Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Repeal) Amendment Bill

So now we come to Part 2. Part 2 is the debate on clauses 18 to 26, “Amendments, repeals, and revocations concerning other enactments”, and Schedules 3 and 4. The question is that Part 2 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This part deals, as you just said, with amendments, repeals, and revocations concerning other amendments. It makes amendments to the Land Transport (Motor Vehicle Registration and Licensing) Regulations, revokes regulations prohibiting the register of motor vehicles from issuing a certificate of registration for a vehicle if there are charges payable for a vehicle under the clean vehicle discount scheme and those charges have not been paid, because, of course, the charges under this scheme will be ceasing after its enactment.

It makes amendments to Energy Efficiency (Vehicle Energy Economy Labelling) Regulations, and, as members will see in their copy of the bill, there are some templates as to what the new labels will look like. I encourage members to take a look. There is a colour version and there’s also a greyscale version in the back of the bill, so feel free to have a look at that. It also makes revocation of Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Charges) Regulations 2022. Of course, it is the intent of this legislation to not continue with charges under this scheme.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a number of questions for the Minister. One of the opportunities that was put forward previously was around a review opportunity. I note that this part relates to the administration of the scheme, in terms of how it will be executed and how it is followed through, and I wonder, in light of that, whether the Minister has any thoughts about implementing some sort of review process as part of that. The genesis of that, I think, comes from the perspective that a lot of the conversation and points that have been made are around the number of vehicles, as well.

So my question to the Minister is in that vein, around whether he has considered an opportunity for reviewing any aspects, whether it be Part 2 or otherwise, and whether or not the transitional provisions are also under review, as well. I mean, that review could take place in relation to the relative number of electric vehicles (EVs) that might be on the list, shall we say, and it would be interesting to get the Minister’s view on that.

The other is whether there is a reporting mechanism back to the House—or it could be not to the House; it could be through some other mechanism that the Minister may think is appropriate in terms of the administration aspects of this.

My other question is: whether, as part of the administration, there is an opportunity perhaps for those who had previously, maybe, applied for or received a discount or a rebate to somehow, effectively, return that. Now, it may be that there is provision within Part 2 that administratively there is some leeway, whether it be by regulation or elsewhere, that may allow for those who have, perhaps, I don’t know, come from a household that might have benefited from a Tesla and might have ended up accessing the rebate, may be able to, in good faith, return that. So whether there’s an opportunity—

Hon Peeni Henare: Now, there’s a noble gesture!

TANGI UTIKERE: That is a very noble gesture, Mr Henare, isn’t it? I really do think that some thinking in this space might allow for someone who may feel noble to be able to return money that comes back to the taxpayer, as opposed to it going into the household pockets and just sitting there permanently, regardless of how much money one might get—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Like people with Teslas, do you think?

TANGI UTIKERE: Teslas. I actually think Teslas fit the criteria under the scheme—

Hon Member: Are you going to voluntarily pay wealth tax—voluntarily pay it? No.

TANGI UTIKERE: —in terms of Part 2 is about administration and so that is about making sure that all of the vehicles that are appropriate to fit that particular schedule—well, it would be voluntary. Well, I’m interested to know from Minister Bayly, who is in the chair, as to whether or not there is some appetite from the Minister to perhaps allow for that.

The other is around EV charging infrastructure and how that might actually sit with some of the administrative areas of focus that might need to come through.

So I’m interested to hear from the Minister around that, and, I think, particularly given that the price differentials between those that are electric vehicles and those that are not, over a quantum or a period of time, may end up heading in that particular direction. A further question will come, but perhaps those are a few to get Minister Bayly under way.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to respond to two of those questions. The first one is the reporting-back requirement that the member asked about. Because we’re repealing the bill, you do not need a report back. It’s self-evident that no report back is required.

The second question, about people who may want to apply for a rebate because they thought they were entitled to it: the requirements are that those people must apply by 31 December, and then the New Zealand Transport Agency will go through the process of processing those, and if payments are required to be made back, they will be made back; otherwise, moneys will be returned to the Crown account and used by the Crown for other good transport projects, no doubt.

The honourable—no, sorry, Tangi Utikere—almost honourable; always honourable, sorry.

