Parker DavidHon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair. The Minister still hasn't addressed the fundamental question though. The effect of the Government's policy has been to do away with the clean car discount—the rebate system that was being run—and rely now on an efficiency standard. The expertise in respect of efficiency standards should not be re-created in a different department like the Ministry of Transport when we already have it in the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority.I've already read out what was the relevant purpose clause in the energy conservation authority Act and we should remember of course that this was originally designed by the late Hon Jeanette Fitzsimons a former member of the Greens who brought to this House the idea that we needed to focus on efficiency. She promoted the idea that we do this in a way that is cost-effective. She knew that when you drilled into these issues and ran a proper cost-benefit analysis you can actually drive efficiencies that reduce people's cost of living reduce the cost to the country and reduce environmental adverse effects and it really is a win in every way in which you look at it. We've got deep expertise in respect of those issues in the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority.Tom Rutherford: Come back to the clause.Hon DAVID PARKER: I want to point out why the—Tom Rutherford: Clause 3.Hon DAVID PARKER: The Minister just gets up and he says Well it says this because it is amending the Land Transport Act." The point that we're making is that it shouldn't be. It should be amending the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Act to make that the principal Act that these sections sit within. In support of that argument I asked the Minister whether he's considered section 21 of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Act which shows what the functions of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority are and they include duties to assist the Minister to prepare and administer a strategy such as this—Tom Rutherford: Clause 3.Hon DAVID PARKER: Well this is actually about clause 3. Tom Rutherford: No it's not.Hon DAVID PARKER: It's a bit sad that the members—James Meager: Cheer up.Hon DAVID PARKER: Fair enough. I am a happy fellow. I'll cheer up. Matariki tomorrow—good time to be celebrating things.Section 21(1)(d) of the Act says that the functions of the authority include promoting practices and technologies to further energy efficiency energy conservation and the use of renewable energy. That's exactly what we're trying to do with the vehicle fleet and I'm a bit surprised that having dumped the clean car discount—which wouldn't have been something that the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority had within their existing ambit—why you can't just flick this across to the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority and get them to do this work relying on their deep expertise and experience that they've shown over the years.Other functions listed in the Act include arranging for the conduct of research assessments demonstrations reviewing the state of efficiency publishing relevant information promoting practices and technologies to further energy efficiency. This is exactly what we want to do.Now there's a bit of a culture war going on in New Zealand at the moment in respect of utes in the farming sector. It's an issue we do actually need to overcome. I trust the energy efficiency authority—I think most people in New Zealand do—and it would be good if we could come together on these issues rather than find these issues divisive within society because it doesn't need to be divisive. So again I would ask the Minister to stand and justify why this shouldn't sit within the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority rather than sit as a very similar service delivery employing more people.I'm also interested as to whether any cost analysis was done as to whether that would save money. I suspect that would save money so if the Minister could rise to his feet and tell us how much money is being spent on these initiatives within the transport department—because that's relevant I would have thought as to whether you could see whether that was likely to be more cost-effectively done within the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority. Because I would hope that the Minister as he tries to minimise the cost of—I know that these costs now if they're pushed up the Minister's got the ability to cost-recover them under this legislation but I would have hoped that he wants to minimise those costs that are recovered even if he believes in their recovery. So I'd be interested as to what the costs are within that ministry and whether any comparison was made as to how that could be more cost-effectively done by adding this function to the very similar functions that the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority already has."