edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Williams ArenaARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you for the opportunity Mr Chair. I wish to take a brief call on the point here about my amendments—there are three—that seek to clarify particularly the point about who the regulations that the Minister is proposing to give himself the power to make will apply to and how they will open up the Crown for further risk because in my previous contribution which wasn't answered by the Minister I proffered a question to him about how his regulation-making power under this new principle legislation would amend regulations that have been set out under a different piece of primary legislation which would now be extinguished by his amendments. And so there is an interaction there between industry participants who have say ordered cars in June last year that are due to be delivered in June this year because it's quite common for the industry to place orders in New Zealand a year out. And so how the regulation making powers of the Minister that he is providing to give himself interact with the regulations as they existed at that time is absolutely of interest to this House. And given that it hasn't been through a select committee process we're unable to determine the impact of the differences in the regulations on industry participants.And so what I'm proposing there is a clarification about how this Act binds the Crown and who it binds because for Crown entities the transport-legislation picture is complex. Often the Office of the Auditor-General when they come in to explain it to select committee laugh at my silly questions about it but I have learned that there are a number of Crown entities and other entities in that picture who will be subject to those regulation-making powers too and they will be open to challenge by industry participants and consumers. And it's actually not crystal clear in any Act whether that's set out in Section 7 as Tangi Utikere has provided for or whether that's in the Standing Orders of this Parliament and subsequent advice. It's not clear which entities we are referring to when we say the Crown so it would be useful for some primary legislation to set out—when the Minister is using his regulatory powers in this Act to amend regulations that were made under an old Act which is no longer in force—who is open to challenge who is open to legal risk what kind of legal risk was created for those entities particularly about Crown entities? It's the Second Amendment that I've put forward and I'd like the Minister to address that.
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): Tangi Utikere's amendments to clause 3 set out on Amendment Papers 42 and 43 are out of order as not being in the proper form of legislation. Arena Williams' tabled amendments to clause 3 are out of order as not being in the proper form of legislation.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 3 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 3 agreed to.
Appropriation (2023/24 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and Imprest Supply (First for 2024/25) Bill — Second Readings
Imprest Supply (First for 2024/25) Bill — First Reading
Willis NicolaIMPREST SUPPLY (FIRST FOR 2024/25) BILLFirst ReadingHon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): I move That the Imprest Supply (First for 2024/25) Bill be now read a first time.
Williams Arena; Brown SimeonARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you Mr Chair. I really appreciate the opportunity to raise with the Minister now some new points around my amendments. He has told the House that he is not willing to accept my amendments. These are amendments that despite the heckling from the other side of the House we have not had an opportunity to consider in this part. My amendments—the Minister has said they are not necessary but I need some explanation about why that is because I want to understand whether the impact of his decisions put forward in the proposed amendments from him would in fact change regulatory decisions or decisions made under secondary legislation empowered by the primary legislation that are already in place. And I want to know the impact of his future decisions under the regulatory-making powers in his amendments on previous regulation because what we've got here is potentially a situation where regulations which were made under a previous Government's regulation-making powers which were different in the primary Act will now be amended by his regulatory-making powers which he proposes to give himself in this primary Act. So it's a difficult situation. It's not open to scrutiny in any other way because that's not something that the Regulations Review Committee would be able to consider because that's the interaction of two pieces of secondary legislation which were made under a different primary Act.So I think that the amendments here that I have proposed limit the Government's risk and limit the ability of people who are affected by those regulation-making powers to bring a challenge against the Minister. So I want to know whether the Minister has had advice on his risk if he doesn't give us somewhere—and I grant that perhaps clause 3 is not the place that he wants to do it but that is where I would do it. So if he is not giving himself cover if he is not giving himself in primary legislation the ability to reject claims made against him because of this regulation-making power that will conflict with previous regulation-making power then what is he relying on to give himself the assurance that he's not opening up the Government to further risk?Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): I believe I've addressed the questions which are in relation to the Act and where this is amending the Land Transport Act. There's been a range of other questions. I think some of them are best placed for like that last one for clause 7. But the answer to all of the questions is very clearly the Land Transport Act enables the Clean Vehicle Standard and its regulation-making powers. We are amending through this bill those Acts and that is exactly what we are doing. And there's no further comment to make on that.
