Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Repeal) Amendment Bill

Members, the House is in committee on the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Repeal) Amendment Bill. We come first to Part 1.

Point of order, Madam Chairperson. Thank you, Madam Chair. I seek leave for all provisions of the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Repeal) Amendment Bill to be taken as one debate.

Leave is sought for that purpose. There is objection, so we will continue with Part 1.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This debate here on Part 1 makes amendments to the Land Transport Act 1998 and the Land Transport Management Act 2003. It repeals the definition of the “clean vehicle discount scheme”, it removes the regulations imposing fees and charges for purposes of the clean vehicle discount scheme, and makes a number of other changes in relation to the repeal of those definitions. It’s pretty straightforward, and I look forward to questions from members in the committee.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the Minister of Transport for his opening remarks. There are a number of Amendment Papers that have been tabled, and we’ll certainly be working our way through those on this side of the Chamber, but the Minister has just referred to some of the pieces of legislation that this bill seeks to amend. I note from the departmental disclosure statement, which seems to be one of the only documents that appears to accompany this bill, that it is an omnibus bill. That does come to the Parliament from time to time. But I see that it amends a number of pieces of legislation.

In Part 1, in terms of reference to the Land Transport Act 1998, that is there, but also the Land Transport Management Act is in that part too. But the subsequent amendments that follow to the Land Transport (Motor Vehicle Registration and Licensing) Regulations of 2011, the Energy Efficiency (Vehicle Energy Economy Labelling) Regulations 2007—I think it’s important that we do go through these. The final one is the revocation—as we understand it—of the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Charges) Regulations 2022.

My question to the Minister is whether he is comfortable with the reference to those pieces of legislation, whether they be primary or secondary, and whether there may be other pieces of legislation that may subsequently require amendment. The genesis of my question is really around the fact that there are implications for the position of our country when it comes to climate change and whether or not there are other pieces of legislation that the Minister might be aware of that might require subsequent amendment, and, if so, what they are—if he is aware of them.

The other is just in relation to whether or not he is satisfied with clause 5, which, it seems to me, is the crux of it in terms of the repeal of section 167A of the Land Transport Act, and whether that in its entirety is what is being sought there. It would seem to me that perhaps it is, because it’s simply around the regulation-making power to impose some fees and charges purely for the purpose of the vehicle discount.

Now, there are a number of other questions that I certainly would appreciate the opportunity to put to the Minister. I guess my other question at this stage is around the involvement of officials doing work in relation to this piece of legislation and the drafting components behind that in light of no regulatory impact statement being made available to the House, and whether the impacts of this course of action in Part 1 have been well thought through, given that we are in urgency, and given that there may have been some aspects that perhaps the Minister was unable to turn his mind to that he may be in a position to be able to do so now with the benefit of time—albeit a short period of time—because, surely, there must be some consideration about some of these things not being able to be done in isolation. It may be that there is a view that they can be done in isolation, but there really needs to be some reference, I think—well, I’m interested in a response from the Minister about whether there needs to be a reference to some of those other components as part of the omnibus bill.

Then—and I guess this is more related to Part 2. But it does have an impact on the Land Transport Act, which is around the resourcing requirements being foreshadowed around the potential wind-down of the particular scheme.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is a very fundamental one for the Minister and goes to why we need any legislation at all. Of course, we could all think about what those reasons might be that we are here in the House under urgency when, of course, it is not mandatory to have these regulations.

Clause 5 of the bill repeals section 167A of the Land Transport Act 1998. Now, section 167A is “Regulations imposing fees and charges for purposes of clean vehicle discount scheme”. Obviously, this was introduced by the previous Government. This is in context of the part of the Land Transport Act that relates to regulations. There are many different regulations processes within that legislation, so this one is specifically for the clean vehicle discount scheme, and it says, without limiting those other regulation purposes, “for the purpose of promoting the transition of New Zealand’s light vehicle fleet to zero- and low-emission vehicles and reducing vehicle carbon dioxide emissions may”—and I stress that word “may”— “be made under that provision providing for fees and charges to be paid”. Then it goes on and says, at subsection (3), “Regulations made … may”—this word “may” is used again, and, at subsection (5) of section 167A, which is the one of the sections being repealed: “Regulations … may be made only on the recommendation of the Minister in accordance with subsection (7).” So, again, this is the Minister’s discretion. There is a lot of “may”.

