edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Woods Megan; Brown SimeonHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you Madam Chair. I have some questions which I put to the Minister around the commencement date that pertain also to this clause which I haven't heard an answer in the committee to yet. And this is particularly around repealing section 175(1)(c) to (e) and reducing the carbon dioxide targets that are in there. So the effect of the repeal is that the targets for reducing the carbon dioxide emissions for the calendar years of 2025 to 2027 are removed from the principal Act.What I'd like to know from the Minister given that he's going to have the ability to make those by regulation is what will the impact on emissions reduction plan (ERP) 2 and ERP3 be? Will those need to be updated given both of those emissions reduction plans have baked in emissions reductions that have been calculated by various measures including the clean car standard. So in terms of the repealing of those baked in if that's the Minister's intent just to put in place regulations that are as ambitious or more ambitious than what is currently in the legislation then I'd expect that we'd see an improvement to the emissions reduction plans for those periods. It might actually only be emissions budget 2 but the Minister will be able to tell me that—that it could be an improvement to that. But it is the way in which these two documents interact and the fact that we are seeing through section 175 that that is the effect that is going to take effect. I think the committee needs to understand in terms of the Minister's time lines his level of ambition and what the interplay with the emissions budgets will be.Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Well I thank the member for the question. The answer to that is there is a review under way. Under section 167C of the Act there is a number of criteria under which the Minister has to be satisfied and take into account and consider when setting the regulations. So in setting the regulations I will be satisfied and have consideration undertake the appropriate processes as required under that piece of legislation.Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you. So from the Minister's answer is he telling me he will not be satisfied if there is a negative impact on the emissions budgets—so ERP2—and he will not make a change that will have a negative impact on that emissions budget?
Kuriger Barbara; Brown SimeonClause 7 Section 175 amended (Targets for reducing carbon dioxide emissions) CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Members we now come to the debate on clause 7 which is the debate on Section 175 amended (Targets for reducing carbon dioxide emissions)". The question is that clause 7 stand part.Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Thank you Madam Chair for the opportunity to take a call on clause 7. This clause effectively does two things. What it does is it removes the prescribed targets which are in the legislation which the last Government legislated. Secondly it allows the Government to be able to set new targets via regulation for any calendar year after 2024 rather than keeping those targets in legislation. So the targets for this current year will stay in law the targets for last year will stay prescribed but the targets for the next three years will be removed. The regulation-making power is then set so that the Minister can then set the targets for the next three years just as it's already in place for the years after that. There's a regulation-making power which already allows those targets to be set for the following three years; this just simply brings that forward and allows for those targets to be set from the end of this year.So it's a very simple clause. It makes two key changes which then enable the Government to make any changes. There is a review already under way as prescribed in the Act. As the Minister of Transport I'm required to undertake a review of the standard. I was required to review the standard prior to 30 June 2024; the problem was that I could review it but there was no ability for any changes to be made. So quite simply I'm doing the review and now there's going to be an ability for any changes to be made based upon that review. Actually that is a common-sense approach; a sensible way. In fact I remember being around the select committee table when this bill was being debated going through Parliament and actually one of the points which consistently came through is actually enabling the Minister to set these standards via regulation was put to the last Government they ignored that advice they ignored those recommendations; we are simply doing it in a far more sensible way. I look forward to the debate on this clause."
Brooking Rachel; O'Connor GregHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you Mr Chair. I've just got a very short contribution to make here. It is a question for the Minister obviously but it's one of clarification and that is because what we're looking at here is a change in dates and why that is is that at the moment the primary legislation—and what we will be talking about in the next part of the debate—sets out some numbers some targets. Then the Act also says that regulations may" be made from 2027. There's a whole lot of this word "may" in the regulation in various sections of the primary legislation including in section 167C. So when the Minister says that the Government is going to give more certainty to the importers that makes it sounds like the Government must be making regulations but my reading of the legislation is that the Government may be making regulations and of course that is a very important difference because it means it's discretionary as to whether or not these regulations will be made. Earlier on we had the Minister whose name the bill is in in the chair and he was saying that one of the two things that this bill does is to enable regulations—so "enabling" is the "may". The certainty would come with a "must". So is my interpretation correct that regulations "may" be promulgated and they "may" be enabled but that's at the discretion of the Minister? CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members the time has come for me to leave the Chair. Committee is suspended and will resume after oral questions. Sitting suspended from 12.57 p.m. to 2 p.m."