Ha, ha! Thank you, Madam Chair. I thank the Minister for the answer. There are two questions that he’s responded to, but perhaps I could just provide a bit of clarity. I note that the Minister referred to a report-back opportunity. My question was not about report back; it was around whether or not a review would be signalled, which is not a requirement whether there’s legislation or not. I note that the Minister is shaking his head, so I’m not sure whether he doesn’t like my question or whether he’s answering it, but we’ll perhaps wait to hear in due course.

The other is around the administrative function. I take the point that the Minister has said that the date on the table there is 31 December of this year. But my question was about whether or not the Government had given some thought to including in the legislation an opportunity to pay it back. So anyone who had received the rebate since it came into being right through to the end of the year—the question is about whether there was an appetite from the Government for people to choose to, effectively, refund the rebate that they had pocketed, not if they think it’s a bad scheme. Clearly, if someone thinks it’s a bad scheme, I would be very surprised that they may have pocketed a rebate, because if there’s an opportunity for perhaps the Government to provide for those that had benefited from this rebate to then return it, then I think that would be a wonderful step forward.

So it’s not about the deadline, as such, at the end of this year; it is more about providing an opportunity for anyone who has received the rebate since it has been in existence to pay it back if they choose to do so.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for letting me contribute to this important committee stage of this debate. I wanted to speak primarily in my contribution to an amendment that is tabled in my name that looks at the information that’s provided to potential purchasers of vehicles following the passage of this legislation, so I want to go into detail on that. It may be somewhat of an unusual amendment, but if you look at it consistently with the parts in Part 2 that we are actually looking at, including the schedules—which I understand we are looking at in Part 2—we’ve got two examples of labels that will be part of the law once this enactment is passed. I just wanted to ask and seek some clarity from either the Minister, or maybe he can receive some advice, but it’s very difficult to read the labels in this proposed legislation.

I know, obviously, that possibly we can go to our PCs on our desks and enlarge the font, but I just recently had my eyes tested—[Knocks over glass] Whoops! I can assure the committee that despite almost knocking that glass over, I do have good eyesight and I cannot make out the text in this, and I just would like to note that I do find it a bit concerning. Usually, the items that we are debating are available on the Table, which is as it should be, and I accept that this is on the Table, but it’s very difficult to scrutinise the context of these labels when it’s so small that it can’t be interpreted.

So, anyway, that’s maybe a side point to my amendment, but my amendment is actually looking to insert a new clause 22A after clause 22, which is in Part 2 of this legislation. My amendment would ask that sellers and importers of vehicles must identify the rebate value that would have been applicable to the vehicle as if the Clean Car Discount scheme had not been repealed, and such value must be displayed on the vehicle’s energy economy label. Obviously, the energy economy labels we can see here, but, unfortunately, only the bigger type can be made out. The exact detail is quite difficult to ascertain. So I just wondered if the Minister would perhaps be able to read out the bits which are not able to be read by members, or if it would be possible prior to the end of the committee stage for a larger copy to be tabled so that members may scrutinise this in more detail.

In terms of the other parts of Part 2, which we are now debating, we can see that a lot of regulations have been repealed and changed, and I just wanted to ask the Minister whether he was satisfied that given that we don’t have a select committee stage, all of the relevant regulations in Part 2 that are to be repealed are consistent with the purpose of this repeal legislation. We did have an example when we were debating last night where one of the regulations that was to be repealed went, in my view, too far and actually amended a primary piece of legislation. So I just wanted some assurance from the Minister, or from his officials, under advice, that this has been well scrutinised in terms of the regulations which are to be changed, and there are a number of different pieces of legislation and regulations which are mentioned there.

So I’d just like to have an assurance that that is correct, and also just to get a bit of clarity on whether he would support my amendment, because I think it is important, if the Government is sure that this is a policy supported by New Zealanders that they’re willing to stand behind, why not let New Zealanders have the information when they purchase a vehicle and see whether that, indeed, holds true in the future? So I think it would be a show of confidence in this legislation if the governing parties were to accept this amendment, because it would clearly show New Zealanders the price of their vehicle, which would be a lower-emitting vehicle, which would lead to lower emissions, which, in turn, would aid our campaign to have a better climate for the future, and New Zealanders would be able to see clearly when they purchase a vehicle the difference between the policy that the Government is implementing and the policy that the previous Government had implemented, which did lead to New Zealand having a much cleaner car fleet. So if the Minister could answer those questions.