These regulations can of course be changed, and there are some constraints in subsection (7) in that “The Minister must not recommend the making of regulations unless the Minister is satisfied—(a) that the fees or charges are appropriate to sustain a scheme designed to increase consumer demand for zero- and low-emission vehicles and decrease consumer demand for high-emission vehicles:”—a good aim, I would say, of course—“(b) that the imposition and level of fees or charges are appropriate, after considering—(i) the variety and availability of zero- and low-emission vehicles expected to enter the New Zealand light vehicle market in the following 12 to 24 months; and (ii) the market behaviour of consumers, including the nature of any continued demand for high-emission vehicles; and (iii) international and domestic climate change ambitions”—that’s a good word, isn’t it?— “and commitments; and (iv) the anticipated impact of the fees and charges on the market; and (v) whether the estimated revenue to be received from the charges is sufficient to meet the costs and expenses of the clean vehicle discount scheme funded under … the Land Transport Management Act”.

So my question is: why do we need any of this repeal legislation today? All that the amendment did at some time during the Labour Government—I was not on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, and I can’t remember exactly when the process happened. But all that they did was set up, under these pieces of legislation, the ability for regulations to do this clean vehicle discount scheme. So it appears that there is no need to do any of this primary legislation and that we can just rely on the secondary legislation and the processes that the Minister can determine.

I call Camilla Belich.

It’s Arena Williams. Thank you, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Oh, sorry. I’m so sorry—my apologies. I call Arena Williams.

ARENA WILLIAMS: Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m very glad to take a call, and I’m happy to be confused with my excellent colleague Camilla Belich. Thank you, Madam Chair—thank you.

I also acknowledge the Minister in the chair, the Hon Simeon Brown. Congratulations on your role, Minister. I look forward to discussing this with you. It’s of importance to Manurewa, the place we both grew up in in South Auckland.

The question I have for the Minister relates to the purpose of elevating some of these decisions to primary legislation. My colleague has touched on a more general point, but I want to focus specifically on the Minister’s views around making these decisions in primary legislation, and perhaps he can give us some guidance on his view around regulations within the transport sector as to whether this will be a trend of the Government to use primary legislation tools—indeed, within urgency or out of urgency—whereas the previous Government would have used the secondary legislation, or the regulations, to make those sorts of decisions.

As the committee has heard, the legislation that this bill seeks to amend allows for the Minister to make the kinds of policy decisions which he has indicated to this House that he would like to make around the Clean Car Discount scheme within that legal framework already. It’s important to give that proper consideration now because when Ministers have a legal framework set out already to make those decisions and they have been road-tested before, it gives the Government some level of comfort that those are able to be made in a sound way and that they don’t expose the Minister to a level of undue risk and open up the Government to further legal challenge somewhere down the line. So it’s good to follow established legal frameworks and to use the powers within primary and secondary legislation that we have and that we are used to, generally.

My question is about the decision by the Minister not to issue a decision under the regulations around the use of the Clean Car Discount. As my colleague has said, why is that not being made when we have the tools within the primary legislation to do so?

I am considering putting forward a number of amendments to help the Minister to use this piece of legislation, were he wanting to use an established legal framework to do so. But I do want to hear his answers on the place of secondary legislation in his view, given that we’ve also heard this Minister and the other Ministers of the Crown give us a sense of where they are going with the cutting of regulations. That is secondary legislation, often, that is things within that secondary legal framework, and so it is really useful for us to know, and the members of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee who are here—excellent committee; hard-working committee—would like to know if the Government is planning, in its cutting of regulations, to actually start removing more pieces of secondary legislation from the statute book in the way we are doing here. That is very significant to the transport sector, in particular, because we have a number of agencies that operate almost entirely through secondary legislation and in reference to their Ministers’ decisions through those legal frameworks that have been long set out and have a long legal tradition in New Zealand. So if this is the way we’re heading, we need to know that.

Now, the amendments that I’m considering making to Part 1 are around the functions of the agency, given that a number of the regulations to inform the way that the agency operates—perhaps there are functions within this bill that we are debating today that need to be kept on the statute book somewhere.

So those will be my questions to the Minister, and whether he will support those amendments later. But I’ll give him an opportunity to answer our questions now.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to answer some of the questions which have been raised. The member Tangi Utikere asked a number of questions around whether other pieces of legislation require amendment. The answer is no. This bill includes all of the legislation that needs amending, and I note that he started talking about what’s in Part 2 and I look forward to him talking about that later when we get to that stage.

