Nash StuartSTUART NASH (Labour—Napier): This is just a brief call but it is something that actually when I was looking at it I was not too sure of the meaning. First of all I do like Ruth Dyson's comments about when the IRD is reviewing a client's returns. I think you meant auditing their accounts? Going really—Hon Ruth Dyson: No they have a review first. STUART NASH: Yes you are dead right and I would love to see the day when the IRD phones up and says: Dear sir we do actually owe you money." That will be a—hell might freeze over. I would like to talk about clause 340 and this is inserting a new section section CX 17B "Transport in vehicle other than motor vehicle" into the Income Tax Act 2004. This is about fringe benefit. The title of the section is "Transport in vehicle other than motor vehicle". This is interesting. The reason I say that—I am going to quote this because it is just a very small line. It says: "A benefit that an employer provides to an employee in the form of transport of the employee in a vehicle is not a fringe benefit if the vehicle—(a) is not a motor vehicle; and (b) is not designed principally for the carriage of passengers." The reason this is interesting is that I am actually unsure what the definition of "vehicle" is in the Act. I have had a look in the bill and there is no definition in here. The reason I say that is that maybe this is talking about electric bikes because electric bikes are obviously becoming the big thing these days. I cannot actually see an employer providing an employee with an electric bike but you never know. But the reason why this has caused me a little confusion is you talk to a lot of people and the first thing they say about an electric car is: "The great thing about it is that it does not have a motor. It has a battery." In fact if you look at the Teslas you can open up the bonnet where a motor would be in a normal car and you can open up the boot where the motor would be in a V-Dub and there is no motor in either so you get quite a lot of space there. So if a company provided say for example a new Tesla without a motor—one of these sports Teslas—and with a back seat where you can barely fit a set of golf clubs does that mean that it does not incur fringe benefit? You could never say a sports Tesla was designed principally for the carriage of passengers and this is the other thing here. What the legislation actually says is "not designed principally for the carriage of passengers." I for example drive a ute. It is my parliamentary car; it is all branded up. A lot of tradies drive utes and it is principally for getting their gear from site to workshop etc. You would never argue that they have bought a ute principally for the carriage of passengers. I just wonder whether this is in fact tidying that up because the tradies have said: "Hey look I've got to provide a ute to my apprentice. I know he's not going to use it for the carriage of passengers because I have given him so many tools that this is principally for providing a means to transport gear to and from the yard or to and from the site." The other thing is again the definition of "vehicle". Are we talking about a bike or is it something—the bill talks about a "vehicle [that] is not a motor vehicle;" so obviously there is a recognition that a vehicle does not have to have a motor. I am wondering whether maybe this is one of those pieces of legislation that the Minister of Transport talks about where the Government is encouraging the use of electric vehicles. The Minister of Transport has always said "We will put into legislation clauses that encourage people to use electric vehicles. It's an aspirational target." so I am wondering whether in fact an electric vehicle is not a motor vehicle and therefore if an employer provides a sports Tesla to an employee it is not counted as a motor vehicle. It is not principally designed for carrying passengers and therefore—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Electric motor? STUART NASH: Well is it though? But—Brett Hudson: It's a five-seater Stuart. STUART NASH: No the sports Teslas are not. The sports Teslas have two seats and then a little seat at the back where you can stick your golf clubs. You cannot fit anyone in there. But you do not buy one of these cars principally—and the word is "principally"—for the carriage of passengers. You buy these for a whole lot of other reasons but not to carry people. So has it got an electric motor? Well that is the interesting thing: what is the definition of "motor"? You know when you talk to people about this they say: "The thing I love about the Tesla is it hasn't got an engine." It has not got an engine. It has got a big battery and a couple of other bits and pieces that drive the wheels. Brett Hudson: Motors—electric motors. STUART NASH: Well is that called a motor? I am not too sure. I think you could find that maybe Elon Musk will bring his legal counsel over and say: "This isn't a motor." The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Five seconds. STUART NASH: So what I would like to say is there are a number of definitions here that are not quite clear and it would be—The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 261 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins and the following amendments in her name to Part 3 be agreed to:in clauses 274C and 274D replace "Parts 1 to 8 of the Social Security Legislation Rewrite Act 2016" with "the Social Security Act 1964"; and delete clause 335C(3).Amendments agreed to.Part 3 as amended agreed to."