Just before I call the next speaker, I just wanted to say that we’re just seeking some advice about getting larger copies so that it’s readable for you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I actually had a similar concern because I can’t read anything in the small print. It’s quite hard to speak meaningfully on a proposal that you can’t read, so I’d really appreciate it and I genuinely would like to check that script.

But I also wondered about the process of the alternative of labels, because I don’t know where the advice came that this has got some efficacy. I’d like to know how this proposal to generate labels was instigated, where this alternative has come, whether it’s actually got benefit. It may be that it’s in the small print, but I don’t know what these things mean on this label. So I can see that there is a level of emissions of “29”—29 out of what? What kind of emissions are we talking about?

I raised, earlier, issues where I was really worried about the air quality in Auckland and people being subjected to a lot of poisons. I know that we’ve had child deaths as a result of air-quality issues in the valleys in Auckland, and that’s often where the motorways are. I have parts of my electorate which just back straight on to the motorway. It’s often our vulnerable who live in those places because they’re poorer. I’d really like to know about that emissions part, but the same is true—I really just have not enough information.

I also would like to know whether anybody has consulted health officials about this approach and whether it works, or whether there is any international information available where this approach has been successful or otherwise. So those are really genuine concerns I raise on behalf of my constituents. They seem incredibly important. We’re given an example here of a plug-in hybrid. I’m not given any example of how this applies in a situation where we’re not talking about those hybrids. Are these based on averages of vehicle use in a city, in the country, etc.?

I just need a lot more information than I’ve got, but mainly I want to know about the efficacy and the advice that was given about whether this works and how this has been looked at. I was interested in an answer I received earlier from the Minister about air quality, and this was something that—forgive me—relates to both parts, I think. But I was standing, asking for a call about this. He suggested that there was no relationship between this bill and those issues of air quality.

My understanding is—and I was on that select committee—these things were raised at the time, they were issues that were very much part of the reason for bringing this about and we have a whole lot of issues around equity as well. I would fully expect the regulations and the decision over the regulations to reflect that. What is the connection? Is this really not an issue that is actually relevant, in the eyes of the Minister, on this?

So I very much genuinely would like to know whether this is seen as separate; if so, why? Given that, of course, cars emit such fuels, and electric cars emit much less toxins, as do more efficient petrol vehicles. So what is the story here? I’d really genuinely like to know the answers to those questions.

I’d like to also know whether these regulations that we have had put before us so quickly have been anywhere near the Regulations Review Committee, and if they’re consulted, what the process is around that? Because if they’re overstepping, if they really—that is a very wonderful committee. I was deputy chair to the Hon Judith Collins, and I saw the value in the work of that committee in terms of where there was an overstep, where there was an issue. Yet in this process of rush, I’m actually really unclear as to what happens with regards to regulations review. Do they get this legislation after it’s been passed, and if there has been an overstep, it gets reviewed?

Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, we are in the process of trying to get a blown-up version of the labelling.

Second thing—and I’ll sort of try and deal with these in reverse order—all we’re doing with the labelling is removing the dollar sum. If you look at the label itself, if you look at new Schedule 2, inserted by Schedule 4, just to help the members, it’s quite clear that 5.5 refers to carbon dioxide; it states that—even I can read that—and the 29 figure is 29 grams of carbon per kilometre travelled. Those are all standard measures, right? So there’s nothing unusual, special. I know the members are keenly interested in looking at the detail, but the reality is this is pretty standard stuff. So I think I’ve identified the key bits there for you.

Second thing, for the member in respect of her Amendment Paper (AP) regarding a new clause 22A, the argument that we should disclose the value because that will help everyone in New Zealand to work out whether the National Party’s approach is right compared to Labour, I don’t quite buy into that argument. We are removing that; we don’t see a need, because we’re getting rid of the requirement to do that. Of course, what you’re proposing is a compliance cost and all that sort of stuff, so, unfortunately, we won’t be supporting your AP.