The member Rachel Brooking asked a very good question: why do we need legislation at all? Maybe she needs to reflect on what she did for the last three years, and we’re repealing a lot of the legislation that that last Government put in place.

This piece of legislation needs to be repealed because this Government does not support the fees and charges which were put in place: the ute tax and the Clean Car Discount scheme. So we are removing the legislation off the books, and that is why we’re progressing it through the House in this method. The member Arena Williams asked exactly the same question, and I give exactly the same answer.

Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. So just prefacing my comments on this part of the bill with a reflection on the explanatory note, where the claim is made that “it is difficult to make this scheme financially sustainable and self-financing”. That is, I believe, contrary to the data which shows that since July 1, it has been fiscally neutral, and it would continue to be fiscally neutral if this scheme was carried on as it was intended, as it is by many other countries in the world who’ve successfully used feebates or Clean Car Discount schemes. The goal of the scheme is to be financially sustaining over time, and you can see it in other countries that over a period of five or 10 years, there’s overs and unders and it balances out over time. So the only reason it’s not fiscally neutral is because the Government is repealing it before it can be fully fiscally neutral.

I have a similar question to some of the ones that have been raised, because the Minister really didn’t provide a substantive answer to this question, which is: given that it was entirely possible for the Government, through regulation, to remove the fees and discounts, or adjust them in any way that they needed, including taking the fees off utes and carrying on with the rest of the scheme—that would have been a possible option available to the Minister. But even just leaving it in place and having zero fees and zero discounts was also an option, without going through this legislative process to repeal that architecture. So the question for the Minister is why go down the legislative route, when through regulation you could have achieved exactly the same outcome that Minister claims to want to achieve?

The Minister wants to remove fees from utes. That was an option: you remove the fees on utes from the scheme and you could still have that financial incentive in the rest of the personal car market to ensure that New Zealanders are finding it easier to access lower-emissions vehicles and have a price incentive at the point of purchase of the vehicle, which is where it is the most effective at influencing not just the choice of the consumers but the choice of the vehicle manufacturers to prioritise certain vehicles to our market.

My second question to the Minister is about clause 6. Clause 6 in Part 1 amends section 167B(4), which relates to the clean vehicle standard, and it says that the power set out in section—oh sorry, no. Actually, it’s clause 7. This is the clause—clause 7—that I want: “Repeal section 239(4)(b)(iii).”, which provides for information from the register of motor vehicles to be released to the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) for the purposes of administering rebates and charges. My only question here is whether the information on the register of motor vehicles about the tailpipe emissions will continue to be registered and publicly available—I mean, I think the answer is yes. The Government has indicated that they intend to carry on with the fuel economy standards of the Clean Car Standard, and for that, obviously, there needs to be information gathered on tailpipe emissions at the point of registering vehicles.

So my question on clause 7 in Part 1, will that—so it’s meaning that that information is not released to the New Zealand Transport Agency, but will that information still be collected? Will it still be publicly available? I think it’s of use for the people of New Zealand but also for the Government to understand what’s happening with vehicle fleet in terms of the tailpipe emissions. Even if we’re not providing that financial incentive at the point of purchase, we can at least see what’s happening. So the question to the Minister: does clause 7 mean that we’re no longer collecting and releasing that information, or is it just that it’s no longer going to NZTA, and if that is the case that we’re no longer collecting it or it’s not publicly available, in what way or what mechanism is the Government going to fulfil the Clean Car Standard—the fuel economy standard?

Thank you, Madam Chair. My first question is a really specific one, and it’s about the quality of air. So it’s not about carbon emissions changing our climate, but it’s an important extra advantage of having a whole lot of vehicles that are coming in that are cleaner in our cities so that the air pollutants go down.

I wondered whether the Minister had information about how much less carbon and how much less of the other toxins are going into the atmosphere in a place like Auckland. I have people in Mt Albert who live really near the motorway. They live down in Kingsland, down by the motorway, and they tend to be people who can’t afford to live way up high. It’s a really important thing for us to have a measure of that, and so I would like to know.

