Genter Julie AnneHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Tēnā koe Madam Chair. So just prefacing my comments on this part of the bill with a reflection on the explanatory note where the claim is made that it is difficult to make this scheme financially sustainable and self-financing". That is I believe contrary to the data which shows that since July 1 it has been fiscally neutral and it would continue to be fiscally neutral if this scheme was carried on as it was intended as it is by many other countries in the world who've successfully used feebates or Clean Car Discount schemes. The goal of the scheme is to be financially sustaining over time and you can see it in other countries that over a period of five or 10 years there's overs and unders and it balances out over time. So the only reason it's not fiscally neutral is because the Government is repealing it before it can be fully fiscally neutral.I have a similar question to some of the ones that have been raised because the Minister really didn't provide a substantive answer to this question which is: given that it was entirely possible for the Government through regulation to remove the fees and discounts or adjust them in any way that they needed including taking the fees off utes and carrying on with the rest of the scheme—that would have been a possible option available to the Minister. But even just leaving it in place and having zero fees and zero discounts was also an option without going through this legislative process to repeal that architecture. So the question for the Minister is why go down the legislative route when through regulation you could have achieved exactly the same outcome that Minister claims to want to achieve? The Minister wants to remove fees from utes. That was an option: you remove the fees on utes from the scheme and you could still have that financial incentive in the rest of the personal car market to ensure that New Zealanders are finding it easier to access lower-emissions vehicles and have a price incentive at the point of purchase of the vehicle which is where it is the most effective at influencing not just the choice of the consumers but the choice of the vehicle manufacturers to prioritise certain vehicles to our market. My second question to the Minister is about clause 6. Clause 6 in Part 1 amends section 167B(4) which relates to the clean vehicle standard and it says that the power set out in section—oh sorry no. Actually it's clause 7. This is the clause—clause 7—that I want: "Repeal section 239(4)(b)(iii)." which provides for information from the register of motor vehicles to be released to the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) for the purposes of administering rebates and charges. My only question here is whether the information on the register of motor vehicles about the tailpipe emissions will continue to be registered and publicly available—I mean I think the answer is yes. The Government has indicated that they intend to carry on with the fuel economy standards of the Clean Car Standard and for that obviously there needs to be information gathered on tailpipe emissions at the point of registering vehicles.So my question on clause 7 in Part 1 will that—so it's meaning that that information is not released to the New Zealand Transport Agency but will that information still be collected? Will it still be publicly available? I think it's of use for the people of New Zealand but also for the Government to understand what's happening with vehicle fleet in terms of the tailpipe emissions. Even if we're not providing that financial incentive at the point of purchase we can at least see what's happening. So the question to the Minister: does clause 7 mean that we're no longer collecting and releasing that information or is it just that it's no longer going to NZTA and if that is the case that we're no longer collecting it or it's not publicly available in what way or what mechanism is the Government going to fulfil the Clean Car Standard—the fuel economy standard?"