Stanford EricaHon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): Thank you Mr Chair. Look just in response to Mr Utikere's questions earlier we of course respect the comments of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment—a very knowledgeable man—but it is our view that this review is important because these targets are very key to realising the standards potential emissions and fuel savings. So we have to be able to strike a really good balance between being stringent enough that we can accelerate the supply of low and zero emission vehicles but not being too stringent that those importers are then unable to source those vehicles at sufficient numbers and that they then can't meet those affordable prices. So it's a balance. What we're trying to do with bringing this date forward much earlier than everyone would like is to make sure that we strike that balance so that actually we're able to meet the targets that we need to meet.So while I appreciate the views of both the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and other members in the House it's our position that we need to bring that date forward so that we can give those importers as much certainty as they can possibly have so that they can bring in the vehicles in the numbers that we require so that we can meet the standards. Thank you.
Stanford EricaHon ERICA STANFORD (Minister of Education): Thank you Mr Chair. Just in answer to the questions around the error source that has been now fixed and it says Table 2". I just wanted to clarify for the member that it was just a formatting error. It has been fixed and it says "Table 2".I want to make it clear that we as a Government are committed to the Clean Car Standard and the health benefits of that are obvious and you can find them anywhere. I mean noxious fumes clearly are detrimental to human health and the whole point of a clean vehicle standard is to reduce those which we are committed to.I think the previous Government knew that there would always need to be some changes; we're just bring that forward so that we can take a look at that now to make sure that we're getting the benefits of the clean vehicle standard to make sure that importers are able to import the vehicles they need to meet the standards as well as getting the reductions in emissions that we need for those obvious health benefits."
Genter Julie Anne; O'Connor GregHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Thank you Mr Chair. I am just a little interested in this section of the debate because clause 6 and clause 7 are arguably the most substantive parts of the committee stage of this bill. And whether or not we'll be able to get adequate answers not having the Minister who's directly responsible in the chair—yeah but I will go on and ask my questions anyway.So clause 6 is the bit of the bill that is now enabling targets for carbon emissions from light vehicles imported annually to be prescribed by regulations for any calendar year. So that means next year 2025 which is less than six months away the targets can change from what they have been for the last few years. Previously the Minister had stated that this bill was about increasing certainty for the vehicle industry. He then subsequently answered my question to say Well once we can do this by regulation we can make the targets more stringent or we can make them more permissive." The whole point is that within a year or two we could have different targets and nobody knows what they will be and whether they will be higher or lower. How on earth is this introducing more certainty? This is creating uncertainty for everyone.Secondly just following on from the point that my colleague Tangi Utikere made which is: is it the case that only vehicle importers will be consulted on any new targets for levels of carbon dioxide that are brought in under regulations and if so how on earth could this be appropriate given that this will have massive implications on New Zealand's overall carbon emissions and air quality?And thirdly my question to the Minister is about whether there will be a full climate impact analysis done—a CIPA a climate impact policy analysis—on proposed changes to the standards for 2025 2026 or 2027 before they are brought in through the regulatory-making powers will there be a full climate impact analysis and will that be public?CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): I'll just indicate to members at the moment that I'm aware that obviously the Minister in the chair will still be required to address those questions and I'll be liberal in the timing of the Minister to take advice if necessary. The pace of the House will be reflective of that."