We’ve had an incredibly successful scheme. Has there been any analysis of how it’s affecting our cities, particularly in the valleys of those cities, because we will be paying for this in lives, in terms of the health of our children, and, in fact, ourselves—all of us? So I would like to know: has there been a cost-benefit analysis on this, has there been a measure of the improvement in the air quality in those places, and have you taken it into account when you have looked at changing the scheme here, because it’s been an incredibly successful scheme and we’ve gone way above numbers.

Now, my next question is one about equity. Has there been some sort of analysis done about the benefits once the scheme is coming through, or that has been done in terms of the maintenance of those vehicles? We’re just getting to the point where some of those vehicles will be on the second-hand market, but has there been any analysis done about how much it’s saving the average family if they get one of those cars? There’s a whole lot of cars that people don’t know about. There’s been a lot of talk of Teslas, but there’s actually a whole lot of cars at the lower end of the market that have been coming in. They attract the discount. Sometimes they’re petrol cars. Often, they are very ordinarily named cars, like Nissan LEAFs, etc.—those sorts of cars. How much benefit to a low-income family is there if they buy those kinds of cars?

Has there been any analysis done over the sort of response from our manufacturers, because my understanding is that there were some vehicles that had been really expensive. Some of the people movers and, actually, the utes had been way more expensive, and they came down by $20,000 immediately upon our introducing the scheme, because that got those vehicles into the scheme. So if you had a vehicle that was retailing at almost $100,000, they dropped overnight. Has there been any analysis of that in terms of how it affected the price of vehicles? I’d like to know those things.

I’d also like to know whether there has been some reflection on the open letter that was received by the Minister from Drive Electric, because my understanding is that that begged to have a meeting to talk about alternatives to dropping the scheme completely. I would like to know from the Minister: has he been in touch with that organisation, has he had communication, or have there been alternatives discussed? I heard my friend the Hon Julie Anne Genter talking about the possibility of a compromise on things like utes so that there might be an exemption scheme in place. Has that been discussed, because I presume Drive Electric would have been one of the submitters in any process through a select committee and we would have heard from them? I think they’re really good people and I know that they would have worked in good faith to produce some fiscally neutral alternatives if the Minister was unimpressed with this scheme. So has that communication gone on, and, if not, why not? I’d like to know that.

Those are some of the questions. I understand that Drive Electric have put the Minister on notice that if the scheme is removed, it could dramatically disrupt electric vehicle sales in this country. I’d like to know if there’s been any analysis of whether that is a likely outcome of dropping this scheme, because we don’t have an electric—[Time expired]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have some very specific questions for the Minister. Given that this is a bill that is not going through the select committee process and Part 1 of the bill is the part of the bill that does disestablish the legal basis for applying a Clean Car Discount, I have a question around the intersection of this bill with the Clean Car Standard and whether it’s the Minister’s intention to make any changes to the Clean Car Standard.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Acknowledging that we haven’t had the benefit of a select committee on this and we haven’t had the opportunity to hear from electric vehicle (EV) owners or aspiring EV owners or owners of second- or third-hand EVs, I really want to understand things a little bit further. I have certainly heard some concern and anxiety and fear from the dinosaurs in the house—the self-proclaimed dinosaur over here. As an EV owner, I can reassure the dinosaurs that there is nothing to fear from EVs, and, in fact, they are the most exciting cars to drive, if you are into vehicles.

I’m really interested in how youth, in particular, are going to be able to afford to move into EVs. My youngest son, with his partner, bought an EV. It cost them $5,000 to drive a Nissan LEAF, and that has saved them a fortune in petrol costs and it has saved emissions.

So I’m really, really interested in how much of the fees were paid by people in urban areas for EVs, and what advice has he received regarding the proportion of fees and rebates paid by or received by rural dwellers, rural communities, and urban communities. This is really important to me, because as the Green Party spokesperson for rural communities, I work with farmers. I grew up on a farm. I live rurally. I know a lot of people who own EVs or who want to own EVs. I’ve visited the electric orchard in Cromwell and been really impressed with how rural New Zealand, or the progressive parts of rural New Zealand, are trying to electrify. So I’m really keen to understand, because we don’t have the benefit of a select committee, what proportion of fees and rebates have been received by or paid by rural New Zealand and what proportion of fees and rebates have been received or paid by urban New Zealand.