Utikere TangiTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you Mr Chair. Kia ora and good morning to you. Look I am surprised on two fronts. One is that members opposite are seeking closure motions when many of these issues—well there are at least two issues that have not been addressed or answered and I'll touch on both of them. But the second is the Minister has said that this is a very narrow clause and he is probably quite right around that but even though it is narrow there is still an expectation that Ministers in the chair will address the issues that have been raised.My colleague Mr Parker has raised some around any advice that has been sought the basis on which I think would actually be very important for the Minister to provide a response to the committee around that because on this side we are still trying to understand why it is that it's the Land Transport Act that is sought to be amended without any consideration for any of the other ones. Now if we were in a process where we had a select committee process we would have actually had an opportunity as a select committee to perhaps seek that advice ourselves directly from the Ministry of Transport perhaps invite the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority to provide some response around that. What the Minister is saying is that we don't have that opportunity and therefore the House is none the wiser. This is an opportunity for the Minister to say Well no. Actually there was no advice sought." or "I didn't ask for any." or "It did come back and it was suggested that this was the appropriate measure or way to proceed."What the Minister is instead saying is "Well we're going to amend the principal Act as the Land Transport Act because the former Government had it this way." What is different with this is that the whole policy proposal and the potential objectives are very different from what the former Government had and what is currently in legislation. What I say to the Minister is: since when did former Governments seem to bind future or current Governments around actions that they could take? That's something that he has not considered or addressed.When we're looking at what the purpose of this particular bill is it is around—well actually when we look at section 170 of the principal Act as my colleague Miss Belich has said it is around effectively the rapid reduction of emissions. Now there is no certainty in this bill that there will actually be a rapid reduction of emissions because the proposal is that this would be given over by way of regulation. So the Minister still has not provided to the committee a response particularly around—not just the advice whether it was received or not—whether or not there is actually any other avenue to address some of the other issues that have been concerned—and I invite the Minister to provide an answer around that."
Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Thank you Mr Chair. And thank the Minister for that answer but he still hasn't addressed this fundamental issue that I had asked which is whether consideration was given to whether this could be done more cost effectively through the Energy Efficiency & Conservation Authority (EECA) and whether—given that the Ministry of Transport now has no clean car discount to administer the ministry's just left with the efficiency standard—that could be more cost effectively done through EECA.Now I've heard the Minister in the Chair say on a number of occasions that there are two purposes of this amendment Act one is to impose a cost recovery mechanism and the other is unrelated to this point but in respect of the cost recovery issue if those costs are now to be recovered surely and there is no—James Meager: Clause 5!Hon DAVID PARKER: No. Well the operative clause as to where that cost recovery comes in is there but the question as to whether that is best done through the Land Transport Act or putting these functions across to the Energy Efficiency & Conservation Authority actually rises in this clause 3.So we know from the cost recovery impact statement that this issue is not addressed here. So I'm interested to know whether any consideration was given by the Minister or his ministry and indeed whether he had any advice from the Ministry of Transport as to whether this could be cost effectively done through EECA.I've gone through previously why that so logically sits within their purview and I just need an answer from the Minister as to whether he did receive any advice on this point from the ministry because if he didn't I think he needs to admit that to the House. He can admit that to the committee and then I can't rattle on about this any longer because the Minister will then have addressed the question. But the Minister at the moment has not informed the committee as to whether any consideration has been given as to whether this could be done more cost effectively through EECA given they are the agency charged with energy efficiency more broadly across the economy.
Imprest Supply (First for 2024/25) Bill — Introduction
Weenink Vanessa; O'Connor GregDr VANESSA WEENINK (National—Banks Peninsula): I move That debate on this question now close.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): We have now covered quite a bit of material. I'll take a call from Mr Utikere but we'll be looking for some pretty new material.
