; Williams Arena; Brooking RachelSPEAKER: I declare the House in committee for further consideration of the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Amendment Bill. I'd just ask those members who are going back to various other bits of business to leave the House quietly please.LAND TRANSPORT (CLEAN VEHICLE STANDARD) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed.Clause 6CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members could we ask those that are leaving the House to leave quietly and have discussions in the lobbies or elsewhere please. Members when we suspended for the lunch break we were in committee on the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Amendment Bill and we were debating clause 6. Clause 6 is Section 167C amended (Regulations for purposes of Part 13 (clean vehicle standard))". I will remind members that Arena Williams' tabled amendment inserting new clause 5(e) amending section 167C should properly be an amendment to clause 6 so will be considered as part of this debate.ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Madam Chair thank you for the opportunity to take a very brief call in this debate. It's good to see the Minister back in the chair after the break. We've had the Minister Erica Stanford answer all of our questions on this part and so I only want to thank her for her excellent contributions. We have no more questions on this part but if the Minister would like to add to her answers we'd look forward to asking her.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I just had a member tell me there were no more questions on this part and now we're having calls.Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): I can explain Madam Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I'll have one wee explanation. Thank you. Just a wee one.Hon RACHEL BROOKING: A little point that was made when a different Minister was sitting in the chair but it hasn't been answered—so the point that I think my colleague was making was that it would be very great to hear some answers from the Minister and I'll remind the Minister what my point was very quickly. It's just that the Ministers in the chair have been talking about certainty with the state change which makes it sound as if the Ministers expect the regulations to be mandatory but all the words in the legislation say "may" not a mandatory "must" so I'd like a confirmation that in fact the regulations are as the Minister said before enabling the Minister to make the regulation but it's not in fact mandatory for a regulation."
Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clause 6
O'Connor GregClause 6 Section 167C amended (Regulations for purposes of Part 13 (clean vehicle standard))CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members we come now to the debate on clause 6. Members please note that Arena Williams' tabled amendment inserting the new clause 5E amending section 167C should properly be an amendment to clause 6 so will be considered as part of this debate—the debate on clause 6 Section 167C amended (Regulations for purposes of Part 13 (clean vehicle standard))". The question is that clause 6 stand part."
Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clause 5
Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clause 3
Kuriger Barbara; Brown SimeonClause 3 Principal ActCHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members we now come to the debate on clause 3 Principal Act".Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Thank you Madam Chair. This clause is a very simple clause. It states that this Act amends the Land Transport Act 1998. That is exactly what this bill does—it amends the Land Transport Act 1998. Now I note there are a couple of Tabled Amendments which seek to add any Orders in Council made by the Governor-General which make regulations under the Land Transport Act. Effectively if this Act does make any other changes effectively those flow through anyway so there's no need to actually have that stated within it. There's also an amendment to add and regulatory mechanisms secondary legislation made under the Land Transport Act 1998. It seems like a very long principal Act. It's called "principal Act" so by adding other things it is unnecessary and is not how lawmaking is made and so that is actually complicit within the Land Transport Act in terms of what that does. So there's no need for any of those amendments to be approved and we won't be supporting them."
Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clause 4
Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clause 2
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That debate on this question now close.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 48New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Tangi Utikere's amendment to clause 6 set out on Amendment Paper 42 is out of order as being inconsistent with the principles and objects of the bill. Tangi Utikere's amendment to delete clause 6 set out on Amendment Paper 44 is out of order as being a direct negation of the question. The question is that Arena Williams' tabled amendment to clause 6 to replace 2024" with "2025" be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 48New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams' tabled amendment to clause 6 to replace "2024" with "2026" be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 48New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams' tabled amendment inserting new clause 5E be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed.Ayes 48New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 6 be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 48New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14.Clause 6 agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members Arena Williams' tabled amendment to insert new clause 5F is out of order as being outside the scope of the bill. Arena Williams' tabled amendment to insert new clause 5G is out of order as not being in the proper form of legislation."
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That debate on this question now close.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Tangi Utikere's amendment to clause 4 set out on Amendment Paper 43 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Arena Williams' tabled amendment to clause 4 to include a reference authorising regulations to allow applications to be declined until specific fees or charges have been paid is out of order as not being in the proper form of legislation.Arena Williams' tabled amendment to clause 4 to include a reference to Crown entities is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment that has not been agreed.The question is that Arena Williams' tabled amendment to clause 4 to include an explanation of the meaning of the Crown" be agreed to.A party vote 1was called for on the question That amendment be agreed to.Ayes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the Clause 4 be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 49New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15.Clause 4 agreed to."
Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Clause 1
Costello Casey; Kuriger BarbaraInstruction to CommitteeHon CASEY COSTELLO (Associate Minister of Health): I move That the Therapeutic Products Act Repeal Bill be reported to the House by 1 November 2024.Motion agreed to.DEPUTY SPEAKER: The House stands adjourned until Tuesday 23 July 2024. Happy Matariki.The House adjourned at 5.08 p.m.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Therapeutic Products Act Repeal Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 48New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is That the Therapeutic Products Act Repeal Bill be considered by the Health Committee.Motion agreed to.Bill referred to the Health Committee.
Stephenson ToddTODD STEPHENSON (ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. It gives me great pleasure this afternoon to rise and speak to the Therapeutic Products Act Repeal Bill. It's actually a great week for healthcare this week. On Monday you might remember we had an amazing announcement for Pharmac whereby 54 new medicine will be listed and 175000 Kiwis are going to benefit from that. And these are new technologies that are actually going to be made possible under the new regulatory regime that we're going to be bringing in once we repeal this piece of rubbish.I actually can't believe—I was just listening to the last speaker Hūhana Lyndon—that I cannot find a single stakeholder that it is actually in support of the Therapeutic Products Act (TPA). Patients were upset. Industry was upset. Everyone was not happy with that Act so what we're doing today is making a pragmatic decision. We're repealing something that actually isn't actually even in force and we're putting in place proper regulations so we can get the latest and greatest medical technology to Kiwis faster and we can deal with natural health products in an appropriate way.This is very very exciting. We are moving forward into the future on this side of the House. We know that there's great innovation and technology on the horizon. and we're going to make sure New Zealand has the best system in the world to get that to Kiwis faster. Health conditions that we couldn't even imagine could be treated and cured years ago are now on the brink of being tackled and we've got to make sure we have the systems in place to do it. The TPA was not that piece of legislation; it was awful. ACT voted against it when it was passed through the House and we're voting in support of its repeal today. We are going to be putting in place modern regulations to ensure that modern treatments get to Kiwis.The natural health products sector have been very upset because again they were lumped into this and their actual concerns have not been listened to and weren't taken on board. So despite there being 15 years of policy development it was wasted because people were not listened to in the last few vital years when this was put together.I am very excited that we're actually going to be doing something on this side of the House to put in appropriate regulations and I look forward to working with Minister Costello and Minister Seymour on doing that because I actually do know a little bit about this area. As has been well reported my background in the medical technology industry will be a great asset and while I'm not financially invested in that sector anymore I am intellectually and emotionally invested in that sector and I'm going to make sure Kiwis get these amazing treatments that we need.So I'm very happy to stand here this afternoon in support of this bill and I commend it to the House.
Campbell HamishDr HAMISH CAMPBELL (National—Ilam): Thank you Madam Speaker. It is with great honour that I rise to speak in support of the Therapeutic Products Act Repeal Bill in this first reading.Glen Bennett: Say it like you mean it.Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL: Yes—now the National Party opposed this bill when it went through. We do agree that there needs to be modernisation of the regulation on therapeutic products. Unfortunately this bill is not it. It just offers a tangle of red tape and increases crippling compliance costs on many in our society.The things is when this went through select committee last term there was a number of areas we opposed it on and I'll just mention two. One of them is including software into this. This is some innovative stuff that we can really use right now. We don't need to regulate it. We do need to make sure that we are being innovative cutting edge. The other one is of course the regulations that if we're going to export some of our natural health products—and New Zealand does have a lot of these manufacturers—they were going to have to be held to a standard that is greater than the exporting country. Once again it's a sign of red tape going nuts. Therefore I commend this bill to the House.
Weenink VanessaDr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): It's an honour to be the last speaker in this first reading of the Therapeutic Products Act Repeal Bill. Other speakers in the House have said pretty much everything that I might have said so I just will finally say Mānawatia a Matariki.
Cheung CarlosDr CARLOS CHEUNG (National—Mt Roskill): I was listening to the other side just now talking about engagement and talking about the problems of people. Let's talk about the truth. The truth is that in 2023 the Health Committee reviewed more than 16500 submissions and over 95 percent opposed the Therapeutic Products Act. I think that's better law. I commend this bill to the House.