Utikere TangiTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you Madam Chair I thank the Minister of Transport for providing a response to the consultation question. I think that is very unfortunate that he has adopted a very narrow approach to this. This is the first time in this House while this bill has been progressed that we have heard from his own mouth that basically the only people that are going to be consulted as part of any of this process are importers themselves. There is a much wider scope of industry participants who perhaps would've liked to have had an opportunity not just for this bill but to be considered. The Minister has confirmed for the committee that the only people who are going to be considered on his watch when it comes to setting regulations are importers themselves—no one else. That is shameful and that's pretty unfortunate.I want to—actually thank you Dr Xu-Nan for identifying new section 167BB inserted by clause 5 because I had a question about that as well and I hope the Minister is able to address it. Minister your response said Well this is an empowering provision." Well yes it is but it's also giving an empowering provision to the registrar or the director to undertake a particular course of action. I think in fairness Dr Xu-Nan has identified that as an issue and you still have not addressed his question.My question is slightly different to my Green colleague and that is—it refers to the fact that the registrar or the director could actually if the regulations are authorised through Order in Council decline to process a person's registration application until the person has paid a specified fee or charge that they're liable for. Now my question is: is the registrar or director only able to decline registrations for application purely on the basis of the fee not being paid or met because it seems as though that's what that refers to in that particular new subsection (1) or will there be other grounds for the registrar or the director to decline an application?So it's a very narrow area that I invite the Minister to respond to and address and it is around that empowering provision—yes I get that but does it limit the registrar or the director to only decline a registration application? So an importer who—the Minister seems very familiar with importers it seems at the moment. If they make an application under the system—I get that regulations may be made under this clause to allow the registrar or the director to basically reject or decline the application but is it correct Minister that they could only do so on the basis that the fee is not being made; there is no other way in which under this provision a rejection may exist or may follow?"
Genter Julie Anne; Brown SimeonHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Thank you Madam Speaker. Because clause 5 is about the cost recovery scheme and we've got the cost recovery impact statement I wanted to ask the Minister a couple of questions. Obviously at the end of that statement it says that they have not been able to consult with the industry on the effects of the proposal that there are questions they would need feedback from industry on like What administration cost would industry incur as a result of the proposal?" "What method of recovery would have the least impact on industry?" and "Would the proposal have disproportionate effects on smaller importers?" That was kind of my question because it says in the statement that the Minister's preferred option is a per car fee. Can the Minister speak to how he feels that is fair if for example there are importers of lower-value cars they are going to have to pay a higher percentage of the cost recovery relative to the vehicles they're selling as you know it's a higher percentage as a price of the vehicle and perhaps the number of vehicles they're importing relative to those who import small numbers of very expensive cars. So if we have importers who are importing large numbers of relatively inexpensive cars particular second-hand vehicles if we go with the preferred opton of a per car fee then they will pay more relative to speciality importers of brand new very expensive vehicles. I'm just wondering if the Minister could let us know: is there any chance that he will opt for a different option what will the consultation look like after this bill is passed in the design of the cost recovery scheme to ensure that it is fair that it's not having a disproportionate impact on some importers relative to others? Yeah I'd invite the Minister to speak to that.Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): I thank the members for the questions. In regards to the issue of consultations of course there are two different issues in relation to it. One is that this clause is relating to cost recovery. There are standard consultation processes in place to relation to the consultation for setting regulations and it is intended that those processes will be under way. There is a 12-month period for those regulations to then come into force so there's plenty of time for that to happen. And of course—Tangi Utikere: With who?Hon SIMEON BROWN: Well that's a good question and I intend to consult with people who import vehicles—is the intent.So the second question is in relation to some of the issues around cost recovery. We've had a large number of questions around cost recovery. There are lots of different ways in which cost recovery can be done. Of course this is an empowering provision which allows for a model to be put forward and for cost recovery then to be made of the cost of running the system."
Brownlee Gerry; Bishop Chris; Webb DuncanHouse resumed.BUSINESS STATEMENTSPEAKER: I understand the Leader of the House wishes to make a Business Statement.Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): Yes indeed—thank you Mr Speaker. Today the House will adjourn until Tuesday 23 July. In that week the House will consider the second reading of the Local Government (Electoral Legislation and Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill; the first readings of the Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment Bill the Regulatory Systems (Immigration and Workforce) Amendment Bill and the Customer and Product Data Bill. The House will also complete the remainder of the Budget debate. On Wednesday following the general debate the House will debate the final report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions.Hon Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Is the Government intending to take urgency on any of those bills including the Customer and Product Data Bill—given recent statements by Ministers on the need to work on scams and fraud and the ability of that bill to enhance protections for consumers from those scams and frauds?Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): Well ultimately the question of urgency is a matter for the House. The Government doesn't have any intention at this time.
Brownlee GerryPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: I present the 2024/25 annual plan of the Controller and Auditor-General.