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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Tangi Utikere's amendment to clause 2(1) set out in Amendment Paper 42 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Tangi Utikere's amendment to clause 2(1) set out in Amendment Paper 43 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agree 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Tangi Utikere's amendment to clause 2(1) 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 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 (Barbara Kuriger): Arena Williams' tabled amendments to clause 2 to replace 1 July 2024" with "31 July 2024" "1 October 2024" or "1 October 2025" are out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment that has not been agreed—Amendment Papers 42 43 and 44.The question is that Tangi Utikere's amendment to clause 2(2) set out on Amendment Paper 45 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 (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that Tangi Utikere's amendment to clause 2(2) set out on Amendment Paper 46 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 (Barbara Kuriger): Arena Williams' tabled amendments to clause 2 to replace "1 July 2025" with either "1 July 2026" or "1 July 2027" are out of order as being the same in substance as a previous amendment that has not been agreed—Amendment Papers 45 and 46.The question is that clause 2 stand part.A party vote was called for on the question That clause 2 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 2 agreed to."
Utikere Tangi; Brown SimeonTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana good morning; thank you Mr Chair. I thank the Minister for eagerly addressing the two amendments that are in my name on Amendment Papers 42 and 43. I thought they were alright amendments actually but he has said that he's not intending to support those. I understand that's his position.I did have a question actually that I was thinking through around the interface that some components of this might have with the Land Transport Management Act of 2003. But actually I do want to just thank the former Attorney-General the Hon David Parker because Mr Parker has actually I think identified—and it's not something that I immediately turned my mind to—something that I think actually is entirely appropriate when we're considering clause 3. I did hear my colleague Miss Williams sort of reference that the Minister's approach in this is a change from what is the current situation in law and the policy goal or outcome or objective therefore potentially is different. And so when we're looking at what the appropriate principal Act is for it to be amended that naturally needs to come into play.What Mr Parker has identified is if we consider what some of the potential change might be with many of these aspects is it actually appropriate that the Land Transport Act is the appropriate principal piece of legislation or is it something more in the energy realm? And Mr Parker actually—thank you for drawing a distinction there because the other examples that have been cited around household items are very similar. You know we've already in this debate as this bill has progressed talked about the various nature of cars and household use and all those sorts of things. So my question to the Minister is whether or not the nature of the item—in this case a vehicle—is to be considered as part of that wider suite and therefore it is purely more of an energy efficiency consideration and therefore energy. Whether it's a consumer-related Act or whether it's an energy efficiency Act that is important. The reduction of carbon dioxide levels which the Minister has cited and Mr Parker has cited as well we will get to that; that's more specifically related to clauses 5 and 7 around those measures. But my question to the Minister is: does he not consider that the efficiency aspects—that these regulations if they do come into force in terms of the timeliness of them are better placed in the efficiency or consumer space?Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): That question has already been asked by a prior member and I've already answered it. Our bill means the Act that the last Government put in place which determined that the clean vehicle standard should fit within the Land Transport Act. We are amending that Act.
Kuriger Barbara; Belich CamillaClause 2 Commencement DEPUTY SPEAKER: Members we now come to the debate on clause 2. Clause 2 is related to the commencement.CAMILLA BELICH (Junior Whip—Labour): Point of order. Thank you Madam Chair. I just had a point of order relating to prior to the vote and I've just waited until after the vote because obviously not wanting to interrupt the vote and it's the first available opportunity to raise this point of order. Madam Chair when you decided to not take a final call from Tangi Utikere you said that it was because the vote had begun. I'm not questioning your ability to decide when to take a vote—which I think is well understood to be at your absolute discretion—but my point of order is that if you refer to Speakers' ruling 80/4 there is complete discretion that the Chairperson has in relation to being able to take a call—CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yeah and I did use that discretion. There was no one on their feet when I started to take that vote so—CAMILLA BELICH: OK thank you Madam Chair; I just wanted to clarify for the committee that it was—because it appeared to us that you were saying that you were unable to take that call even though Mr Utikere was on his feet when you were taking that vote. So that's my point of order Madam Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Thank you. I did use my discretion and I was about three or four words into the vote when Mr Utikere stood to take a call. OK clause 2.
