edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
10. Question No. 10—ImmigrationERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays) to the Minister of ImmigrationQuestion No. 10—Immigration10. ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays) to the Minister of Immigration: Does he stand by all his answers given in question time yesterday; if so can he confirm the date the immigration instructions were amended to include the border exception for 200 rural contractors that was announced by Minister O'Connor on 12 December last year?Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Immigration): Yes particularly as the immigration system has supported the primary sector during the border closure with over 6000 workers brought in through the class-exemption process to support our economic recovery. These decisions have supported sectors and have helped to keep New Zealanders safe. With regard to the rural contractors' exception the date the amended instruction was signed out by me was 19 January—not the 21st as the member said yesterday. That was two days after they were given to me and in line with a Cabinet decision in December last year to implement in early 2022. This decision was made to manage significant pressure on managed isolation and quarantine over the summer break.Erica Stanford: How can he stand by his answer yesterday—that he was told by Rural Contractors New Zealand that immigration instructions needed to be in place by February—when an email sent to him by Rural Contractors New Zealand and copied to the National Party in December states When will visa applications be open to contractors to ensure they are in the country as soon as possible in January?"Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Because when we spoke to the rural contractors late last year and outlined the plan February was the time frame which they could work with.Erica Stanford: How can it be that when the Minister receives two emails from Rural Contractors New Zealand dated 24 December and 7 January it took him another—maths—couple of weeks to sign off instructions to allow those contractors to apply for visas?Hon KRIS FAAFOI: The member should listen to the primary answer. Cabinet made a decision to implement in early 2022. That's exactly what we did. Erica Stanford: What does the Minister say to farmers who were relying on those 200 rural contractors signed off on 12 December who are now unable to harvest crops in February because only 40 of those 200 rural contractors have continued with the process and none are due to arrive this month despite urgent emails from rural contractors—SPEAKER: Order! The member asked the question some time ago. Hon KRIS FAAFOI: I'd also note to the member that I believe on 21 December last year given a forecast for a potential Omicron outbreak the Government had to change its plans to reopen the border. As the member or the Opposition may have noticed we are still trying to deal with a global pandemic and keeping New Zealanders safe and making sure we change some of our plans and do that in a safe way was done on 21 December."
9. Question No. 9—Economic and Regional DevelopmentHELEN WHITE (Labour) to the Minister for Economic and Regional DevelopmentQuestion No. 9—Economic and Regional Development9. HELEN WHITE (Labour) to the Minister for Economic and Regional Development: What announcements has he recently made about supporting the events sector?Hon STUART NASH (Minister for Economic and Regional Development): On Saturday I announced that the Events Transition Support Payment Scheme (ETSP) will be extended to 31 January 2023 and expanded to include business events delivering certainty and support for the events sector. Extending the ETSP by expanding it to include eligible business events of at least 200 attendees will give much-needed certainty to this industry. These changes will provide confidence to those operating in these sectors so they can plan knowing that the Government will underwrite 90 percent of their unrecoverable costs from now until next summer.Helen White: Why has the Government moved to provide additional support to the sector?Hon STUART NASH: The Government moved quickly to provide support for event organisers due to the precarious nature of this industry in times of uncertainty. As a consequence thousands of New Zealanders were able to enjoy large concerts and festivals over summer. But Omicron has changed the game and we have adapted our plan in response. We know that under the current Red settings large events cannot proceed. This is devastating for event organisers artists and everyone associated with large-scale events including attendees. The changes I announced last week will provide a degree of certainty so that event organisers can continue to plan despite the ongoing unpredictability due to COVID-19. Already event organisers in Auckland and Mangawhai have received funds paid out of the scheme 17 events have been delivered with our help and we expect 53 still to proceed over the next few months.Helen White: What feedback has he seen from the sector?Hon STUART NASH: This announcement was welcome news for a sector that has been under considerable pressure since the start of this global pandemic. Business Events Industry Aotearoa's Lisa Hopkins said they were overjoyed" that the Government had acknowledged through the expanded scheme "the key role business events will have in New Zealand's recovery". Wellington Homegrown event director Andrew Tuck said "If it wasn't for the Government's scheme we'd probably be looking down the barrel of not being able to run again." And the organisers of WOMAD in Taranaki said that they acknowledge "the Government's Events Transition Support Scheme recognising the important role our festival plays in the region of Taranaki and ensuring the future of the festival.""