Bennett GlenGLEN BENNETT (Labour): Kia ora Mr Chair. I'm just looking at and continuing on some of these spaces but I've got a slightly different angle and I may be wrong here but I'm willing to be corrected by the Minister. But just looking at obviously clause 5 at new section 167BB(2) the Type A vehicle or Type B vehicle. Now I know that the Minister was at Fieldays recently and unveiled the new electric ute. Now the thing I'm just trying to understand with the Type A and Type B vehicles—again I may be out of scope here but I'm just trying to get a bit of understanding—is that they're fully electric. They've also got diesel but they also are more than just a vehicle. They're actually a generator. They're something that can be used around the farm or for tradies—that type of thing. And so is there any clarification needed when we talk about the Type A and Type B vehicles with I guess the change in vehicle usage the change in I guess technology and the nature of what a vehicle actually is now? Now I'm just trying to sort of get some clarification in terms of whether that creates any challenges or whether anything should be considered when looking at this part of clause 5? Again I'm sure that the Minister was super excited to be there and to see technology at its best and to be moving forward. But when we talk about vehicles nowadays it's a generator. It's more than just a Type A or Type B vehicle. I wasn't there when you visited the ute but I did go and see the ute afterwards but it did raise some questions for me just to figure out what that could look like. So the Type A Type B vehicles—yeah is that purely just a vehicle for transportation or is it now becoming more than that? That's actually that's not only an office; it's a generator; it's many many of other things.Tangi Utikere: Where would the line be?GLEN BENNETT: Yeah where is the line? What does that look like? So if the Minister has any thoughts on that. Again I'd really appreciate if I have missed something here. I'm really happy to understand that. But firstly I think it's exciting to read some of the articles about BYD—it's BYD the company that imports them now isn't it?So I'm just really really keen to understand that and if the Minister would like to inform me I'd appreciate that.
Brown SimeonHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Thank you Mr Chair. Many of those questions that members have raised I actually answered right at the start of the debate when I went through each of his tabled amendments as he acknowledged in relation to each of them and gave reasons for why we're not supporting them. In relation to the member Glen Bennett in relation to type A type B those definitions are not being changed in this piece of legislation.
Brooking RachelHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you Madam Chair. Just a short call from me and also related to subclause 3 of new section 167BA in clause 5. At the end of that sentence it says or on any other differential basis" and this phrase—or the whole phrase—is also found in the primary legislation in section 167B(3) "or on any other differential basis" and also found in section 168(2).But I'm wondering what it is that the Minister is thinking might be a "differential basis" given that this has to apply to persons that are either a vehicle importer and an applicant for registration of a type A or type B vehicle—and those are of course defined in section 172 that I was talking about earlier—and these are light vehicles. So a differential basis is there some thinking about that it might be say an individual importing a car from Japan themselves versus those vehicle importers rather than an applicant with the difference between that and in subsection 2—I think it would be very useful for the Hansard if the Minister could comment on what he is considering a differential basis might be in the context of that subsection. Thank you."
McCallum Grant; Pugh MaureenGRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): I move That debate on this question now close.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): I'm getting close to accepting a closure motion.
Xu-Nan Lawrence; Brown SimeonDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. I actually just have two short questions for the Minister on this and the first one is on new subsection 167BA(3) which is talking about Different rates of fees or charges or both". So the first question for the Minister is: in the cost recovery impact statement it talks about fees but not necessarily charges and I wanted to get some clarification from the Minister to provide an example of what those fees or charge could look like or both—so particularly the "or both" bit—and whether that is something that has been considered.The second part is actually around new section 167BB which is around "Regulations relating to power of Registrar and Director if fee or charge unpaid". This particular part particularly new subsection (1) talks about "to decline to process a person's registration application". So essentially what we're looking at is sort of like if you don't pay you don't get the good or a small sanction-type thing. I wanted to kind of get a sense from the Minister if the Minister wouldn't mind clarifying: in this context what does that look like and what sort of options have been made available to the Minister in putting this subsection together looking at some of the process around this? If there is a declination of this particular process for registration is there a duration of the pay and then they get the vehicle? So yeah I think that level of process-based questions around 167BB will be really really helpful in clarifying and having on Hansard.And just a reminder the first question is: what does the "or both" in terms of both fees and charges in subsection 167BA(3) potentially look like? Thank you.Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Well thank you Madam Chair. The questions all relate to the point that this is an empowering provision which allows for regulations to be set."