Webb DuncanHon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Kia ora Madam Speaker. I find it extraordinary that that member Cameron Brewer just stood up and celebrated three great lurches backwards—Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall: Imagine his grandkids seeing that.Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —in respect of our climate. The member to the right of me says What will he say to his grandkids when the tide comes in?" There is a real problem there.Many speakers have spoken very eloquently on this but my real objection to this is that it's part of the Government's programme to move decision making away from this House to move it away into the executive and into the shadows. This is some of the most important decisions that can be made in respect of the Government of New Zealand how we achieve our climate targets and how we address the climate catastrophe that's facing us in the world—how we uphold our international obligations to be good citizens.We've had a long committee stage about the details of the bill. But in the big picture what we've got is the Minister taking power unto himself so that he can make decisions without—as Arena Willaims said—any real effective consultation or transparency and just choose. In his third reading speech I was here in the House and I heard him say that we're going to make the clean vehicle standards more workable. In the language of the other side what that means is: less carbon-friendly more emissions. Just as they have with agricultural emissions: let the agriculture sector off the hook again because they don't want it to be an undue burden. What that means is unfettered emissions. What this means is more emissions from our car fleet. As David Parker said the cars that come into today will be emitting for 15 years. That's what the Government on the other side Is happy to see to see a more carbon-emitting fleet for a longer period of time than would otherwise be the case.Simon Court: The cleanest vehicles that have ever been made in the history of mankind.Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Here we go—here we go. The ACT Party the friends of the oil sector. I can smell the coal tar on your breath. It comes as no surprise at all to me that the friends of the oil industry want to see dirtier cars. This is the "Dirty Vehicle Standard Amendment Bill".Of course we're going to oppose it because on this side of the House we stand for a sustainable New Zealand that stands up and adheres to its international obligations and makes decisions now and into the future so that we can look at our children and grandchildren and know that we were good stewards of this country unlike that Government."
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 47New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 13.Motion agreed to.Bill read a third time.
Bidois DanDAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): Mānawatia a Matariki—happy Matariki Madam Speaker. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. DAN BIDOIS: As the last speaker in this debate I commend this bill to the House.
Brewer CameronCAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): To use the racing parlance this Government has achieved the trifecta. We've scrapped the subsidies on electric vehicles which were neither self-funding nor sustainable which saw over $500 million paid out of two years at the expense of hard-working farmers tradies and taxpayers. Of course in the first 100 days we also scrapped the ute tax—remember that? The ute tax. Farmers and tradies are now no longer unfairly punished. Now the Government is delivering more workable more realistic clean car standards. I commend the bill.
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Thank you Madam Speaker. The sad thing about the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Amendment Bill is that the Government hasn't yet worked out what it's going to do to reduce light vehicle transport emissions given that they've knocked over the Clean Car Discount which was a feebate scheme that was highly successful. By the end of that scheme 75 percent of the vehicles coming in month by month—that's about 25000 per month—were either hybrids plug-in hybrids or fully electric vehicles. Since they abolished that scheme the ratio has changed and the number of internal combustion only cars being imported into the country diesel or petrol power has doubled so that now more than 50 percent of the cars coming in are not hybrids plug-in hybrids or electric vehicles. So the Government is even more reliant on the Clean Car Standard to drive the efficiency that we need in cars that are coming into the country.As has been noted in this debate once a vehicle enters the fleet it lasts for about 15 years and until it's worn out it's used and it's pumping out those greenhouse gas emissions. So the only chance you get to improve the efficiency of the fleet is as those vehicles are being added to the fleet because once they're here someone uses them until they're completely worn out. You've got to get them at the point of import and the Government has ruined that. They could have come to this House with legislation that said Look now that the Clean Car Discount is gone and the number of these more polluting vehicles has gone through the roof we need a tougher standard and we're going to do it through that standard." But they haven't and they haven't done that work.This of course is typical of the Government's non-performance on climate issues. Having signed up to the zero carbon Act I believe as a ruse to get voting support at the last election they've turned back the clock on everything. Agricultural emissions—it is just not economically responsible to exclude agriculture the 50 percent of our emissions from a price-based measure. That doesn't mean to say they should go to zero but they should not be cross subsidised by the rest of the economy. We protected them in the last Government through the split-gas target meaning that methane doesn't have to be reduced to zero like long-lived gases do but we do need a price-based measure.They say that they're going to rely on the price of carbon under the emissions trading scheme to drive emissions reductions and yet the private sector doesn't believe them because the private sector price for those emission units has dropped from $75 a tonne to $50 a tonne a decrease of 30 percent. So the private sector knows that the rhetoric from the other side is not matched by the stringency of measures that are needed to drive a price on carbon which is in turn necessary to drive the emissions reductions that we need as a planet. We can't support this bill."