3. Question No. 3—HealthDr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini) to the Minister of HealthQuestion No. 3—Health3. Dr ANAE NERU LEAVASA (Labour—Takanini) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he made about online mental health support for parents?Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Health): On Friday I announced the Positive Parenting Programme—Triple P—and this suite of online programmes offers practical advice easy-to-use resources and strategies for parents to help their children and teens cope with life's ups and downs. Just as the vaccine programme has been key supporting mental wellbeing has also been a vital part of this Government's response to COVID-19.Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: Who will be able to access the Triple P programme?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: During last year's Delta lockdown the programmes were made available to parents in Auckland. We received very positive feedback from that and now the programme will be available to parents anywhere in the country. We know COVID-19 has caused stress for many families with worries about money work and schooling and all of this affects people's mental health. This is about supporting parents and children to manage their wellbeing over the long term.Dr Anae Neru Leavasa: What supports are available through the Triple P programme?Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The free Triple P suite of online programmes that are available include Triple P online teen Triple P online and fear-less Triple P online. We know that this pandemic has been particularly tough on young people and for some the return to school after an extended break may add to the stress. These programmes enable parents to help their children and teens get on top of anxiety and become more happy confident and resilient and I would encourage anyone who wishes to access the programme to go to www.triplep-parenting.net.nz.
Salesa JennyCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): It is time for me to report progress on this bill. House resumed.REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSECHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Madam Speaker the committee has further considered the Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has also further considered the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill and reports it with amendment. The committee has also considered the Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill and reports progress. I move That the report be adopted.Motion agreed to.Report adopted.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): The Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill and the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill are set down for third reading next sitting day. The Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill and the Commerce Amendment Bill are set down for further consideration in committee next sitting day. Members the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. Good evening.The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.
Grigg NicolaNICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Thank you Madam Chair. And I thank the Minister for his comments and explanations. But the one point that the Minister didn't touch on was the points raised by my colleague Scott Simpson that this is a binding contractual arrangement—some might call it a treaty—that the Crown is prepared to renege on. So I would like to refer to the Environment Committee's report back and the National Party's differing view because we would say that we would oppose this bill in its entirety.I would like to ask the Minister why end tenure review? It is a treaty that was entered into willingly by two different parties that recognised the rights for strategic pastoral farmland and the rights for strategic land to go into the conservation estate. So therefore the major opposition to this bill has been the one-size-fits-all approach the hammer to crack a nut. How Minister do you design a system to manage 1.2 million hectares of very diverse at times very rugged with diverse ecology environments weather systems topographies. What therefore Minister is the review mechanism to address failures that will undoubtedly occur as a result of this legislation? How will you resolve inequities in this one-size-fits-all approach?We believe and I would imagine 99 percent of the leaseholders would agree the cumulative impact of this piece of legislation will work in direct opposition to the bill's objective. It will be a detriment to the high country's inherent values. Again I refer to the National Party's minority view—and I would expect the Minister's read it because it is very sensible. We agree with concerns raised by leaseholders that this will add layers and layers and layers of bureaucracy. It will largely duplicate regulation that has been foreshadowed in the likes of the national policy statement (NPS) on indigenous biodiversity and the NPS on freshwater. So to the Minister what work have you done to cross-reference? What work have you done or have your officials done to identify these double-ups and these crossovers? And what efforts Minister will you put in as the Minister of Agriculture to alleviate this burden on the sector that you represent?
Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill — In Committee—Part 1
SpeechHon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. It is astonishing—the two contributions we have just heard seem to believe that the Crown pastoral lands in the high country is owned almost by leaseholders. These are Crown lands. Anybody who has read any of the history of Crown pastoral lands and how there has been significant ecological loss on those Crown lands over decades will recognise that this bill is about ensuring that we have a land management regime which is much more one of partnership between the leaseholders between the Crown with much greater recognition of Ngāi Tahu and iwi in Te Wai Pounamu values as well in implementing the Treaty.That this concept of inherent values which the last speaker Mark Cameron was objecting so truculently to is all about ensuring that the indigenous and landscape values of these Crown pastoral lands are maintained. Because simply cultivating them and converting them to ryegrass and clover destroys the tussock land destroys the matagouri destroys those natural nitrogen fixers and completely changes the high country into the Canterbury Plains.The member has talked about wilding conifer control. The member seems totally unaware of the $100 million that the Crown is investing in partnership with a lot of pastoral landholders particularly in areas like the Mackenzie Basin and the Te Manahuna Aoraki Project where lessees are working with the Crown to ensure that those wilding conifers are controlled. What this bill is about is modernising the Crown Pastoral Land Act; stopping tenure review and the privatisation of pastoral lease lands which the National Government was happy to see continue; and ensuring that we manage those lands sustainably now and into the future in much more of a partnership model.So I would just ask the Minister if he could expand on the changes in his Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that the Order Paper makes to the concept of inherent values because that is new and also to the changes that it is making around public access. Because the Environment Committee in submissions heard from members of the public organisations like Federated Mountain Clubs that many pastoral leaseholders are very happy to provide public access for recreational users particularly those on foot. Sometimes they have a problem with those on four-wheel drives. The select committee ensured that there were changes to ensure that public access was considered at the time when a lease was transferred. If the Minister could just expand on the changes that his SOP is making and how it deals with that public access issue and if he could outline what consultation and dialogue he's had about that with the High Country Accord and other representatives of leaseholders.
Cameron MarkMARK CAMERON (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. Minister look anywhere in rural New Zealand most people would take huge umbrage with this piece of legislation. It's nothing more than property theft arguably—you will probably take a different position on that. I see in here in part of the legislation it talks about the meaning of inherent value. Well Minister whatever happened to inherent value of the way of life in rural New Zealand? It is inherent. It's generationally inherent. I'm actually standing here quite sad that I'm actually looking at this piece of legislation and I think arguably most people on this side of the House would be. There's 150 years of inherent value.I'll add to that Minister if I may with the greatest respect to you sir every year in rural New Zealand we have another 5 percent of the country covered in wilding pines. And we've got a Jobs for Nature programme that no one can seem to tell the side of the House what's being spent on that. And you're removing that opportunity from the very people that are mitigating this problem. I mean 90000 hectares Minister per year—that's 5 percent extra every year. And these are the very people and I maintain these words: this is a way of life for them. This is generationally inherent. So do you want to speak to the inherent value that apparently the new definition excludes?
Salesa JennyCROWN PASTORAL LAND REFORM BILLIn CommitteePart 1 Amendments to Crown Pastoral Land Act 1998CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members we turn now to the Crown Pastoral Land Reform Bill. We come first to Part 1. Part 1 of the debate on clauses 3 to 16 and Schedules 1 to 3 Amendments to Crown Pastoral Land Act 1988". The question is that Part 1 stand part."
Brown SimeonClauses 1 and 2SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you Madam Chair. I just want to take a very brief call in regard to the title and commencement and I note this is where the Supplementary Order Paper 84 from Julie Anne Genter which seeks to have effectively an expiry provision for this piece of legislation has been put on the Table. The National Party will not be supporting that Supplementary Order Paper because actually as I mentioned earlier this is not an issue which is going to go away in five years' time. It's not like we're going to wake up in five years' time and either people have stopped using illicit substances or we've suddenly woken up and we're accepting of the fact that people just drive down the road in some sort of fairyland or in whatever type of high they want to and we accept the consequences of that. That is not the type of future I want it's not the type of future I want for my children and I don't think it's the type of future that New Zealanders want. So we will not be supporting that amendment to this piece of legislation. In fact we want to see this legislation in place for some time because actually it is important to give the police the tools they need to keep our roads safe and to be able to keep New Zealanders safe as they drive down the road. So we will not be supporting that piece of legislation. We support the bill as I've mentioned. It is a bill which has been coming for some time. It should have been passed when the National Party brought it in as a member's bill on a number of occasions but the Government finally did pick it up before the last election and finally we're at the final stages of this piece of legislation. I hope that we'll be able to give effect to it as soon as possible. Thank you Madam Chair.
Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 2
Salesa JennyPart 2 Related and consequential amendmentsCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members we now come to Part 2. This is the debate on clauses 41 to 43 Related and consequential amendments". The question is that Part 2 stand part.Part 2 agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter's amendment to replace the amendment to Schedule 1 in Supplementary Order Paper 96 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 97 be agreed to. This is in relation to the schedule.Amendment agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister's amendment to Schedule 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 96 as amended be agreed to.Amendment as amended agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Schedule 1 as amended stand part.Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that Schedule 2 stand part.Schedule 2 agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members we now come to our final debate which is on clauses 1 and 2 the title and commencement."