Wade-Brown Celia; Brown SimeonCELIA WADE-BROWN (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. I have a number of questions about the recovery of costs in administering the clean vehicle standard (CVS). Given that there is no select committee process and officers have not been able to yet determine how to implement the Minister's preference for option two as a fee per car I'm very interested in hearing from the Minister where he will be receiving advice not just on the administrative efficiency—and we're all I'm sure keen on administrative efficiency as well as vehicle efficiency—but also how the effect of the mechanism chosen will affect the distribution of benefits. I note that we talked about the general policy statement referring to the cost of administering the CVS and that there are number of benefits issued. Some of those benefits undoubtedly accrue to the individual owner of a new vehicle or the operator of a new vehicle in terms of fuel savings and maintenance spending but surely the reduction in the social cost of carbon dioxide emissions accrue to the community as a whole and one could be quite wide in who that community includes. It might not even be just our species.So given that we are not having an open and robust process through select committee will the Minister be for example seeking advice from as the Hon David Parker suggests the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority? Will the Minister be seeking advice from electric vehicle owners from Electrify NZ? Or perhaps he could look at the cost recovery from the many different countries that have been far in advance of Aotearoa New Zealand in implementing some form of standards. If only we had done this 20 years ago we would've saved so much money; we would've saved health; and we would've saved emissions. Let's get on with it and find out the best way of charging for this that maximises the benefit not just to the individual but to our community. Thank you Minister.Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): I thank the members for their questions. I've already answered or addressed the issue there in relation to how to cost recover. I appreciate there are arguments for different ways in which you could do cost recovery. Either you say that the cost should be recovered from people who use the system or you could say that the cost should be recovered from society at large. This Government has determined through the policy settings that it should be recovered through the people who use the system. So we don't agree with the member's argument but I do appreciate that there is an argument in that regard.In regards to the question from Tangi Utikere in relation to section 167BA(4) in clause 5 in relation to why paragraph (h) is not referred to a very good question that is because if that was referred to then the revenue could go into the National Land Transport Fund and so by not allowing it to go into the National Land Transport Fund it means that the cost recovery is much clearer and it ensures that the money goes towards paying for the running of the system and not just for generally going into the Land Transport Fund.
Brooking RachelHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you Madam Chair. Despite my excitement I do not have as exciting a contribution as some of my very learned colleagues have made on particularly policy issues and some very good questions that I've heard the Minister not yet answer.I've got two questions and one has already been briefly traversed by Tangi Utikere and the Minister and that was around subclause (5) which is: The Director may at any time reduce or waive a penalty … if the Director considers that it is just to do so." And the Minister responded about the discretion of that director. It would be useful to have on the Hansard whether or not the Minister expects that there would be guidance for what "just to do so" means.But the main point I want to traverse which I don't believe has been touched on yet is the definition of a "vehicle importer". So that's it—so we're at subclause (2). If you look at the definition of a vehicle importer in the main Act section 2 is the interpretation section for the entirety of the Act and that doesn't include a definition of "vehicle importer". It does have a definition of "imported" but not that.Then you can go to section 172. It's important to note that section 172 of the main Act is in Part 13 of the Act. And the parts are important because section 172 says: "for the purposes of this part" here are the definitions. So that's Part 13. Part 13 is "Clean vehicle standard" and of course. it's been traversed much of this debate.So in section 172 a vehicle importer means as the case may require (a) "category 1 light vehicle importer" or (b) "category 2 light vehicle importer". But section 172 is constrained for in this part of the Act. So that's Part 13.Now we're looking here at a new section 167BA and section 167BA is not in Part 13 of the primary legislation; I think it might be even in Part 10. But whatever it is it's not Part 13. Now then we see at subclause (7) of this new section that we're looking at it says: "In this section and section 167BB Type A vehicle Type B vehicle and vehicle importer"—which is the definition that I'm interested in—"have the meanings given in section 172(1)." So you might say well that fixes the problem but I think it would be much clearer and better drafting—and I'm asking the Minister if he would consider an amendment to section 172 so that those definitions were not restricted to Part 13 of the Act. It could even refer specifically to the regulation-making parts of the Act or it might be better in fact that these definitions that are currently found in section 172 of the primary legislation would be better found in section 2 of the primary legislation which is the general interpretation section for the whole of the Act.So I think that would be useful to know in the Hansard—what the Minister's thoughts are on either further amendments of section 172 or section 2 of the primary legislation so that it's clear that those definitions apply to all of the relevant parts of what will be the amended legislation."