Williams Arena; Brown Simeon; Kuriger BarbaraARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Madam Chair I'm seeking to ask the Minister a series of questions in the way provided for in Speakers' ruling 79/4 which offers and back a forth if they are brief. My first question to the Minister is: is the cost-recovery system that will be enabled by this bill ready to go now? If the system is not ready to go now when will it be ready to go? I ask that question because it's relevant to the date when it will commence.Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Madam Chair as I said in the previous answer this is an enabling provision and so that is why those issues can be debated in clause 5 but this simply is about the commencement of it. Clause 5 deals with the provision around those enabling provisions and I suggest that's the best place to ask those questions.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I call Arena Williams—if it's not about clause 5.ARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): I understand the Minister has answered that it is an enabling provision. It's relevant to the date it comes into force though because if that cost-recovery system is ready to go now then we could move that date forward and surely that would be something that the Minister would be interested in. That's why I'm asking. Further to that question but a different system is the system that the Ministry of Transport has built to enforce the clean vehicle standard ready to go?
Genter Julie Anne; Brown Simeon; Kuriger BarbaraHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Thank you Madam Chair. My question about clause 2 is about the fact that clause 5 of the bill doesn't come into force until 1 July 2025. I wondered why the Minister didn't consider having at least a short select committee period to consider the provisions around setting up the cost recovery scheme.I note that in this bill—obviously with urgency he's trying to change the ability for Government to change the standards for 2025 2026 2027—you know next week. That will come into force so that the Government will be able to just completely change the standards that have been set out for several years and introduce a lot of uncertainty because they could be higher or lower as the Minister said last night. But given that the cost recovery scheme hasn't yet been designed that it's not clear what the preferred option is for the design of that and how it will be done why didn't the Minister consider having at least a short select committee period so that the public and people affected could have a proper parliamentary oversight of that provision given that it's not going to come into force for a year anyway. We could have taken that part to select committee with a specific provision for the design of the scheme and could have had fulsome submissions.So it's unclear to me why—well why any of this is being done because it's actually just introducing a lot of uncertainty rather than the certainty that the Government claims it's about. But given that the cost recovery scheme isn't going to come into force for at least a year why aren't we seeing specific proposals and having that referred to as at least a shortened select committee if not a full select committee process?Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): This is an enabling clause. In terms of clause 5 in terms of when it comes into the force it enables and there's time between now and when it comes into force for that scheme in terms of cost recovery to be considered developed and appropriate consultation with the impacted parties to take place during that time period. So we have we have no intention to change the time periods in this particular clause clause 2.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I'm going to call Arena Williams. Given that the Minister has just offered to have further debate on questions in further clauses down the line we will keep this very strictly to Commencement" from hereon in."
Williams ArenaARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you Madam Chair. Just circling back to where we were last night the Minister in his really fulsome and helpful answers to my colleague Tangi Utikere indicated his clear direction that this bill is a bill about the targets that relate to cost recovery within the system. So I want to speak to two of my amendments only in clause 1 because he has given a really—Hon Dr Megan Woods: Come back to the others later.ARENA WILLIAMS: Well the Hon Megan Woods is saying I'll come back to the others later." But I hear your direction Madam Speaker; I'm not going to go through every amendment but I just want to talk about two.The first is on that cost recovery point. As I've heard various speeches around the Chamber there is still confusion about whether this measure is a taxation measure is it a behavioural change measure or is it a cost recovery measure? We've heard from the Minister though in his answers to Tangi Utikere that it is a cost recovery measure. In which case Minister I have an amendment for you that will help this committee to be clear on what is being done here by this bill. So my proposal is to delete the words "clean vehicle standards" and replace them with "regulations relating to cost recovery of the clean vehicle standard". That will make this much clearer.The second amendment that I'd like to hear from the Minister on whether he would support from me—it is different to the one put forward by Tangi Utikere: is whether he will accept a deletion of the words "clean vehicle standard" and replace them with "targets for reducing carbon dioxide emission". This is a different point Madam Speaker. The reason why this would be different to what the Minister has said is he stood here and he said in answer to a question from the Hon Megan Woods at about 11.45 last night that there would still be a clean vehicle standard even if he were to change the standards in such a way in the schedules that they would be less onerous on the industry.What we're trying to gather here is is the Minister committing to a clean vehicle standard which does further reduce the carbon dioxide? In which case we would love that; we would be really keen on that. So we want the Minister to commit to that change by making a change to the name of the Act which makes it really clear that he is intent on reaching New Zealand's carbon goals on an international stage that he will do his role as the Minister of Transport and that he will commit to making sure that his portfolio and the sectors that he is responsible for is contributing its part to Simon Watts' responsibility to deliver on New Zealand's climate goals. So he should rename his Act "targets for reducing carbon dioxide emissions". I look forward to his answer on my two questions."