Salesa JennyCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter's amendment to delete the amendment to clause 39 in Supplementary Order Paper 96 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 97 be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): The question is that the Minister's amendments to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 96 as amended be agreed to.Amendments as amended agreed to.Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 1
SpeechHon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister of Police): Thank you Madam Chair. Firstly I'd like to thank the Transport and Infrastructure Committee for the work they have done and the officials for bringing this bill back to the House in such a way that we can be debating it with very little argument and large agreement across the House. I thank the members for their contributions and I thank the members across the House for their support.I want to comment on a couple of issues that the previous speaker Simeon Brown raised. The purpose of this bill is to deal with the invidious dilemma we have before us the rising numbers of people who are impacted by drugs who are driving on our roads. The member was correct to allude to the fact that increasingly drugs are having such an impact on our roads that they are causing more and more fatalities—perhaps not as many as alcohol but I know that in the last five or six years the numbers impacted by drugs who are killed on our roads has increased to the point where we can no longer sit idle. We must act and provide the support to our police to enforce this to keep our roads safe.I just want to signal that in terms of the Supplementary Order Papers in the name of the Hon Julie Anne Genter the review period that she has suggested we agree with; we think that is a useful mechanism for us to check in to know that the legislation is working well and also to make whatever decisions we may make about needing to make amendments to that. In terms of the sunset clause that is not something we think is needed given that we have a review period that we are going to support. I thank the members across the Chamber for their support of that review period.I just want to say that it is an important piece of legislation that we're passing here today and it is about keeping us as safe as we can be on the road. So I'm not going to prolong my discussion in this debate just to thank those who have worked so hard on this bill. Hopefully we will pass it very quickly.
Salesa JennyLAND TRANSPORT (DRUG DRIVING) AMENDMENT BILLIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 9 February.Part 1 Amendments to Land Transport Act 1998CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members we now turn to the interrupted consideration in committee of the Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill. When we were last considering this bill Part 1 was being debated. The question is that Part 1 stand part.
SpeechHon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): I'm bound by the long-standing conventions of this House to consider all other members of the House to be honourable members and to believe what they say when they say things in the House. And so I have to accept at his word the member for Coromandel's comments just now—that he actually believes what he has just said. And if it is the case that he does believe what he just said and I accept that then I can only conclude that he is either illiterate or incredibly lazy because he simply hasn't read the piece of legislation that is in front of him or taken the most cursory efforts to understand how the Clean Car Discount scheme works.The Clean Car Discount scheme as it kicked in from 1 July last year required no legislation to give effect to the discounts—Simeon Brown: Why the date?Hon MICHAEL WOOD: —that were provided to people. Well if the member reads clause 2(1) it refers to sections 22 to 24. Has the member looked at what's in sections 22 to 24? They're not the parts of the Act that enable the Government to be able to put in place a discount scheme; they're the relatively minor parts that relate to the Income Tax Act and the calculation of fringe benefit tax. Fitzgerald v Muldoon this ain't.
Salesa JennyClauses 1 and 2CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Members we now come to our final debate. This is the debate on clauses 1 and 2 the title and commencement debate.
SpeechHon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): I'm happy to address the points raised by the member there. The first is though that I do note that in 9A there is a requirement for the agency in its annual report every year to be reporting on matters in relation to the Clean Car Discount scheme. So there is a direct requirement for the agency responsible not just to the Minister but actually back to the Parliament and to face select committee scrutiny and of course the eyes of the Auditor-General who will advise the select committee as a part of that process. So I'm confident that there's a high degree of transparency about the scheme and a high degree of ability to scrutinise not just from a ministerial point of view but from a parliamentary point of view. And that is important I agree with the member.The additional powers provided to the secretary here we did rather traverse this in the previous discussion—or outlined the role of the Crown agent and the ministry as the Crown monitor giving advice to the Minister. I think it is appropriate to set up that power so it's effectively at the discretion of the secretary to fulfil that function and to be able to inquire in a way that they need. I note that if we took up the member's suggestion and said it has to happen every 12 months or every two years that would actually be restrictive. You know obviously there is an annual process but I would think that if a matter came to the secretary's attention at any given point in time we would want the secretary to be able to make those inquiries to be able to require the information to be forthcoming and for that information to be provided to the Minister to make decisions or at least to be aware. What I would say beyond that is that certainly for my own part I already receive very regular reporting on the operation of the scheme. I get good information from the agency good support from the ministry and I'm sure that future Ministers will be keen to do that as well.