Rutherford TomTOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. I'll keep this contribution short because we have had a really fulsome debate across the process of this bill coming through the House. There has been a long process through the committee stage really well fleshed out. The Minister gave superb answers from the chair. There was really great leadership from the Minister when he was in the chair. I commend the bill to the House.
McCallum GrantGRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): Well great news: we have almost passed the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Amendment Bill—great news. But the greatest news of the day is the fact that the Brynderwyns are open Northland is open and you're all welcome to come and visit. Please do; we need people to come and visit. The businesses of Northland need it. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.
White HelenHELEN WHITE (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you Madam Speaker. I'd like to remind the House that in the three years that the standard will be taken away by this bill and replaced by what is a discretion over criteria 2200 people every year will die of pollution because of the emissions of petrol and diesel vehicles and 6600 people will die. There will also be 27800 people hospitalised and that's our kids. That's our kids with asthma. That's a whole lot of illnesses that are utterly preventable. What this previous situation did was it put in place a target so that the industry knew that it had a place it was going and it was utterly certain about that pathway. What the Minister has done is taken away all that certainty. I listened very carefully to what the Minister talked about when he was given repeated opportunities to assure this House that he would not use his new discretion to lower the situation with regard to the safety of New Zealanders through these kinds of chemicals. He was offered that opportunity repeatedly and he did not take it. So people who are listening today should know that those are real lives those are real injuries and that this Government has not actually prioritised the public interest here.Now I want to come to the tax issue because that's another way New Zealanders get hurt. Yes I do call it a tax. What we have here is a removal of what actually sounded like from the Minister's speech himself only $6.5 million of administrative cost which was being paid by the taxpayer in recognition of the fact that this is important for our kids it's important for our older people and it's important for our people in our cities. It's a health issue and it's an environmental issue so it's a public good. So we were doing that as a Government and I'm proud we were doing that. Instead it's been removed and all that cost will be put into a pool that will be paid presumably actually ultimately by the consumer because it's going to the industry.I just want to actually make people think about where that is. Who will be actually visited that cost? Well actually people who run an electric vehicle and people who run a petrol vehicle. How the hell is that fair? How's it fair that all of the injury is being done by one group and yet everyone shares the cost? Isn't it an interesting and logical issue that that's what this Government has done? It's visited the cost on people who have done no harm who are doing no harm who are doing the right thing. There's no nuance in this. This is a bill that gives the Minister the discretion so that he can water down standards. That's what he's doing. There might be a lot of weasel words around it but that's why I cannot support this bill.
Foster Andy; Kuriger BarbaraANDY FOSTER (NZ First): The Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Amendment Bill is a very small bill. There's been a huge amount said about so little.Hon Member: Commend the bill!ANDY FOSTER: You didn't ask him to do that! This is a very common-sense bill. The first part of the common sense is that the Minister the Hon Simeon Brown has been asked or required to do a review. This just gives the Minister the ability to do something with that review rather than having to change the legislation again.The second thing it does is allow the Minister to get the powers now that he was going to get anyway in 2028 which again is common sense.The third thing is that we heard from the other side that this about a new tax. Well no it isn't. What is doing it taking a cost off the taxpayer and putting it on the user. That is not a tax.And the other thing to congratulate the Minister on is that he's actually managed to cut the cost in half. I commend this bill to the House.DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call. I call Helen White.
Court SimonSIMON COURT (ACT): Oh enough of this climate doom and alarmism. C'mon on everybody! It's Thursday. It's Matariki tomorrow and we're going to go home soon. Some of us will go home in aeroplanes. Did you know that today Air New Zealand received its first shipment of sustainable aviation fuel made at Exxon Mobil's refinery in Singapore? How good. New Zealand is doing sustainability better than anyone else.The problem this bill tries to solve is that the previous Labour Government got it all wrong when it comes to clean vehicle standards. Instead of listening to all of the auto makers who said Oh it wouldn't be a good idea to introduce these standards years earlier than the jurisdictions where the cars are made. How about you give us a bit more runway to make sure New Zealand has affordable and efficient vehicles?" But no the previous Government didn't listen. So this Government's here to fix yet another problem.We've solved sulphur dioxide in diesel. We've got some of the cleanest diesel in the world. We've saved led in petrol back in the 1980s. Now we can actually get lower-emission vehicles. But we're not going to get them the way the Green Party says.What was interesting was that the former speaker the Hon Julie Anne Genter a former transport Minister quoted Sweden and Norway as being great examples of having great roads and low emissions. Well Ms Genter Sweden is a nuclear-powered country that has one of the biggest mining operations in Europe that makes an inordinate amount of money by selling weapons to its friends and allies. Norway has some of the biggest State-owned oil and gas sector in the world. Where does the money come from?How do we get lower emissions? Well New Zealanders become wealthier we can afford better cars they're lower emissions. Job done. Thank you Madam Speaker."