Kuriger BarbaraCHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The question is—Tangi Utikere: Madam Chair. Madam Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I've started voting—no there were no calls I'd started voting.
Brown SimeonHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Thank you Madam Chair. Clause 2 is the commencement: (1) This Act comes into force on 1 July 2024. (2) However section 5 comes into force on 1 July 2025." Section 5 is the clauses in relation to cost recovery and that allows for time for the cost recovery mechanism to be determined and for consultation with the sector in regards to how that cost recovery will be undertaken and for that to then be put in place from 1 July 2025."
Brooking RachelHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you Madam Chair. I just noticed that the Minister might be taking a moment to consider the questions that have been asked about consultation asked both by the Hon Julie Anne Genter last night and then was reminded again this morning by Tangi Utikere and of course the letter from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment asked by the Hon Dr Megan Woods last night. Still no answers to those questions. Then just this last very good point made by my colleague Arena Williams about what the title means as her first point. I agree with her second point about reducing emissions. Of course that would be a great thing to say but there's some irony to be speaking here about an Act that now enables the Minister to make regulations when of course we were here in December last year arguing about an Act that already enabled the Minister to change things—the clean car discount that was—by regulations but for some reason we needed to do that by primary legislation back in December. And here we are when we do actually need to do something by primary legislation to enable changes to the making of secondary legislation. So I would be keen on the answer to Arena Williams' amendment about removing Clean Vehicle Standard" and saying "Changing Regulatory Powers".Also I heard the Minister say in one of his first responses last night that what the bill is about is user-pays not Crown-subsidised—those were his words as I recorded them. So would the Minister also consider that as an amendment so that it is "This Act is the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standards Enabling User Pays and Not Crown Subsidies) Amendment Bill."?"
Brown SimeonHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): I thank the members for their questions. I think we've traversed many of these subjects already including all of the tabled amendments that have been put on the Table. I made it very clear the Government's view is that the title of this bill is the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Amendment Bill as it amends the legislation in regards to the clean vehicle standard.
Kuriger BarbaraTUESDAY 25 JUNE 2024(continued on Thursday 27 June 2024)LAND TRANSPORT (CLEAN VEHICLE STANDARD) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed.Clause 1 Title (continued)DEPUTY SPEAKER: Good morning members. The committee last night when we left the Chamber was discussing the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Amendment Bill and the debate was on clause 1 which is Title". We traversed a reasonable level of discussion around title and we also got some clarification from the Minister of Transport about some of the Amendment Papers that he said he would not be changing the title.Now I know that Speaker's ruling 127/1 are relatively broad ranging; however I think we've been broad ranging around the title. So if anyone wants to take a call on title I'm going to be very strict on title and then I'll be listening very carefully to make sure it relates and then we can traverse the other parts."
Xu-Nan Lawrence; Brown SimeonDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. In terms of clause 1 and the title of this bill I recognise from also my colleagues that there are some concerns around whether the title itself gives enough clarity on the purpose of this bill. I think one of the things is in one of my tabled amendments for this as well because this particular bill looks like two components. The first one is looking at enabling the target to be set in secondary regulation which then ties into what previously the Hon Dr Megan Woods mentioned in terms of the clean vehicle standard element of it. But again what we are hearing is that there is a second component to it in terms of the cost recovery scheme. So again we are in support of the amendment that has been put forward by both Tangi Utikere as well as Arena Williams around this because of the fact that there is clarity that is needed with regards to the title. So in terms of my amendment in order to address both elements of this bill I wondered if the Minister is open to the suggestion of amending it from clean vehicle standard" to "clean vehicle standard and levy charges". Now I know that the term "levy" potentially is controversial but based on the intention of this cost recovery we are looking at—and this is again something that maybe the Minister is happy to clarify. When we are looking at these cost recovery measures are we looking at a potential levy? Because I know the term "tax" has been thrown around but is this more akin to a levy? If it is more akin to a levy would the inclusion of "levy charges" be something that is worth mentioning within the title to cover both elements of this bill?Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): I think the answer to that question is that those matters are dealt with inside the bill."