SpeechHon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): The member misunderstands so if I can clarify: the costs that I identified before relate to the administrative costs of running the overall Clean Car Discount and standard schemes. The provisions that the member is referring to relate to the confines that the legislation sets up for the actual Clean Car Discount scheme which as I identified before is funded through a repayable $300 million loan. And the short answer to the main question that the member has is that that is the fund within which the scheme has to operate. It can't operate beyond that. And as we traversed in the debate on Part 1 the discounts and the fees have to be set in such a way that the scheme remains solvent. So it has to operate within that overall cap and this formula is what ensures that happens.
Doocey MattHon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): I thank both members for their very earnest and deep consideration of this issue. I can confirm there'll be no eggplants or other emojis on the labels. But beyond that I think that the members will understand that we're not going to get in the business of designing label specifications in the committee stage of the House of the New Zealand Parliament. This is an empowering piece of legislation that sets up a regulation to enable the labels to be designed. That'll be done through the energy conservation Act legislation. As the member notes this is how we organise energy-efficiency labels for other things that we regulate within New Zealand. The plain wording is pretty clear here: that the focus will simply be on the rebates receivable or the charges payable. That's the key information that the consumers need to know. The other details we won't be getting into in the legislation.MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much Madam Chair. Just carrying on from that response—and thank you Minister for that—because I just want to drill down I suppose into the rebate. Under clause 15(1G) you've got a - b = c". And you know fair to say with algebra sometimes "a - b" doesn't always equal "c". I was interested when you gave my colleague from ACT—Mark Cameron—those figures around—Hon Member: Said like a real St Bede's boy. MATT DOOCEY: —capital expenditure (CAPEX) and operating expenditure (OPEX). Sorry?Hon Member: Nothing.MATT DOOCEY: Oh OK. I thought my schooling was being called into question. Can you take an offence to your own side of the team Madam Chair?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Continue Matt Doocey.MATT DOOCEY: I must say I'm probably one of the only people in Parliament where I've still got my school teacher in my caucus.So "a - b = c". Now if "a" is the revenue and "b" as you said CAPEX and OPEX—and I think you just told Mark Cameron that it was—what was it?—$8 million for CAPEX and $6 million for OPEX. That's $14 million. What we're probably missing is it needs to be divided by "d" which would be the number of cars for the rebate which would give you then "e" which would be the rebate. My point is to that formula what if there is no money left after that equation—Hon Member: What about the square root of the emissions?MATT DOOCEY: Serious serious—with CAPEX and OPEX at $14 million? And what happens if you don't raise enough money through revenue to pay a rebate back in that formula? Thank you Madam Chair."
Cameron MarkMARK CAMERON (ACT): I'll just ask this question of the Minister on behalf of my colleague Simon Court who's currently absent. How much will be spent he asks on developing the scheme? What is the initial capital expenditure? What will be the annual operating expenses? And will the Minister consider outsourcing the admin to i.e. the private sector considering such likes as VTNZ and the AA do warrants of fitness and have them do their licensing for these vehicles?Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): I answered this in the previous part of the debate: approximately a $6 million capital set-up cost and approximately $8 million per annum ongoing.
