Utikere TangiTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you Madam Chair. Look I acknowledge the Minister's response there but with respect I think that he is incorrect in relation to his most recent contribution around what the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment is seeking.Last night it was known to the committee that this open letter had been sent to the Minister. I have to say that just after midnight last night I received an email that sought some confirmation as to where this letter was and I was happy to pass that on. The letter itself actually does identify a number of points. We note that as an Officer of Parliament—one of three—the Rt Hon Simon Upton has I think the word I used was bevvied him into this particular process which it seems extraordinary that an Officer of Parliament would effectively send something to a Government Minister without a request to do so. He has done so one assumes because there is no select committee process. The commissioner himself in his letter here—James Meager: What date did he suggest to commence?TANGI UTIKERE: —says that he understands that it would be—what was that?James Meager: What date did he suggest to commence the bill?TANGI UTIKERE: What date?James Meager: For the commencement what date?TANGI UTIKERE: No no. So in the letter I don't know if Mr Meager has read the letter or not for the benefit of those—James Meager: No you didn't email it to me you're rude.TANGI UTIKERE: Oh he emails you? He emailed it to you did he?James Meager: No you didn't email it to me. You're very rude.TANGI UTIKERE: Oh I didn't. Well I'll tell you what: you obviously haven't read it. So I'm very happy to email it to Mr Meager. Perhaps a colleague could send that to Mr Meager.Hon Members: Read it out.TANGI UTIKERE: Well actually I think that's probably appropriate. Mr Meager opposite has asked questions Madam Chair. I'm responding to the questions that he has asked. As a result I feel as though I need to read the letter out. That is in direct response to requests that have been made my members opposite.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The member could also request that the document be tabled so that—but that is up to the member.TANGI UTIKERE: Thank you very much. I understand that this is an open letter and it is publicly available. So tabling the item might not be—so it's to Simeon Brown Minister of Transport dated 24 June 2024.Dear Minister I note that on 30 May you introduced the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Amendment Bill. I understand that this bill could be passed under urgency in the coming weeks thereby precluding the opportunity for comment through the normal process of having bills scrutinised by a select committee. Given that possibility I am taking the liberty of providing some feedback."The amendment bill changes the date specified in the regulation-making power under section 167C(1)(j)(iv) to bring forward by three years the ability of the Minister to prescribe the targets by way of regulations. "It will also cancel the currently legislated ratchet of emission standards for 2025 2026 and 2027 anticipating that these will be instead set by regulations. Emission standards will have an important impact in helping New Zealand meet its statutory emissions reduction targets. How much of a role they should have is a political choice. That is not a debate I wish to enter. "However policy certainly is crucial in ensuring an orderly transition for our economy. Given this I would urge you to reflect on how any changes to emissions standards are made and what precedent the process for making them may hold for the future. "Once these amendments come into force it is important that any changes to the targets made by regulation are prescribed on the basis of a robust evidence-based and transparent process. Section 175A of the Land Transport Act already acknowledges this in the requirement for targets set in both the Act and regulations to be provided. Section 175A also sets out the matters that the review must take into account. Parliament clearly intended that any regulations that are made to set targets would be subject to review. "To ensure this is carried through in your amendment bill I suggest you make a minor amendment to the drafting of Section 175(a) so that the text that follows—carbon dioxide emissions set out in section 175—is replaced with 'and not later than 30 June 2025 for targets prescribed in any regulations section 167C(1)(j)(iv).'"Alternatively you could spell out in the legislation the criteria and methodology that will inform the Minister's decisions around setting vehicle emission standards whenever they exercise the regulation-making power. An amendment of this nature could leverage the drafting of section 175A as the criteria to be applied to those directions. I appreciate that this drafting approach would be more complex than simply requiring a review."Such a change would help ensure the public can have confidence in the standard set regardless of what the"—Madam Chair?Hon Simeon Brown: Oh Madam Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): There was interruption I'm going to let the member.TANGI UTIKERE: Thank you Madam Chair. I'll start that paragraph—it's the final one—Hon Member: Start it again! TANGI UTIKERE: No I won't start the whole letter again. It's the final paragraph.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): No don't start the whole letter again.TANGI UTIKERE: "Such a change would help ensure the public can have confidence in the standard set regardless of what the political mix of the Government is that sets them. I would be happy to discuss the issue with you at greater length. Yours sincerely the Parliamentary Commissioner."So for the benefit largely of Mr Meager on the record now is the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment an Officer of Parliament's letter.So I now invite the Minister perhaps in a fulsome response to reflect on the letter and provide an opportunity to address the Hon Dr Megan Woods' question around this particularly around how the changes might be made and how that relates to the commencement date.I have a number of Amendment Papers in relation to clause 2. They are numbers 42 43 44 45 and 46. I invite the Minister to respond to those—I mean hopefully he will respond to those. I think the commencement is obviously pretty important but the question that I also have for the Minister is: whether he is satisfied that the date that is currently in the legislation is a date that will allow a smooth transition in terms of the process and if not which of the alternative dates that have been identified in those Amendment Papers that are in my name—and I know that there are members who have other Amendment Papers who may wish to speak to theirs—might be an alternative?Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport):Well I thank the member for his reading comprehension skills. What I would say is that the issues raised in the letter by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment would be best discussed in clause 7 because they relate to section 175 of the Act which is being amended by clause 7. This clause clause 2 simply amends the commencement of this bill which is proposed to be 1 July 2024 and except for clause 5 which will come into effect from 1 July. So whilst that's very interesting what the member is raising in relation to that letter—and we can debate that in clause 7—the issue here is around the commencement of the bill.I just note and I'll take the liberty of discussing the amendments that the member has put forward. He suggested changing the date to 31 July 2024. We don't agree with that. The advice is that if the bill passes this week there's no need to change the 1 July 2024 date. "In clause 2(1) replace '1 July 2024' … with '2 October 2024'." we don't agree with that. It's inconsistent with Government policy. "In clause 2(1) replace '1 July 2024' … with '2 October 2025'." is also inconsistent with Government policy. Amendment Paper 45 is also inconsistent with Government policy which is for the intended cost recovery to come in earlier. And Amendment Paper 45 "replace '1 July 2025 … with '1 July 2026'." is also inconsistent with Government policy. So we will not be supporting any of those amendments."