Woods Megan; Brown SimeonHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you Madam Chair. One of the things that I'm still waiting for an answer from the Minister that he hasn't addressed in relation to us as a House is understanding whether this bill does what the title purports that it does in terms of the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Amendment Bill. I am still waiting to hear the Minister give some kind of meaningful reply to the suggestions that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has made who is an Officer of Parliament and I think deserves the respect of this House. In particular the piece that I'm interested in—now the Minister tells us this is a very simple piece of legislation. What I'm seeing is a Minister struggling to understand this very simple piece of legislation because what I'm wanting to know is exactly what the Parliamentary Commissioner has set out that Parliament clearly intended that any regulations that are made to set targets would be subject to review. To ensure this is carried through in your amendment bill I suggest you make [these minor amendments]" to the very clause that the Minister is saying is the way that he can ensure that the clean car standard is going to be maintained and therefore fulfils what is on the name at the front of this bill—the Minister needs to address this. He cannot just dismiss in a committee of the whole House in a bill going through urgency some very real and meaningful questions from an Officer of Parliament.Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): As I have said before this bill amends the legislation which legislates the clean vehicle standard. It is not removing the clean vehicle standard and so therefore it is the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Amendment Bill."
Genter Julie Anne; Brown SimeonHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Madam Chair I actually stood up just based on the conversation that the Minister was having right now. So am I able to continue questioning—CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Given that we've started the conversation I'll let you have a question on that but I'll make it the last one given you're already on your feet—the last one for now until we get down into that part of the bill.Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Thank you Madam Chair. I wanted to ask the Minister: with the changes that are brought in under this legislation to the ability to change the standards for 2025 2026 2027 is it then possible for the Government and for the Minister to put in through regulation standards that are more ambitious than what was set out in the legislation?Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): The legislation allows the Minister to make and set those standards and those standards could be above or below. But ultimately under the legislation that's being proposed just as it is after 2027 up to the Minister by Order in Council to set it then it is the same under this particular piece of legislation for those years preceding that.
Williams Arena; Brown SimeonARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): A simple question for the Minister. It relates to one of my suggested amendments for this bill about the title. Because we've had some back and forth in this House about whether the cost recovery mechanisms in this bill alongside the ability of the Minister to set a standard which would essentially require the industry to change its behaviour in terms of what cars it imports—whether that would be seen as a tax. So there are amendments in my name that propose to the Minister that he should include Budget Measures" in the title of the bill which is the tradition in the way that this Parliament delineates its cost recovery or its revenue gathering legislation which often accompanies budget legislation and is the type of legislation which is usually introduced around Budget time. Because this is part of their Government's broader Budget urgency motion it would also not be unusual for the legislation to include this in the title. And what I'm asking the Minister here is: is he interested in including "Budget Measures" in the title because he does see this as a revenue gathering tool or not? It would be useful for him to clarify because some of his own members of his own party in their calls have been confused about whether this is a revenue gathering instrument or whether it is not intended to gather revenue.Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Well I thank the member for her question. This is a bill which I think the title is very clear in relation to what it does. In terms of the issue of cost recovery it is a bill which has a cost recovery mechanism included in it and as a result of that cost recovery it means that the general taxpayer won't be required to pay for the operation of this scheme."
Utikere TangiTANGI UTIKERE (Chief Whip—Labour): Point of order. Thank you Madam Chair. I just want to seek some clarification from you as we embark on this stage of the process. The Minister has made some introductory comments that purely relate to the title. I refer you to Speaker's ruling 127/1 which relates to basically the exact situation that the committee does find itself in and you may be familiar—CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): I've actually brought the clause with me. Tangi Utikere: Fantastic you're very diligent as per usual—we are on the same page. CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): 127/1 basically says that Members haven't had a chance to view the bill and haven't had much notice. There haven't been any public submissions so therefore clause 1 will be a more fulsome debate around the bill but I will still require members to address the bill that is in front of them." So in giving questions or speeches around the title that can go wider than the title but not wide-ranging into the other clauses too much. Just be careful that we don't debate the whole bill in the first clause but it is more wide-ranging than just the title.Hon David Parker: Madam Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon David Parker. Is this a point of order or a speech?Hon DAVID PARKER: No I didn't call a point of order no.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): OK so the member wants to speak. The Hon David Parker wants to speak on clause 1."