SpeechHon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): Just in answer to the member's final set of questions around the fees and charging language I can confirm that everything is accurate in terms of what has been described—and the amendment which I have tabled some of this relates to the fact that mostly in Part 1 we were dealing with provisions that related to both the standard and the discount whereas in Part 2 we're primarily dealing with matters that relate to the discount scheme only where charges" is the correct term. So everything is as it should be in that respect.I want to respond to questions from both Mr Simpson and Mr Brown that related to the funding of the scheme. And so just to confirm this is a self-funding scheme that doesn't net out at any overall cost. It's funded by a repayable loan the Crown made in Budget 2021 of around about $300 million and over the course of the scheme revenue coming in and money going out will balance up. So it's not envisaged that there'll be further Crown funding that needs to go into that and then that loan will be repaid within approximately a 10-year period.The provisions that Mr Brown referred to are simply about ensuring that the boundaries of that are kept to and that the scheme can't pay out more than money is going in to make sure that it keeps within that overall principle of fiscal neutrality. In respect of the role of the Secretary for Transport in monitoring the scheme I wouldn't venture down too far into Mr Simpson's question about what might be reasonably required. The nature of the relationship here is quite important. Waka Kotahi is the Crown agency at somewhat arm's length from the Crown and the Minister. The Ministry of Transport is the Crown monitor that provides the Minister with advice to make sure that taxpayer funding is being used appropriately in accordance with legislation and so that will be up to the secretary at the time to make sure that they are satisfied with the information that they receive in order to be able to advise the Minister. So that is a matter that I would leave to the judgment of the secretary.Finally I appreciate the Minister's interest in bilingual matters in this piece of legislation. It is important to note that across the—of course we're making amendments to a number of pieces of parent legislation all of which currently refer to the New Zealand Transport Agency and so to ensure that we have consistency and a lack of confusion we've kept the language consistent there with "New Zealand Transport Agency" but yeah possibly at some point in the future there could be an exercise to change all of those references to "Waka Kotahi" but it wouldn't be good practice to have both names threaded through a piece of legislation."
SpeechPart 2 Amendments to other enactmentsCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Members we now come to Part 2 and this is the debate on clauses 13 to 26 Amendments to other enactments". The question is that Part 2 stand part."
SpeechHon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): In answer to the member's question: there is not a maximum fee. It's not really possible to compare the way it plays out across used or individuals because as the member notes for the used vehicles the fee will apply on an individual basis. In respect of new importers the clean car standard applies across the average of emissions imported by that importer over the case of a year not to an individual vehicle.
Brown SimeonSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you Madam Chair for the opportunity to take another call on Part 1 of the Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill.I'd like to ask a question in regards to category 2 light vehicle importers. And this is where vehicles are imported vehicle by vehicle and where charges are placed upon those vehicles dependent upon their carbon dioxide emissions. My understanding of this is effectively that each of those cars gets treated as an individual car rather than the type category A light vehicle importers which effectively are looking more of a fleet level in terms of what are the charges and the overs and unders. And the question I've got in regards to the charges it says in the new section 182(2) in clause 7 that The charges are—from 1 January 2023—(i) $18.00 dollars per gram of carbon dioxide by which a used vehicle exceeds its target; and (ii) $36.00 per gram of carbon dioxide by which a new imported vehicle exceeds its target;". My understanding of the difference there is that a used vehicle will come in later in its life and therefore it has a shorter period of time. But the question I've got in relation to these charges—is there going to be a cap on the maximum amount that can be charged based upon these particular charges? And so if I was to import a used vehicle and it exceeded the target and I had to pay $18 per gram of carbon dioxide what would be the maximum fee if possible—is there a maximum fee? It doesn't seem to be that there is any sense of maximums set out in the primary legislation so I assume that is something which may be considered as part of the regulations. If it is part of the regulations is that something that the Minister has determined that it will be a maximum fee? Will that maximum fee therefore also be different between the two different types of vehicles? So if I have imported a used vehicle I would assume therefore that the maximum fee for a used vehicle would be about half that of what the maximum fee of an imported vehicle would be.And so I guess the issue which may become apparent here is that if those maximum fees were the same then there's effectively a disincentive once the new vehicle exceeds a particular point; actually you're effectively creating an opportunity to bring in more higher emitting vehicles without actually that continually—costs just continuing to go up. So the question there is: is it just a raw "This will be how much you will pay if it exceeds the target for every single gram?" And will there be a maximum fee? And if so will those maximum fees differ between a used vehicle and a newly imported vehicle?"