Then, I just want to go back to the previous member to that about the concept of: can someone willingly contribute the money back to the Crown? Well, we don’t need to change the legislation. If the good member would like to make a contribution to the Crown or any other organisation, or he wants to take the rebate and give it to the Salvation Army—which is a very worthy cause—you don’t actually need to change the legislation to allow that to happen. I am so grateful that the member might be contemplating to do that on behalf of other people, or even from his own situation if he’s happened to have bought an electric vehicle, but we do not need to legislate that. But this is an interesting debate that everyone’s going through at the moment.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a couple of questions for the Minister in the chair in terms of what will happen in terms of the administration around some of the dates that are laid out in terms of clause 18 “amends the Land Transport (Motor Vehicle Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2011”, and clause 19 revoking regulation 5(2A).

One of the things that is happening here is around removing the ability to pay the collected money over as a rebate, and I’ll return to this when we come to the dates. But, actually, those two clauses within this part—because clause 18 provides that section 19 amends that principal piece of legislation, the Land Transport (Motor Vehicle Registration and Licensing) Regulations of 2011, and clause 19 revokes regulation 5(2A), which prohibits the register of motor vehicles from issuing a certificate of registration for a vehicle if there are charges payable for the vehicle under the Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme and those charges have not been paid. This is where we have what I would describe as a chicken and egg situation, that we are coming into a situation—this ends on the 31st.

Now, there will be a number of people that have made a decision, purchased, but the car has not landed in New Zealand and therefore cannot be registered. They may be expecting receipt of their vehicle and its registration on, say, 29 December, 30 December, even 31 December, but there is a delay for some reason or another and it might not arrive until, say, 4 or 5 January. But the cut-off there that is covered in that clause 19 will provide for a number of problems for those people. They will miss out on the rebate through no fault of their own.

It’s for their reason that there is an amendment, in the name of my colleague Tangi Utikere, proposing that we have a new clause 28 inserted into Part 7 of Schedule 1 of the Land Transport Act 1998—a new clause 28: after clause 27 insert “This Act continues to apply as if it had not been amended by sections 4 and 7 of the amendment Act for the purposes of a rebate on vehicles for which there was a purchase arrangement in place by the end of 31 December 2023.” Because the way that this bill is written, it’s all about registration. We all know that registration for a vehicle cannot be issued till it has made landfall in New Zealand and it has gone through that process. But what my colleague is suggesting, so that we don’t get people caught in this situation that may over the Christmas New Year period easily happen, is that what we could have is the requirement for there to be that purchase agreement in place by 31 December.

Now, we do not, of course, agree with the repeal of any of this, but what we are concerned about is that people, through no fault of their own, who are going to get caught by these provisions—and it’s why in Part 2 of this bill, my colleague is proposing that amendment. So I’d like to know whether the Government is willing to countenance that amendment to protect people so they don’t get caught in some tricky situations. They may find that the vehicle that they were about to purchase suddenly goes up by up to $7,000 if they miss out for some reason or another on the ability to claim that rebate; obviously less if someone’s buying a new to New Zealand second-hand vehicle. There could be a delay in that landing over this period, which is reasonably notorious for there being delays as businesses rightly shut down so people can have their holidays. I’d like to hear from the Minister and from the Government whether there is an amendment in this part of the bill that they will support.

I do have a further question around the label, and I appreciate that we will be getting blown-up copies of those labels so we can continue to debate this part of the bill. But my question is, given that the labels are going to continue to display the emissions from a particular vehicle, and given, under Part 1 of the bill, there were some very serious questions that the Minister never even addressed around emissions and reporting and advice, I’d like to know in terms of each of those labels displaying emissions information, what information more generally has the Minister received on emissions?

Just to briefly deal with the member’s question, we just want to be very clear with people that if you want to go and buy an electric vehicle and get a rebate, if you want to do that, you need to do it by 31 December. You need to buy it and register it and make your application before 31 December—very clear rules. So just saying to people: don’t go and buy one that’s in the shipment; go and buy one that you can get straight away. It’s a very clear, clean end to this car discount scheme because we need to bring it to a close.

Members, the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The committee will resume at 2 p.m. today.

Sitting suspended from 1.01 p.m. to 2 p.m.