This is really, really critical, because what we’re talking about is a desire in our community. We know New Zealanders want to do the right thing. We know that rural New Zealand is looking for opportunities and innovation. We know that rural New Zealand can’t afford to be hit by any more cyclones. We know that they’re going to happen, and we know what the cause is. So I’m really, really keen to hear how much the pain has been felt in in rural New Zealand with a very progressive, successful policy that is reducing emissions and reducing our dependence on overseas oil. This is really, really important for our rural communities, and I’d like an answer, please.

Thank you, Madam Chair. There’s been a number of questions. The Hon Julie Anne Genter asked about the scheme and talked about how we could make this somehow—she talked about fiscal neutrality and suggested we should exempt utes. But I don’t know whether she realised that would create an even bigger hole, and I’m not sure how the member suggests that that would be paid for, other than by borrowing more money. But for the Green Party, I guess money grows on trees. On this side of the House, we actually think that people have to work for it and pay for it through taxes.

Hon Julie Anne Genter: Point of order, Madam Chairperson. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought that the Minister was meant to address his comments to substantial answers and not unfounded attacks on the Opposition.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes. Look, the Minister will answer some questions, but as this is a very, I guess, intense debate between different views in the House, some things are going to go each way. But the Minister will continue to answer the questions.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: The next question was around why we are using the legislative process rather than using regulations—a similar question, a repeated question, from other members. On this side of the House, actually, we want this legislation off the books because we don’t agree with the Government being able to tax people buying their utes or buying their cars. We actually don’t agree with keeping it on and using regulations instead. So we’re repealing the Act and repealing the regulation-making power. She asked a question about the tailpipe emission labels. This bill doesn’t change any of those things.

Helen White asked some really good questions around cleaner air, which is a completely separate issue than what this bill deals with, and she also suggested an exemption scheme for youth. Again, there was no suggestion around how that would be funded.

Megan Woods asked about the Clean Car Standard review. As the former Minister will know, the Clean Car Standard—there is a legislated review which must start by 30 June next year, which we will be undertaking.

The member Scott Willis: I thought they were very good questions from Scott Willis, who is very concerned about our rural communities—it’s not long until he’ll be joining the National Party! I’m advised that about roughly half of the tax which has been received has been paid for by people buying utes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is my first chance to congratulate you on becoming the Deputy Speaker, and it was remiss of me before not to congratulate the Minister, the Hon Simeon Brown, for becoming a Minister.

Now, I’m aware of repetition, and I’ve raised this point before about the fact that we do not need primary legislation; this can all be done by regulation. I think the Minister has confirmed that the answer is yes, but that he—

Hon Member: He hasn’t—he hasn’t answered.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I’m not sure about that; I would like him to give a straight yes or no answer to it. But it is his preference to make the bold political call that the Government is opposed to Clean Car Discounts and that they are taking this down the primary legislative route, even though it is unnecessary, so this whole debate in urgency is unnecessary.

I do have a separate question, but I would also note that I look forward to hearing from Simon Court at some stage. He has had a lot to say on other members’ contributions.

But going to clause 9 of the bill, this says that Schedule 1 be amended, and I know we’re not discussing Schedules at the moment, but we are discussing clause 9. It says that the new Part 7 in Schedule 1 of the bill will now be inserted in Schedule 1 of the Land Transport Act but also, in clause 9(b), it says to “make all necessary consequential amendments.” If you go to Schedule 1 of the Land Transport Act 1998, there is a whole part in it—Part 4, “Provisions relating to Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Act 2022”—there’s an interpretation clause and another clause regarding transitional provisions.

I’m just interested in this phrase “make all necessary consequential amendments.”, and I’m aware that it is a phrase used in multiple pieces of legislation and it’s not a unique phrase. But when looking at the Legislation Act, the example given is that a necessary or consequential amendment would be something like changing a heading in a section—that’s the sort of necessary consequential amendment that might be changed. If it’s the Minister’s understanding that in this case, all of Part 4 from Schedule 1 of the Land Transport Act would be removed, or if he’s imagining that the necessary consequential amendments would be smaller—it might be for reasons relating to the fact that they are transitional provisions. But I’m interested in an answer to both those questions.

To be clear: this legislation is not necessary to get rid of the Clean Car Discount—a short answer on that would be grand—and what the Minister’s views are on the necessary consequential amendments to Schedule 1. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to seek a further response from the Minister in relation to the proportion of fees and rebates paid by or received by rural communities or urban communities.