Kuriger Barbara; Brown SimeonIn CommitteeClause 1 TitleCHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members the House is in committee on the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Amendment Bill. Members we start with the debate on clause 1. Clause 1 is the debate on Title". The question is that clause 1 stand part. Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Thank you Madam Chair. This bill has seven clauses. This first clause is the title clause. The title clause states very clearly that "This Act is the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Amendment Act 2024." and it has that name simply because it amends the standard in relation to the setting of it and in relation to it a being user-pays rather than a Crown-subsidised scheme. It's very simple; what it says is what it does."
Utikere TangiTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you—thank you for your diligence Madam Chair. Clause 1 I have a number of Amendment Papers that have been tabled in advance so the Minister has had an opportunity to hopefully look at those. They all suggest specific changes to clause 1 and I think that's important because the title in effect reflects what is contained elsewhere in the bill. So I am interested in the Minister's responses to those. The first of which is Amendment Paper 42. They're actually 42 43 44 45 46 and 47. They all relate to clause 1. I am interested in whether the Minister is comfortable with some of those suggested amendments or whether he might have another few on that.I also think that it would be helpful—I don't know whether the Minister wants to elucidate on his response to the Hon Dr Megan Woods. I mean the Minister might enjoy receiving open letters but I think it's highly unusual that effectively an Officer of Parliament has bevvied into this process and has taken the effort to point out what seems to be a very straightforward suggestion. I think it is only proper that the Minister might wish to have the opportunity to reflect on that and to perhaps provide a response to the letter given that he is an Officer of Parliament. Perhaps I'll leave it there and come back with some other questions.
Genter Julie Anne; Kuriger BarbaraHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Thank you Madam Chair. I have a series of questions about both aspects that the bill brings in. One is: firstly who has the Minister consulted with in deciding to bring this bill to the House under urgency? What specific organisations has the Minister consulted with before bringing this bill under all stages in urgency to the House?The second question is: how can this bill be increasing certainty when it's removing targets that have been publicly available to the industry and to all of New Zealand for several years and replacing it with none? What process is the Minister intending to use on consultation on any new standards he might be putting in for the years 2025 2026 and 2027 before those are brought in through regulation? I'll carry on with more questions after I get those answers.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Tangi Utikere thank you for your patience.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 52New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 3.Motion agreed to.Bill read a first time.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 68 Noes 55.SPEAKER: The question is That the Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Bill be considered by the Justice Committee.Motion agreed to.Bill referred to the Justice Committee.
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Forests (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers Repeal) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 102New Zealand National 49; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 14Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 14.Motion agreed to.Bill read a second time.DEPUTY SPEAKER: This bill is set down for committee stage immediately. I declare the House in committee for consideration of the Forests (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers Repeal) Amendment Bill.
Butterick MikeMIKE BUTTERICK (National—Wairarapa): Thank you Madam Speaker. Another great bill that removes red tape—unnecessary red tape—and removes costs for the forestry sector which like the rest of the primary sector are doing it pretty tough at the moment. I'm sure they'll appreciate a reduction in cost. The old adage If it ain't broke don't fix it" certainly applies. The cost of the red tape is now a solution that has turned out to be a solution looking for a problem that didn't actually eventuate. So red tape—unnecessary red tape—bye bye. I commend the bill to the House."
van de Molen TimTIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Thank you Madam Speaker. Happy to rise and take a call in the Forests (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers Repeal) Amendment Bill. I think the case has been traversed quite well—the Minister put forward and outlined the clear reasons we need this. Ultimately one of the biggest frustrations I hear from my constituents in the Waikato is the over-regulation; the burdensome red tape and compliance that just makes it hard to get stuff done.On this side of the House we are focused on unlocking New Zealand's potential on driving that economic growth rebuilding the economy and getting the country back on track. So I absolutely support this bill and look forward to the progressions of the next few stages this evening. Thank you.
