Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill (No 2)

This is a split call. I call Sam Uffindell.

Thank you. We are here on the third reading of the Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill (No 2). We are here in urgency because the Minister stuffed it up and we are back here having to fix it up. The “Minister of Stuff-ups” seems to have left early to get—

SPEAKER: I’m sorry to interrupt the member; I apologise to the member. Can I ask all members having loud conversations from that corner and over here—whoever it was—to quietly leave the Chamber if you’re leaving. We have a member on his feet and I can hardly hear him. I’m going to restart the clock for the member—Sam Uffindell.

Hon Michael Wood: Point of order. The member referred to my absence from the Chamber in a way that was not in order. He was also wrong.

SPEAKER: That might have been so, but I could not hear a word he was saying. I will take the member’s word for that. If the member did mention such a thing, the member will have to withdraw and apologise.

SAM UFFINDELL: I did—I realised after I said it. I withdraw and apologise.

SPEAKER: Sam Uffindell.

SAM UFFINDELL: Thank you, Mr Speaker. We stand here on the Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill (No 2) to fix a stuff-up by the “Minister of Stuff-ups” and we are here to address that. This is a clean car stuff-up. We told the Government that the original legislation was being rushed through, but the Minister didn’t listen. We support a delay in the changes, because the industry has asked for one. We support motorcycles being exempted, and, frankly, motorcycles and mopeds shouldn’t have been included in the first place so it’s good that we have been able to amend it, although in a week of urgency it probably is a bit frustrating for everyone, especially the Government, that we’re having to make amendments to legislation we shouldn’t have stuffed up in the first place.

In saying that, for the sake of everyone here in the House, I have stated earlier today that we do support bringing cars with less emissions into New Zealand. I personally think that is what we should be doing and where we should be heading. So this is heading in the right direction. The National Party does support this amendment bill, and I support the bill.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to take a short call on the third reading of the Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill (No 2). Our Government has acted in response to the threat posed by climate change. It’s clear from the speeches that we’ve heard from the Opposition that, once again, what they’d rather do is kick the can down the road.

It is this Government that is prepared to do the hard mahi and make those pragmatic changes where needed. Although it is good to see that the National Party has done a U-turn on a U-turn and now, after some initial confusion, is actually making it clear that they do, after all, support the Clean Car Standard.

Earlier on, we heard some National MPs asking for an apology. Well, the only ones that should apologise and say sorry to New Zealand are the National Party. When they were in Government in 2009, they stopped the work that the previous Labour Government had started on introducing a vehicle fuel economy standard. The relevant Cabinet decision from National at the time read that no further work should be carried on a regulated vehicle fuel economy standard at this time. That was, again, National kicking the can down the road. That decision has cost New Zealanders.

I’m proud to be part of a Government that’s not afraid to do the mahi. I commend the Minister, and I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity to speak on the third reading of the Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill (No 2). I’ve been in the House for most of the progress of this bill, mainly this morning—and it seems that my family’s cars have come into the debate somewhat, and I really want to note that this bill doesn’t apply to them, because neither of them is new in any way, shape, or form, and neither this amendment or the wider schemes applies to them. The wider scheme is to stop New Zealand being a dumping ground for these high-emission vehicles, to decrease emissions and to increase health benefits. This amendment to that wider scheme makes pragmatic—as the Minister said—and responsive changes, to make the scheme simpler. I commend it to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. What an interesting debate we’ve had today on this topic. The Minister of Transport had to resort to personal attacks when he felt threatened because of the failures he has engaged in. All I did to the Minister was outline his failures in the transport sector. All I did was say that he was the one that wanted to have a walking and cycling bridge across the harbour that never eventuated. All I said is he closed down roading projects across the regions of New Zealand and then had to open up some of them, but taking away some of the vital projects in this country. All I said to the Minister was that he has created potholes throughout the country and can’t deliver on Auckland light rail, his beautiful ambition to have in the transport sector. And all I said is that the Minister has resorted to dropping speed limits as a way to deal with transport issues.

Now, all those things shouldn’t be so sensitive to a person, should they, that they have to come back and do personal attacks to try and justify their position? Because today we’re doing another failure in transport. This bill is a failure, because when we had select committee earlier in the year, the sector came to us and said this could not happen in time. And the Minister sat in select committee and came to us and he said, “Don’t worry, I will do this. Don’t listen to these submitters; they are wrong.” Now we are really doing it again.

Hon Michael Wood: I didn’t say that.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: You did say that, Minister. I was there. You came and submitted—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I wasn’t there. I didn’t say anything, Mr Bennett.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: —in front of the committee and said that. Oh, well, you were there as well, but the Minister did say that at the time. He came in to the committee and justified this legislation. And then, this morning, he tried to re-justify his view of the world around what this legislation actually means.

When we actually look at it, it is about the European standard for vehicles that are electric vehicles (EVs). That is not what we get in New Zealand. We are in the Japanese-Australian market; that is around hybrids. And then the Minister came in and said, “Oh, you don’t understand. Hybrids also get a discount.” They do not get the discount past 2026, do they, Minister? A Suzuki Swift in 2026 is paying under this bill. A hybrid vehicle pays. Let’s be honest with the New Zealand public. Let’s not try and circumvent it and try and change the facts of what actually is happening.

This is a bill for EVs to support the wealthy people that the Labour Party look after. And they talk about dumping of cars—the submitters on this made it very clear that this will mean that New Zealanders will hold on to their dirty vehicles. That is the consequence of this legislation because of the charges on hybrid vehicles going forward. And when we add together with the economic decline that we’re seeing in the country at the moment, people won’t be going out there and buying new EVs next year; they will be trying to save money and we will get older, dirty cars being held.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: OK, this is a good time to now, having made that statement, talk about how this bill will affect it, because that’s what we’re here to do.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Well, the bill is about that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You will talk about how the bill will affect it.

Hon Member: It’s a third reading speech.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: It’s a third reading speech, and the Minister made those comments in his response, and I am answering those. Now, we know that this bill will not achieve what the Minister says, because he is only playing for time and it will actually achieve the opposite. And the Minister needs to say sorry to New Zealanders for what has been said and what has been done, because he is a failure in transport—the greatest failure of a transport Minister this country’s ever seen.

Kia ora e te Mana Whakawā. The name of the bill is the Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill (No 2). I want to congratulate the Minister of Transport for bringing this idea of clean vehicles to Aotearoa New Zealand. It is now common language for us to talk about clean vehicles; prior to that, it was just noise from the other side. I would like to commend the Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill (No 2) to the House.