Genter Julie Anne; Brown SimeonHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I think it's really ironic in a way that the Government is focusing on establishing a cost recovery scheme to recover $6 million which is a tiny percentage of the overall transport Budget for administering fuel economy standards programme that has wide benefits across New Zealand. It is true that the people who benefit the most when it was quantified as cost-benefit analysis are the people who will be spending less money on fuel as a result of having more efficient vehicles available to purchase. However the idea of user-pays—or you know individual responsibility people making a contribution—was exactly the whole point of the Clean Car Discount which was that people buying high-emissions vehicles were making some contribution to lowering emissions elsewhere in the fleet. The idea that everybody would pull their weight that those who needed a high-emissions vehicle could still get that vehicle and drive it but all together we had to make some sort of contribution towards reducing emissions from the fleet. And it makes sense that those purchasing the higher-emissions vehicles would make a contribution.So on the one hand the Government has rhetoric around user-pays and everyone making their own contribution but in reality it's the exact opposite. They want polluters to be subsidised by New Zealand; for New Zealand to have to have a bigger burden of cost in terms of offsetting emissions because we're not going to make those reductions. It's very very clear that from the modelling that's been done that removing a Clean Car Discount means 100000 fewer zero-emissions vehicles on the roads. That's going to mean higher emissions versus a given amount of travel. If the Clean Car Standard is watered down which seems to be the intention of this bill then that could mean hundreds of thousands more vehicles that are higher emissions right at the time when we need to be importing zero emissions vehicles to have any hope of reducing emissions from transport.Now the cost of not meeting our emissions target is actually going to be felt by all of us. It's going to be felt in terms of the Government needing to spend more money on offsets offshore presumably. There's going to be higher costs just because we're going to be spending more money on fuel to get around and there's going to be costs to New Zealand because we're going to be making a larger contribution to you know devastating climate impacts.So I don't understand how on the one hand the Government can say they believe in user pays and people making a contribution however in the same breath they're taking away schemes that were enabling everybody in New Zealand who was bringing in new vehicles to contribute to a lower average emissions. But clearly the Minister hasn't received advice or isn't going to share with us the advice of any additional cost of bringing in a cost recovery scheme for the administration of the fuel economy. Because we haven't been able to have a select committee process I think it is appropriate that we canvass the arguments right here in this debate today because this is under urgency all stages of the bill are going through. Ultimately these changes will have a substantial impact on New Zealand on New Zealand's climate whether or not we meet our climate targets but more broadly on the overall impacts of our transport on health on air quality on noise. There's so many ways in which higher emissions vehicles have costs on New Zealand—broad costs and the goal of the Clean Car Standard and the Clean Car Discount together was to achieve an outcome which meant lower emissions vehicles on the road.And if we go back to the public consultation that was done by the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority sometime before we came into Government on whether or not people would support a feebate when people were presented with information on how a feebate works generally there was broad support for it because there was a sense in which those buying new highly polluting vehicles should make some small contribution to more zero-emissions vehicles on the fleet. In fact those people directly benefit because they continue to drive the high emitting vehicles that they need for whatever reason—and no one's going to presume to know what that reason is but it's fair enough that they should make some contribution to getting more zero-emissions vehicles on the road because it offsets—CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Is there a question for the Minister?Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Well I've given up Madam Chair on asking questions—on getting answers from the Minister. So I think it's appropriate for on the Hansard these arguments to be put forward given that we have not had a select committee process.Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Thank you Madam Chair and as I've stated in previous answers to questions this is about a cost-recovery model. It will charge those who import the vehicles. I think it's a very simple and clear piece of empowering legislation which then empowers regulations to be set. There's a number of tabled amendments in relation to this piece of legislation or this clause. In clause 5 there's Amendment Paper 42 replace 'prescribing or providing for the fixing of' … with 'reducing and limiting'". That's not consistent with Government policy. It would not work in practice; limiting fees that don't actually exist.And in clause 5 another proposal Amendment Paper 43 to "replace 'services' … with 'back-office administration'" That's inconsistent with Government policy; potentially limits cost recovery in relation to frontline support services. Services is broader and more accurately reflects the policy.Amendment Paper 44 clause 5 new section 167BA(4)(c) "replace 'Crown' … with 'Agency'" Well the agency is an extension of the Crown we've already had that debate.Amendment Paper 45: insert "Before any regulations are made … the regulations will appropriately increase the supply and availability of vehicles with zero carbon dioxide emissions". This doesn't make sense because this is to do with the cost-recovery mechanism which is effectively what we are doing here.Amendment Paper 46: "authorise the Registrar or the Directors to decline to process a person's registration application until the person has paid any fee or charge payable". That's already enabled by new section 167BB and could recreate conflicts regarding the interpretation if mentioned twice and so we won't be supporting any of those tabled amendments."