Xu-Nan LawrenceDr LAWRENCE XU-NAN (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. I have a series of questions but I'll start with the first set of questions. And this is with regards to clause 5 new section 167BA(2) which is around the definition of The persons" and in this case a "vehicle importer" in paragraphs (a) and (b) around the type of vehicle that has not been registered. Now going by the cost recovery impact statement we're seeing that a lot of the modelling in terms of the cost of the charge that is going to be potentially implemented is on the basis of 300000 imported vehicles a year. But what I'm not seeing in paragraph (b) is whether it has been specified whether these cars or these vehicles have never been registered period or have never been registered in New Zealand. So this is going to be incredibly crucial in terms of that estimated number and the kind of vehicle that we would be looking at that would have this particular charge incurred as a result.So if the Minister as a first question wouldn't mind just clarifying in new section 167BA(2)(b) whether these registered vehicles are only for the first time being registered here in New Zealand or they are looking at brand new vehicles period or whether that definition needs to be assumed or implicit and doesn't need to be highlighted.Again kind of looking at this in terms of pages five and six of the cost recovery impact statement and in particular the publicist's error "reference was not found." But looking at the table itself which is again based on the average of 300000 and there's the "Administrative fee partial CR" and also "Administration fee full CR". Again when we are looking at that particular definition of that number of the average 300000 vehicles it will be really good for the Minister to clarify where some of those numbers come from because it then determines some of the cost that is associated with it."
VoteA party vote was called for on the question That the Sentencing (Reinstating Three Strikes) Amendment Bill be reported to the House by 1 November 2024.Ayes 68New Zealand National 49; ACT New Zealand 11; New Zealand First 8.Noes 52New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 15; Te Pāti Māori 3.Motion agreed to.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 68 Noes 55.
Utikere Tangi; Brown SimeonTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you Mr Chair. Thank you Minister. The other one of interest to me is subsection (5) of section 167BA—this is inserted by clause 5—and this is about the role of the director in terms of either reducing or waiving the penalty for a late payment and it really is around the process that would guide the director to do so because what I see at the end of that subsection are the words if the Director considers it is just to do so." Now "just" would mean different things to different people. So my question is: will there be some guidance provided around how the director—who would have that power to effectively waive or dispose of the penalty or reduce it—would go about that? Does he see that there need to be some specific guidance by which they should go about that? Does the Minister see that he would consider that there is a need for there to be some guidance in the regulations or would that be something that he would expect the director to in-house basically determine?Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Well again this is an empowering provision. The director is independent and this is enabling the director to be able to make those decisions where it's just to do so. Ultimately that provides the director some discretion. There are a number of times and cases where as the member will be well aware as an electorate MP people come and see you in your office and raise issues that may well fit within certain policies but it may not be just. It's a discretionary provision and it empowers the director to have that discretion which I think is about fairness.TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you Minister. Can I just refer to the penalty component. Where is the penalty that's outlined in clause 5 actually identified? Subsection (1) of section 167BA in clause 5 doesn't mention define or identify the penalty. It talks about only fees and charges. So it's not appropriate as a penalty to fall perhaps under costs and expenses as that falls under the agency's actions or within the sort of realm of the director. So in terms of identifying the penalty component where would that lie?Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): So in section 167BA my understanding is that section 167BA(4) provides for regulations for the purpose specified in subsection (1). The director may "do any of the things specified … (b) specify the persons to whom any fees or charges or both are payable: (c) provide for unpaid fees or charges to be recoverable as a debt due to the Crown." So there's a subsection there that provides for that. That's my understanding."
Genter Julie Anne; Brown SimeonHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Thank you very much Mr Chair. I wanted to ask the Minister if he has received any advice or if there's been any analysis done on the cost and administrative burden created by having a cost recovery scheme. I understand that the goal of having the cost recovery scheme is to put the cost on vehicle importers rather than more general taxation but as the Minister himself has said it's a relatively low cost of administering the Clean Car Standard—$6 million a year. It's a very small percentage of the overall transport budget. It's very small compared to just for example I think the Government spent already $1 million investigating the long tunnel in Wellington. So $6 million a year is pretty small in the context of things. Has there been any analysis or work done to consider whether its worthwhile having a cost recovery scheme or whether that in and of itself is going to create some additional administration?Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Well the New Zealand Transport Agency as the member will know has a range of different cost recovery systems in place for a range of different services whether it's small things or large things. They do this in their business across—whether it's driver licensing warrant of fitnesses fines tolls they have these systems in place already. As I've already made clear the advice we've received is that it will be around $6.5 million per year to operate this system. That is far less than the $11.8 million that the last Government was allocating towards operating it. We want to make sure we're operating it as efficiently as possible whilst enabling the cost to be recovered from those who are importing vehicles.