Rutherford TomTOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. I stand in support of the Forests (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers Repeal) Amendment Bill. I was reading through some of the debate notes in preparation for this speech and one of the things I came across was some comments actually made by the relevant Minister the Hon Todd McClay—and I quote—The current system fails to deliver outcomes and places unnecessary costs on forest businesses. The repeal will be delivered at speed with changes coming into effect before 1 July." Therefore I'd like to get out of the way and get it all enforced. I commend it to the House."
Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Madam Speaker. It is a great pleasure to speak on the Forests (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers Repeal) Amendment Bill. I think there's widespread agreement across the House that this Act is unnecessary. I do have to take a little bit of issue with the previous speaker the Hon Dr Duncan Webb. I think it's a big person who is someone who can accept that they put something in that is not actually fit for purpose with new information and I think it's really big of them to come forward and take it on the chin and move on. With that I commend the bill to the House.
Trask LauraLAURA TRASK (ACT): Thank you. I stand in support of the Forests (Log Traders and Forestry Advisers Repeal) Amendment Bill acknowledging the Hon Peeni Henare's comments about forestry and ACT's position on turning productive land into forest. Unfortunately I'm unable to comment on my colleague's positions on that but maybe throughout this process you will get your answers.Look the ACT Party's all about cutting red tape and making it easier to do business in New Zealand. So I think that this bill strikes a good balance between eco-activity and providing employment and I think it's a really sensible bill and I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.
Patterson MarkHon MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Thank you Madam Speaker. I find myself in a rather invidious position of getting up to support a bill that I was part of a party that helped bring into being. So that is politics for you. But I recall back in those maybe 2018-19 years when this piece of legislation came into being. It was as the previous Green speaker alluded to a sense of tidying up the industry taking out some cowboys. But also there was concern and continues to be concern about the massive opportunity costs of seeing raw logs go out from the ports without the value being captured by further processing onshore. It was thought that some of these mechanisms could help to make sure that at least the local processors got a shot at some of that supply.I guess the long and the short of it is that it's a solution that didn't necessarily deal with the problem. That seems to be the outcome of this. I think sometimes in politics you've got to be able to accept that you don't always get it right and if you haven't got it right and you can try another way then that's what you should do. So we've taken on some wisdom from the Minister here—Minister McClay—who does not support this. We've been prepared to go with him on this and accept his world view I guess in terms of cutting the red tape getting out of the way and letting industry take care of itself a bit. So we'll see how that goes. But I think sometimes in politics there's some things you're not going to die in a ditch for and New Zealand First is not going to die in a ditch for this bill. It's a bill that hasn't probably reached its potential in terms of outcomes that we would have liked when we brought it in. So we will accept that. We will support the bill and we'll commend it through to this next stage. Thank you.
McKee NicoleInstruction to Justice CommitteeHon NICOLE McKEE (Associate Minister of Justice): I move That the Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 1 November 2024.
Garcia PauloPAULO GARCIA (National—New Lynn): Restoring three strikes is about restoring law and order. We on the Government benches make no apologies for taking action to crack down on crime hold serious offenders to account and make our towns and cities safer. I commend this bill to the House.
Meager JamesJAMES MEAGER (National—Rangitata): If New Zealanders weren't already on notice that this is a Government committed to restoring law and order in this country well they are now. Along with this excellent piece of legislation the Government today also announced strengthening to our sentencing laws. On the weekend the Prime Minister along with the Minister for Children Karen Chhour announced new serious youth offender categories. And of course there are new cops hitting the beat as we speak. As chair of the busy and effective Justice Committee we look forward to considering our 16th bill for this Parliament. We will look forward to the robust and strong exchanges amongst committee members. I commend the bill to the House.
Brewer CameronCAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): Thank you Mr Speaker. What a great day for law and order in this country. What a great day for Upper Harbour. Look I stand in support—full support—of the Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Bill and this Government is delivering on our commitment to introduce the revised three-strikes law as one of our key law and order priorities after that lot repealed it in 2022. And did that help? No no. What's happened since 2022? It's only got worse. This bill will help protect victims and communities by keeping violent criminals off the streets and delivering justice for the victims of serious violent and sexual offending. I commend this bill.