Court Simon; Wood MichaelSIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. So back on Part 1 I just want to come back to the motorcycles and mopeds error—apparently—Minister. When motor vehicle importers and submitters came to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee last year when this legislation was proposed they identified that motorcycles and mopeds could potentially be captured. This is information that the ACT Party through written parliamentary questions was able to obtain in response from your office along the lines that after some time it was acknowledged that yes it would capture motorcycles and mopeds. My concern with this amendment is: what other consequential impacts are there that the industry has told the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) about potentially your office or yourself in discussions? Because we can see that there has been some external consultation—sorry no formal external consultation but there have been closed-door meetings with the Motor Industry Association and the Vehicle Industry Association who primarily import used vehicles.So I'm interested as to what other potential perverse or unintended but likely outcomes have been flagged as a result of the primary legislation and these amendments. Does it include for example a matter I referred to previously that when vehicles are coming across the border and when an importer has to put information into their carbon dioxide account the distinction between a new vehicle that lands in New Zealand unregistered and is taken to a dealer's lot and then driven by people on test drives—what we might call a demonstrator model that might have 15000 or 20000 kilometres on it or even less 1500 kilometres on it. By the time it is finally sold and registered in New Zealand for the first time how is that different to a used car that arrives in New Zealand having been previously registered in say Malaysia or Thailand or even Japan which has also travelled only a very few kilometres—maybe you know 500 1000 1500? And why would there be a difference between the way those vehicles are treated at the time of first registration between an imported vehicle that's done a few hundred kilometres or potentially none and an imported one that's imported by an independent importer and one that's imported by an original equipment manufacturer say directly from the factory. The vehicles have had the equivalent running in the country that they were manufactured and supplied from.So could the Minister in the chair Michael Wood please clarify given that that's a perverse outcome of the scheme that a vehicle is described as used even if it's been barely used—and in fact a vehicle registered in New Zealand for the first time could qualify as new even though it's done more kilometres than an import which is defined as used. That's an issue that the motor vehicle industry has raised with me as the ACT transport spokesman and I'm wondering if there are other perverse unintended potential consequences from the amendments proposed in Part 1 obviously which correct the accidental inclusion—or supposedly accidental inclusion—of motorcycles and mopeds in the rules.Then I just want to come to this part with opening carbon dioxide accounts. Now the ACT Party has heard that there have been significant problems establishing the IT system at NZTA in order to manage carbon dioxide accounts. In fact like any new IT system that wasn't fully thought-out when the legislation that empowers it was passed often these things take much longer and cost a lot more. So Minister could you also please give us an idea about what was the original cost and time frame for establishing the carbon dioxide account and accounting system what was the original cost and what is the current time frame and likely estimated total cost?Hon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): The member asked whether there are any other potential adverse impacts that have been flagged to me; the answer is no. I'm not aware of any of those. There'll of course be policy disagreements that you get from the sector about whether they agree or disagree with the scheme but there are no impacts beyond that that have been raised with me and by definition those things won't be in the bill if they are other. We're just here to debate those matters which are in the bill that is before us.In terms of the question around how vehicles are defined for the purposes of this legislation as new or used my understanding of that is that nothing in this legislation changes the way in which we assess whether a vehicle is new or used at the point of importation.When it comes to the opening of carbon dioxide accounts the most recent reports that I have received have been that actually very high numbers of importers have already successfully opened their carbon dioxide accounts. I'm not advised that there is any particular issue with the IT system that enables the establishment of carbon dioxide accounts. But we are wanting to make sure that the system is well set up to enable importers to have clear access as to the way in which fees and rebates may be getting applied and for the trading system to come into effect and that's the core need for the extension to 1 June.