Utikere Tangi; Brown SimeonTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you sir. Can I move now to subclause (3) in that section section 167BA which talks about the different rates of fees or charges that have been prescribed—OK—in respect of different classes of vehicles or on any other differential basis? Could he provide some assurance or understanding for the committee on what that different differential basis may look like?Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Well as I said this is an empowering provision which enables for regulations to be set effectively to determine the cost recovery model. And so of course there are different classes of vehicles. There are different types of vehicles. If you read the remainder of this part of the Land Transport Act there are similar types of references to this and effectively that allows for an enabling piece of legislation an enabling type of regulation to be put in place.
Genter Julie Anne; Brown SimeonHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Thank you. Thanks very much for that Minister. I don't believe you've addressed the question about whether the Minister has received any advice about the cost of the cost recovery scheme—what that will be. The Minister mentioned tolls. Obviously the revenue from tolls at least 30 percent of that just goes to the cost of administering the tolls or collecting the tolls. So there's a pretty large component of cost recovery schemes that is used just to run the cost recovery scheme itself. So has the Minister received any information about that?And I'll reiterate a question I asked earlier in the debate—I think it was at clause 2—about why the Minister hasn't referred this part of the legislation to a select committee given that there's still no indication of what the design of the scheme will be and it would make sense for that to go through a select committee process even if it is a shortened one and we have a whole year before it's going to be brought into operation.So the questions are: has he received any advice; and if so what is it on the additional cost administrative burden or creating a cost recovery scheme for something that isn't very expensive? And secondly as a very small percentage of the New Zealand Transport Agency's overall budget. And why hasn't the Government considered doing a proper select committee process around the establishment of this cost recovery scheme?Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Well the advice I've received is in relation to the costs of operating the system which is around $6.5 million. It says the importation process is largely self-service. The teams receives a high volume of requests to support from industry at various stages of the vehicle life cycle. So there's a range of people who operate the system. There's an automatic system which already does the work and this simply puts a cost recovery mechanism on top. And the advice is that it would cost around $6.5 million to operate that. That is a lot less than the $11.8 million that was being allocated by the last Government. So we've found efficiencies and we are putting in place a cost recovery model.
Genter Julie Anne; Brown SimeonHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Thank you very much Madam Chair. The Minister mentions that previously more money was allocated than it was actually costing to administer the scheme. Wouldn't it be normal practice in Government for the New Zealand Transport Agency to then return any excess funding? Or presumably it would be putting it towards other parts of its business.I'm just trying to understand what the outcome of the Minister saying it's going to cost less than what was originally appropriated is because under normal practice if a Government agency isn't using the full allocation then it just goes back to the Crown. But again presumably the process of figuring out how the cost-recovery scheme is going to work is going to require some work from public officials. Then there's going to be the work done by the car importers themselves to determine how much each of them owed to pay for the operation of the service. So there is some additional administrative cost from running a cost-recovery scheme. Has the Minister had any advice whatsoever on what that cost might be?Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): As I said the advice I received is that the cost of the scheme is around $6.5 million per year and we're putting in place a cost-recovery model so that people who use it pay for it. I know this can be a foreign concept to some parties but ultimately we want to ensure this is a user-pays cost-recovery model. This is an empowering provision which allows that to happen. Over the next 12 months that work will be under way so that it comes into force on 1 July 2025.