SpeechHon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): Just briefly in response to a few of the questions that have been raised the first from Mr Simpson questioning the levels of fees that are set out in the legislation. The fees were consulted on very widely going back to 2019 when the previous Associate Minister first kicked off engagement around the clean car standard with the sector. They went through a very significant consultation exercise. They were roughly halved from the original proposals that were put forward in response to engagement with the sector and they're designed—as I said in comments yesterday—to kind of get the tension right within the system. We don't want them to be so exorbitant that they do add significant cost into the sector but also they are designed to put some positive pressure on within the system to send the incentive to get stock of cleaner vehicles. I note in response to another comment by definition the scheme can't be inflationary because it basically nets out at zero in the end so in as much as there are fees which are in the system on the other side there are discounts within the system as well so there is no overall impact there. In answer to Mr McDowall's question there's no scenario under which a zero-emissions vehicle would end up attracting fees under either the standard or the discount. In answer to Mr Brown's questions about the tabled amendment this is a point that officials have picked up—admittedly relatively late in the piece—which is just about the consistency of language across the legislation where fees and charges are referred to consistently across other parts of the legislation and they weren't in those parts. There's no significant flow-on effect from that but it was important to have consistency of language in the legislation.
SpeechDr JAMES McDOWALL (ACT): I would just ask is the Minister not concerned by comments by industry or industry types like the Motor Trade Association (MTA) that penalties will simply wind up being paid for by consumers perhaps even on electric vehicles themselves if they're trying to spread the costs out. I'd also ask and this relates to a Supplementary Order Paper as well SOP 119 but you know adjusting it slightly why wouldn't the Minister consider creating at least a stand-down period of say five years for example for the rural sector and for tradies just to allow the manufacturing allow the sector to actually create new vehicles and do a bit of catch up so this is actually a little bit more relevant.
Brown SimeonSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you Madam Chair and thank you for the opportunity to take another call. I'd like to in this instance ask the Minister to answer a question in regards to what appears to be a tabled amendment that the Minister has recently hand written for us in regards to clause 11 new section 243(1B). It amends new section 243(1B) by saying replace any charges prescribed" with any fees or charges prescribed under section 167—and I think that's 1J or is it IJ; not quite sure by the handwriting there. But it'd be helpful just to have the Minister answer exactly what the purpose of this tabled amendment that he's just written in and put on the Table actually will do and why he has brought this tabled amendment so late to this debate. I think it was tabled at 7.40 p.m. tonight for consideration. Thank you."
Simpson ScottHon SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Madam Chair for your guidance and advice. Just before I commence my contribution at this point I just want to thank the Minister for his positive engagement to the questions that are being asked. It's appreciated on this side of the Chamber. This is technical complicated legislation and it is imposing a new regime on a sector that isn't used to such a thing. So they're coming to terms with it just as members of this House are. I want to in this contribution speak to the provisions in section 177 and then 182 inserted by clause 7 which are kind of similar except that the first one section 177 relates to category 1 light vehicle importers and section 182 relates to category 2 light vehicle importers. The questions I'm particularly wanting the Minister to answer relate to the specifics of the dollar figures chosen for inclusion in what is black-letter law when this legislation will be passed.So section 177 creates at subsection (2) the charges from 1 January 2023—and this is for light vehicle importers. It will be $22.50 per gram of carbon dioxide in excess multiplied by the number of used vehicles in the fleet and $45 per gram of carbon dioxide in excess multiplied by the number of new vehicles in the fleet. Then from January 2025 it bumps up to $33.75 and then $67.50. So my first question is to the Minister: why and how were those figures determined? What was the rationale? What was the reasoning? What was the mathematics? What was the science if you like behind the selection of those very precise dollar amounts? And in a time when we have now rapid—some would say out of control—inflation and increasing concerns about the cost of living is it appropriate and wise in this legislation that has a limited time frame—and we accept that on this side of the House—to actually set the fees in the statute? Because changing them if it's necessary either up or down will I think as I understand it then require a change of legislation by way of amendment to be brought back through the House to go through a process again. And that seems to me on the face of it to be something of a cumbersome exercise when maybe it could be that the dollar figures that are set out and calculated in both sections 182 and 177 could be achieved a different way.So my primary question to the Minister is: how and what was the rationale to land on those precise dollar amounts? And those are just a couple in the legislation. I'm not going to waste the time of the committee in going through all the other parts of the legislation where there are specific and detailed mentions of precise dollars and cents terms. So if the Minister could answer those questions I'd appreciate it.
SpeechCHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Before I take another call—and I will take another call—Part 1 is the substantive part of this bill; there are a number of technicalities and I am trying to follow closely as members speak. And there is a newly introduced Minister's tabled amendment which brings the proposed amendments up to 10. So it is complex. But what I am looking for now is contributions and questions to the Minister in the chair that related directly to Part 1. I'm not looking for a wider debate which may well be more suited to what is going to be a subsequent third reading. So with those words I will accept a call.
Mooney JosephJOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you Madam Chair. I want to ask the Minister whether—and if not why not—there is not exemption for selected sectors until meaningful alternatives are available particularly for the rural sector for farmers for contractors etc. I note this is a matter that has been raised by Federated Farmers. I also note that Groundswell—it's been one of the key issues that they've raised as well and it's quite a sensible one because what they're saying is there aren't any alternatives available yet and so why not make an exemption for those sectors that do not have a realistic alternative until that alternative is available? Farmers and tradies say the Government's clean car package is an unfair tax on them because there are no realistic alternatives available at the present time. You know without being too silly about it they can't take a Tesla out the back of the farm and a Nissan LEAF isn't going to cut it either. So there are electric utes in development overseas and they look great the farming sector tells me but right now they're not here they're not available and they probably will be about $200000—throwing out a figure there—when they do get here. So the rural sector can get behind this with a recognition that those utes aren't yet available so they can do their job and keep the economy going. I note the comments by Central Otago beef and dairy farmer Ben Gillespie who with his wife Anna last year won an environment award for the approach they take on their farm when he said he was on board with the sector doing more to address its impact on climate change but this measure missed the mark. I'll just speak briefly about them. They were commended for preventing negative environmental impacts. Their farming operation includes buffer zones precision irrigation and a right pasture right time right place" philosophy. They've established two new wetlands an onsite nursery growing native plants for riparian planting—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): I'm going to require the member to come more specifically back to Part 1.JOSEPH MOONEY: So these are people are walking the talk to really ensure that they are addressing climate change. They're addressing the environmental impacts they are addressing biodiversity on their farm. They are fully on board with this. They've been recognised as regional supreme winners for their approach on-farm and they just saying "Look can you just listen to us? We want to engage we want to have electric vehicles but the ones that we need are just unavailable yet." So why not have an exemption for selected sectors until meaningful alternatives are available?"
SpeechHon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): I'll respond to the questions from Mr Simpson and Mr Brown because they sort of go together. Mr Brown's raised questions about the targets their level of ambition and the review mechanism. The targets do represent a level of ambition although I note that by 2027 they effectively take us through to what would be about that the mid-range of what comparable countries are looking to achieve by way of the targets that they have in place noting that many of those countries are actually in the process of increasing the level of ambition that they have. So I'm very comfortable with the way that they've been set.But the point I make here this is coming to Mr Simpson's question is that we've built considerable flexibility into the scheme through the ability to defer and through the ability to bank and through the ability to transfer. That means for example if in years one two or three an importer is perhaps finding it a little bit difficult and perhaps that is because they're waiting for a cleaner supply of vehicles to come on stream they have the ability to defer any of their obligations to such a point where they might well be able to overachieve and balance it out. Similarly the ability to transfer means that those firms who overachieve are able to transfer those credits to those in the industry who don't. So as I said it in the debate yesterday when we were also traversing this territory the scheme is designed to support importers to meet the targets and those points that Mr Simpson raises—the banking the borrowing the transferring—are about effectively providing a market mechanism within the system—common in virtually all the overseas schemes that we've looked at by the way—to enable them to do that. And that to some degree—in response to Mr Brown's question even though the targets are ambitious; I agree—will support importers to be able to do that.I'd also note that in 2021 after the implementation of stage one of the Clean Car Discount within a few months we already at a national fleet level reached the 2023 targets such was the positive effect of a Clean Car Discount in getting cleaner vehicles into New Zealand. So I'm actually quite positive about the ability of our sector to adapt and to get the outcomes that everyone wants in this space.In respect to the review mechanisms I just note to Mr Brown that there has been a change to the legislation here to specifically set out the review and the things that must be taken into account as part of that. This is a pretty standard methodology within the legislation. We talked yesterday about the questions about whether particular organisations should be defined in the legislation. I gave my view that that's a little bit of a problem—you don't necessarily know who the organisations might be in a few years' time—and gave my commitment to make sure that we engage widely and in good faith. And of course any Minister who doesn't do that will potentially face a challenge in the making of those decisions.