Brown SimeonSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you Madam Chair. So I guess the question following on from my colleague Matt Doocey's is whether if the scheme effectively is charging a lot more than it's paying out that will effectively mean that the charges will be reduced to match the discounts or will the discounts be increased and what periods will those be reviewed? This will be a question I'm sure the public would be interested in.My question is relating to clause 19 around the monitoring matters relating to the Clean Car Discount scheme. My understanding of this particular new section 101A is that it allows the Secretary for Transport to evaluate the performance of the clean vehicle discount scheme to monitor and review and there's a range of different things that can be done. (a) the revenue used by the Agency for the purposes of administering the scheme"—I guess the question there is: is that to try to understand whether the New Zealand Transport Agency is appropriately managing and being good stewards of the money in terms of the administrative cost? Because I'm sure that this could become quite administratively complex. "(b) the number and nature of rebates provided in relation to the carbon dioxide emissions of vehicles; and (c) the expenses and capital expenditure for the purpose of administering the scheme; and (d) any funding provided by the Agency…"—so there's a range of things that can be monitored and reviewed but it doesn't seem to have much teeth this particular clause. It effectively says that they may monitor may review and then basically may ask for some information. The only actual requirement in this clause is that if some information is requested from the secretary the agency must provide that information to the secretary. So effectively that's the only requirement; the rest is just "may".Basically it's setting up monitoring capability which I don't think is a bad idea. Actually monitoring the scheme—is it working efficiently is it actually achieving its purposes?—those are all good questions which should be asked by the Government because this is something which is very new. It's a very new scheme and whilst the Minister might say "Well there are similar schemes around the world." and all this other stuff it's new to New Zealand. We have a different market in New Zealand from other countries and we have different needs in terms of what consumers require in terms of the vehicles that they drive. So why is the Minister not actually requiring the secretary to monitor and review this scheme to review the revenue that's being used by the agency for administering it—which I think actually is a very good thing. I mean the reality is that the agency could effectively just decide over time that it's going to use more and more of the revenue and grow quite an empire to run this thing. There's no requirement for efficiency in this piece of legislation. Effectively it's just telling the agency to administer it but this is millions and millions of New Zealand's tax dollars which are being used to run this scheme—millions of dollars being used to run this scheme—and no requirement for efficiency and effectively just saying to the secretary "Well if you'd like to monitor it and review it you may." Why is that not a requirement to actually have that monitoring? I think New Zealanders want to see their dollars that they spend used efficiently and effectively. If we're going to have the scheme then that should be the expectation that the Minister should be monitoring.And the second point is: if we're going to put this particular section in why are we not asking for this to be done on a frequent regular basis? At the moment with the terminology being "may" this could be done once a year; it could be done never. It could be done for instance in three years' time. Surely this would be something that should be monitored on a regular basis. And I know there are some reporting requirements but reporting requirements are very different from the monitoring and reviewing requirement from the Ministry of Transport which I would be suggesting would be an important amendment or change that the Minister may like to consider.The other point is in relation to the requirement to provide information. There's actually no requirement to provide that information in a timely fashion. It effectively says the secretary may request information and that the agency must provide the information but it doesn't say the information needs to be provided in a timely fashion. It doesn't say it needs to be provided in 30 working days or 21 working days or whatever number of working days may be appropriate in this instance; it just says "must provide the information". Effectively that could be something which becomes quite complex when these reviews actually need to be undertaken. So a number of questions relating to this part which I look forward to the Minister addressing."