Williams ArenaARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you Mr Chair. Given that the Minister hasn't been able to answer my question about Crown entities I want him to focus then on the role of the New Zealand Transport Agency—of Waka Kotahi—in this regulatory system. I want him to tell the committee how his regulation-making powers will be applied to those two entities. I also want him to consider how regulatory bodies like the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA) and like the Commerce Commission—which as we've already discussed have a role in enforcing these standards on behalf of the industry and on behalf of consumers—might have a role in this and how his regulation-making powers might impact on the regulations that apply to them. I would like the Minister to consider whether giving some fuller explanation in his proposed clause 4—which is short but could be longer—would be helpful to those other regulation-oversight bodies in clarifying their role when it comes to his regulation-making powers because what he's proposing in his primary amendment is to give himself regulation-making powers under the Land Transport Act which could impact on a number of different regulation-making bodies. He says the Crown as a whole" but does he intend to create regulations which create new requirements of EECA? Does he intend to create regulations that create new requirements for the Commerce Commission? He's told us that his policy intent does touch on the ambit of both EECA and the Commerce Commission in terms of his role in impacting not only the market via a market mechanism for cars but for consumers in providing them with more choice. Those are the policy goals which his own regulatory impact statement articulates very clearly and not the goal to reduce carbon dioxide in the vehicles fleet. So those two policy goals are what he's told us are his goals. His regulations are likely to create regulations which impact on those two regulation-making bodies and I would like to know whether he would clarify who it binds and whether he intends to create new binding recommendations for those regulation-making bodies."
Utikere Tangi; Brown Simeon; O'Connor GregTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you Mr Chair. Can I thank the Minister for the fulsome contribution. I still would like—and I'll continue to remind Minister it would be very helpful if we go back to the regulatory impact analysis—a response around that reference. That would just close that one off I think and provide some certainty. It could just be an error but—well it is an error we just need to understand what it is.We're now moving into the meaty part of this bill. Clauses 5 6 and 7 is where all the action takes place. And so I've got a lot of questions that I would like to put to the Minister. Firstly in the proposed new section 167BA subsection (1) there obviously is the discretion there around regulations may" do a certain thing but it talks about "the purpose of prescribing … for the fixing of fees … to meet or assist in meeting the costs". Now the Minister has talked about a user pays approach and a user pays system. My question is then shouldn't it simply be that they either meet the costs or they don't and if not how will that be managed?Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): As I said this is an empowering provision. There are a number of elements to it and the Government's intention is for this provision to enable a process to be under way which will ensure that the costs of operating the system are covered by those who in new section 167BA (2) import vehicles are paying for the cost of running it.CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): I'll just indicate in the Chair that this is obviously quite a substantive section so I'll like—members have a series of questions and the Minister bearing in mind it takes two to tango if there's going to be a cross the board question and answer I'll indulge that. Otherwise we'll keep moving around generally depending on how long the questionnaire takes."
Utikere Tangi; Brown SimeonTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you Minister. Can I just refer to the penalty component. Where is the penalty that's outlined in clause 5 actually identified? New section 167BA(1) doesn't mention define or identify penalty—it talks about only fees and charges. And so it's not appropriate as a penalty to fall perhaps under costs and expenses as that falls under the agency's actions or within the sort of realm of the director. So in terms of identifying the penalty component where would that lie?Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): So it's my understanding that new section 167BA(4) provides for regulations for the purpose specified in subsection (1) may—(a) do any of the things specified … (b) specify the persons to whom any fees [are charged] … (c) provide for unpaid fees or charges to be recoverable as a debt due". So there's a clause there that provides for that—that's my understanding."
Imprest Supply (First for 2024/25) Bill — Third Reading
Willis NicolaIMPREST SUPPLY (FIRST FOR 2024/25) BILL Third ReadingHon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): I move That the Imprest Supply (First for 2024/25) Bill be now read a third time.
Appropriation (2023/24 Supplementary Estimates) Bill — Third Reading
Willis NicolaAPPROPRIATION (2023/24 SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES) BILL Third ReadingHon NICOLA WILLIS (Minister of Finance): I move That the Appropriation (2023/24 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a third time.
O'Connor Greg; Brown SimeonClause 4 Act binds the CrownCHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Members we come now to the debate on clause 4. Clause 4 is Act binds the Crown". The question is that clause 4 stand part.Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Thank you Mr Chair. This is again another very simple clause within the bill. The Act binds the Crown because this Act binds the Crown and it's a standard clause. I would note there's an amendment proposed which inserts—and I quote—"including those Crown entities defined in section 7 of the Crown Entities Act 2004". That is not necessary because Crown entities are an extension of the Crown; therefore it is an unnecessary change."