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That debate on this question now close.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 48New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14.Motion agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Tangi Utikere's amendment to delete clause 7(1) set out on Amendment Paper 43 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 48New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Arena Williams' tabled amendment to delete clause 7(1) is out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment that has not been agreed—Amendment Paper 43. Tangi Utikere's amendment to clause 7(2) set out on Amendment Paper 42 is out of order as being inconsistent with the principles and objects of the bill.The question is that Tangi Utikere's amendment to delete clause 7(2) set out on Amendment Paper 44 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 48New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams' tabled amendment to clause 7 to replace 2024" with "2025" be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 48New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Arena Williams' tabled amendment to clause 7 to replace "2024" with "2026" be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 48New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Tangi Utikere's amendment to insert clause 7(3) set out on Amendment Paper 43 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to.Ayes 48New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14.Noes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 7 be agreed to.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 48New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14.Clause 7 agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I will report this bill without amendment.House resumed.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Madam Speaker the committee has considered the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Amendment Bill and reports it without amendment. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): This bill is set down for third reading immediately."
Brooking Rachel; Brown SimeonHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you Madam Chair. I want to be clear that when we're talking about section 175(1)—for anyone listening—that sets some numbers for targets for calendar years in paragraph (a) for 2023 and in paragraph (b) for 2024 and those don't change. What's changing is the targets in paragraph (c) being 2025; paragraph (d) for 2026; and paragraph (e) for 2027. They are all being repealed. Those targets are being repealed. The questions I've been asking in relation to clause 6 as well are about whether there is any replacement regulation for those standards. The standards are being repealed the Minister is saying he's doing a review and the Minister is saying that these changes enable regulations. They don't require regulations. So what I think this side of the House is quite agitated about is the possibility that the Minister will not make regulations that are better for the environment but that he will make regulations that are worse for the environment than those current targets for 2025 2026 and 2027. So this is a great opportunity for the Minister to record on Hansard that it is totally his intention after his review to set targets that will be better in terms of reducing carbon dioxide emissions for the environment than what is in the Act at the moment and if he can't say that then all of his arguments that we've heard in his previous speeches go out the window because it becomes a policy debate. The Minister has said over and over again that all that this bill does is enable him to make regulations and it does cost recovery but in fact if the Minister chooses not to make regulations or makes regulations that are of less effect in terms of reducing carbon dioxide emissions then it is a policy choice to increase carbon dioxide emissions and we can't see any analysis in the reports that come with the bill on that policy choice because we've been told that there is no policy choice. But at the moment—and I'd really like the Minister to answer this question—it appears that it's discretionary for him to make regulations. The targets are gone and that is a real problem unless of course he can say on the Hansard and to the committee that he is committed to doing a review whereby the regulations will be better than what he's repealing. Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Well the position of the Government is very clear. What we are doing here is we're making the legislation the same for the years 2024 to 2027 in order to be exactly the same as what it will be post-2027. So all of those questions that the Opposition are concerned about are questions which they should have been concerned about with the legislation that they passed themselves when they were in Government because actually they put in place legislation which enabled regulations to be made and they didn't prescribe them for post-2027. So we're simply bringing that power forward. The legislation allows for or requires a review to happen. That review is under way. The Government has said that we're committed to a clean-car standard and we'll make decisions as part of that review.
Genter Julie Anne; Brown SimeonHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I have been waiting to ask this question: on clause 7 why did the Minister of Transport feel it necessary to delete the existing standards for 2025 to 2027? The bill could have been drafted to allow new targets to be set by regulation for those years without deleting the existing values in the meantime. Why did the Minister think it was necessary to delete the targets in the meantime?Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Because what it does is it quite simply makes consistency between how targets are set after 2027 with those targets set between now and 2027.Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): So although leaving the existing targets there in the meantime until new ones—I mean it would also be the case that there would be the consistent approach of being able to make new targets through regulation even if we left the initial targets in the legislation in the meantime so there was some sense of there being a target for 2025 2026 and 2027 in the interim. So why did he delete the targets before the new ones have been set?Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Well there is a target in place right now for 2024. We're not removing or amending the target for 2024—the one which is in existence now. There's a review under way and that review will provide advice around what the target should be going forward. But this ultimately empowers those decisions to happen.