I ask this because modelling showed that the forecast was that more than 90 percent of fees paid under the Clean Car Discount would be paid in urban areas, and I can attest that in urban areas we do see a lot of Ford Rangers having to climb the steep, steep curbs of supermarkets and having to buffer themselves against children on bicycles. We do see the challenges that the Ford Rangers face in our urban areas, so I’m really, really keen to have a precise answer from the Minister—with detail, please—on the proportion of fees and rebates paid by or received by rural-dwelling people or urban-dwelling people.

I am really concerned about this, because I work with rural communities who want to decarbonise. I work with farming families who are putting every effort in to decarbonising, and they want to understand the rationale behind this idiotic repealing of the most progressive, successful initiative we have seen. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to pick up on the contribution made by my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking and the question to the Minister around an assurance—that he can assure the committee that the imposition of “make all … consequential amendments” is not considered as substantial, given that the House is in urgency and I’m yet to receive a response to my question around the nature of the work that officials have been undertaking.

The second question: some of the contributions made in the second reading touched on some of the concerns that had been raised with members as a result of this not going through a select committee. So my question to the Minister is what specific engagement he’s had with individuals or members of the sector—or anyone else, for that matter—and, in particular, who they are and when that stakeholder engagement had taken place in the lead-up to this bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Congratulations on your august role, and I’d also like to take the opportunity, if I may, to thank our new Minister of Transport, who I’m sure is going to do a fantastic job repairing the mess of our current infrastructure in New Zealand.

Hon Member: And the potholes.

CAMERON LUXTON: And the potholes. So I’d love to ask the Minister, if I could: could the Minister explain what had been the fiscal costs of the Clean Car Discount—it would be good to get some clarification on that, and I think the opposite side would appreciate that—and, as laid out in clause 12, was this scheme actually sustainable at its time of implementation? Thank you.

I also wanted to flag that later in this debate, on further parts of the bill, I and the Green Party have tabled two proposed amendments, and I know that other members will be proposing amendments too. So we look forward to the support from Government members as well as Opposition members in the committee on those two amendments, but I’ll speak to those at the appropriate part of this debate.

But just responding and kind of coming in on the question just raised by the member from the ACT Party—which I think is a great question—and the comments made by the Minister earlier that if you were to exclude utes, you’d have to raise more revenue, clearly the way that feebates are designed and used by successful countries all over the world is with that intention that it will be moving over time. The thing that is intended by the scheme is to, over time, narrow the range of vehicles that are eligible for rebates—and that’s one way of reducing the outgoing costs—and to, over time, progressively increase the fees on the most polluting vehicles, particularly as it’s been well-signalled in advance that alternatives are becoming available so that people can plan ahead and know that, over time, higher-emitting vehicles will face higher fees. Those fees will contribute to more electric and zero-emissions vehicles on the road, and that’s how we meet our target of reducing emissions.

So there’s no proposal for ongoing Crown funding from the Green Party. In fact, if the Green Party had been responsible for the implementation of this legislation, we would not have had such a gap between the announcement and implementation of the rebates and the announcement and implementation of the fees. That’s how it’s done in other countries. It’s actually commonplace that when you use these types of price mechanisms to reflect the outcomes that we all want to see as a world, which is lower carbon emissions, you bring in those price mechanisms relatively quickly so that you don’t have the perverse impact of encouraging people to panic-buy high-emissions gas guzzlers or defer their purchases of electric vehicles.

So the way that it was implemented wasn’t ideal, but still, over time, there was a plan, and it should be possible—and I’m sure the Minister has received advice on this, or I would hope the Minister had asked for advice on this—to make adjustments to the scheme that would have meant that it carried on and achieved fiscal neutrality beyond the last six months. It has been fiscally neutral, but it would carry on being fiscally neutral simply by reflecting higher fees on high-emitting vehicles over time and a smaller range—so rather than petrol vehicles and diesel vehicles receiving rebates, the rebates would be restricted to zero-emissions vehicles.

There have been a number of questions—again, a repetitive question—around the repeal in clause 5 of section 167A, regarding whether legislation is required rather than regulation. One of the additional reasons why legislation is required is that removing the regulations or having a regulation of a zero fee would be likely to be found to be inconsistent with the purpose of the original legislation. Therefore, it is actually requiring the legislation to be repealed, which is what we’re doing, but also, by repealing it, it also means that we don’t have to have this on the legislative books at the same time.

The member Tangi Utikere asked about consequential amendments and what specific engagement has occurred. There’s been a range of engagements with the sector, and the reality with these things—this has been well signalled. In fact, there was a thing called the election on 14 October. We signalled well in advance of the election the intention to remove the ute tax by 31 December. That was something we campaigned on, New Zealanders voted for it, and that is very specific and wide-ranging engagement with a very large sector of New Zealanders.

There was a very good question from the new ACT MP Cameron Luxton about the fiscal costs, and I have some answers for him, which I’m sure he will probably not like to hear because I know the ACT Party very much cares about our fiscal situation as a country. But since this scheme has been put in place through to 30 November 2023, $579 million was paid out in rebates and $13.5 million was spent in costs to establish and operate the scheme, while $290 million has been received from charges. This leaves taxpayers footing the bill of $302.5 million.

Now, I heard from the member the Hon Julie Anne Genter, who was talking about how we can just simply change the fees and the structure. Well, I’m not sure if the member understands the impact that actually has on the car industry when they have to then have massive peaks and changes to their demand, or the significant challenges that that actually provides to their industry when you’re constantly changing the rules on an industry, because they have to change stock levels and they have to quickly move stock forward or back, depending on what the rules are going to be. We saw that on 1 July this year, when there was a massive shift in terms of the fees and penalties, and if that’s what the Hon Julie Anne Genter thinks is the right approach, well, that is not good for business and that is not good for our economy. But that, again, reminds us about the approach that that party takes to the important issues.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the member for his answer to my question around the Clean Car Standard. The Minister of Transport was aware that there is a legislative review of the Clean Car Standard, but the reason I put that question to the Minister, while being aware of the required legislative review, is that policy orthodoxy would dictate that if you’re not going to have something like a feebate like we had in place—in other jurisdictions, what we would have seen is acceleration of mechanisms such as clean car standards.

So in light of the fact that we have this legislation before us today—this bill—to repeal the policy mechanism of using a rebate for customers, I’d like to know further from the Minister whether he is thinking of bringing forward any review of the Clean Car Standard. In other jurisdictions, what we have seen as an alternative is more stringent carbon dioxide emission reduction requirements on vehicles, which in some jurisdictions, has led to a phase-out of internal combustion engine vehicles. So whether these are issues that the Minister is considering or that he has received advice on and has discussed with officials—I’d be interested to know that.

But there’s a number of other areas that I’d like to know from the Minister what he has received advice on, and one is in relation to the emissions profile associated with this legislative change. Of course, this was a policy that was absolutely critical to the demonstration path in the emissions reduction plan (ERP) for the transport sector. It was doing a lot of heavy lifting, and there are going to be massive consequences to what that ERP for budgets two and three look like. So what advice has the Minister received of impacts on those demonstration paths in the ERP, but also what advice has he received on what he’s going to do instead of this, because, of course, transport does have a large burden within both emissions budget 2 and emissions budget 3 in terms of the ERP?

So what is he going to do to replace those, because, of course, from 2025 to 2030, the demonstration path sees the annual light electric vehicle (EV) registration climb from 11 percent to 67 percent of the market, and reach 100 percent by 2035. So across those emissions budgets, what is he going to do to ensure that we can meet those pathways, and, if we’re not, what are the policies and measures that he’s thinking of putting in place to replace those? These are very large numbers. They have very large consequences for New Zealand, and they have very large consequences for whether or not we can meet our emissions reductions.

I’m also interested to know from the member what advice he has received on the impact of sales of EVs. It’s not just the new EVs, which seem to be quite a focus of this debate, but some data that I read out in an earlier stage of this debate actually showed that there was a preponderance of the uptake of this scheme on new to New Zealand, second-hand vehicles, and this was a way that a lot of people, a lot of households—and I know a lot of households in my electorate were actually finding cost-saving measures. They were buying second-hand, imported EVs and drastically reducing their petrol bills for their households. They were finding this was actually an important way in which they were keeping household budgets under constraint.

Now, I would assume the Minister would have modelling, so I’d be interested in hearing from him that this would be one of the most elastic parts of the demand for these households in terms of the uptake of electric vehicles within the second-hand market, and about what he’s going to do if there is not a rebate scheme to help those households. What’s going to be put in its stead to ensure that we are helping those households? I know that I’ve also spoken to a number of retired people in my electorate who have found a really good way to make ends meet—to buy a second-hand, used EV—and it’s much, much less onerous on their household budgets to charge their vehicle than to fill it up.

The other issue that I’d like to know from the Minister, in addition to any advice he might have received around sales—but I’d also be interested in impact on sales on new EVs, because of course this will impact the targets that we have in those emissions budgets. But I’d also like to know—[Time expired]

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So I’ll just list a number of things that I’d like some advice on. The other thing that I would like to know from the Minister—and I think that there have been some questions, but I don’t think it’s been addressed—is the options that the Minister considered, and whether he did consider options. I understand that this was part of the manifesto commitment from his party, but I’d like to know whether, when he became a Minister, other options were considered to achieve the outcome around, obviously, wanting to remove the burden in terms of fiscal neutrality. I think there’s been some really sensible questions put in this committee of the whole House stage—sensible questions that we would otherwise have had at a select committee that we would have been able to ask officials about—about what alternative options there could have been and whether any of these were explored.

The other issue that I think is of vital importance to everybody is what advice the Minister has received. He’s told us and members from the Government benches have told us through the course of this debate that this is not required because we have an emissions trading scheme (ETS). So what I’d like to know is what advice the Minister has received on what price the ETS needs to be at to cause the behavioural change for people to switch to electric vehicles, because every piece of research we see, both here in New Zealand and internationally, is that we need to have incredibly high carbon prices to get people to switch.

So if the Minister is seeing the ETS as an alternative to repealing the scheme in this legislation that we have before us, and that is what is happening in Part 1 of this bill—if the Minister, as stated, sees the ETS as an alternative, what is the price that he’s had advice on that would be required? I’ve seen suggestions from academics in New Zealand that we’d need carbon pricing of $235 a tonne, which obviously would have a huge impact on the price of petrol. I think that it’s around $60 for an average fill-up, and I’ll check that figure.

But given where we are in terms of our ETS pricing, if the Minister is saying that we need a price of around $235, which is what experts are saying—but I’d be interested if he’s had any counter advice to that—what plans does the Government have to get us to that ETS price, because that is not going to naturally occur. So is this work that sits alongside this legislative change to rapidly hike the ETS price in this country—because I think that’s something that all New Zealanders, when it comes to filling up their cars, for those that are still using combustion engines, will be very interested in, and all New Zealanders paying their power bills would also be very interested in that, because, of course, that would have a flow-on effect, as it would across the economy.

So I’d like to see that advice and, actually, probably, if possible, for it to be tabled. This is a really serious consideration we’re going through, and I would also like to ask the Minister whether it was in the regulatory impact statement (RIS) that is sitting in his office—which he has received from his agency and that he is on record as saying he has received from his agency—and I’m asking the Minister a specific question: will he release the RIS to the House so we can all have access to this modelling and this advice, because otherwise there’s going to be a lot of questions through this committee stage around what was the advice and what that advice said, because we know that the Minister has the advice.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that Tangi Utikere’s tabled amendment to insert a new clause 8A be agreed to.

The Hon Damien O’Connor’s tabled amendment to insert a new clause 16A is out of order as not being in the proper form of legislation. The Hon Julie Anne Genter’s tabled amendment to section 175 of the Land Transport Act 1998 is out of order as being out of scope of the bill. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Point of order, Madam Chairperson. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just seeking your guidance, and I appreciate that the vote on those matters has just been taken, but there were a number of proposed amendments that had been tabled that members in the committee had not had an opportunity to speak to yet, and they were seeking a call on those amendments. We’ve just exercised a vote, effectively, without having an opportunity to make any comment on those. The Minister had been posed with a number of questions, many of which he sought to answer two or three times, and so I seek your guidance. Given the House is under urgency, there hasn’t been a select committee process, but there have been a number of tabled amendments, and I know that in terms of my amendments I tabled prior to moving into committee, yet members have not had an opportunity to speak to them.

Look, thank you for that point of order, Mr Utikere. I was finding that, actually, the calls were not as vigorous as they had been before, and we seemed to have been coming to the end of the debate. So I suggest members should be perhaps a bit more vigorous if there’s an Amendment Paper that people want to speak to.

Point of order, Madam Chairperson. In light of that, I seek leave for tabled amendments to be redebated.

The leave is sought. No leave has been given for that course of action.

Part 2 Amendments, repeals, and revocations concerning other enactments