Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m not sure that last member, Angela Roberts, could have put it much better, actually. She put a very good case for why this bill is totally unnecessary and, actually, doesn’t help the situation at all. And I want to start by touching on the impact it has on rural New Zealand. The member said that there’s no public transport options. Well, actually, that’s exactly right. And, if you’re in rural New Zealand, there aren’t public transport options; there aren’t electric ute options, either. The member may have missed that part. In rural New Zealand, and in the construction sector as well—I’m delighted to be the spokesperson for building and construction—I’m hearing constantly from tradies who are absolutely outraged, tradies and farmers around the Waikato electorate who are totally disappointed in what this Government is proposing.

Now, you can have whatever position you like on how we might go about trying to reduce emissions, but this particular approach is totally unfair because, primarily, it reduces the ability for those people to have options. Now, regardless of your view on how you may or may not go about this, if there is simply no option, then it makes it incredibly difficult for people to comply, or they can’t comply if there’s no electric ute option or no electric vehicle (EV) that might suit the needs of whatever their particular vocation requires. And, on that basis, it becomes inherently unfair that they get penalised for something with which they have no ability to comply. So, on that basis alone, this bill is absolutely flawed and is unfair for a significant portion of New Zealanders who make a massive economic contribution, whether that be in the rural space or in the construction space, or in any other area where your vehicle of choice is one that does not have an electric alternative—or indeed, actually, for many of these low and middle income families that we’ve heard won’t be impacted by this. Ms Genter said “It saves people a lot of money.”—direct quote from Ms Genter that this bill saves people a lot of money. Well, I haven’t seen any justification for how that might actually be the case; quite the opposite when we hear that the increased costs, from the tax perspective under this bill, will require those people to be paying more for vehicles that they may look to purchase, if, indeed, they make that purchasing decision at all. And, as Mr Bennett said earlier on, that is unlikely to happen as soon as it may have without this bill.

Now, in New Zealand, we already have a vehicle fleet, by international comparisons, that is very old. The impact of this piece of legislation is that that vehicle fleet will become older still, as people retain their vehicles for longer because of the additional cost, potentially thousands of dollars, that they will have to fork out if they are going to upgrade their vehicle to a newer but still internal combustion engine—or emissions-producing—vehicle, because they don’t have the capacity often to fork out for a new, or even second-hand, electric vehicle, which are outside of the price bracket that they may be able to achieve.

Now, when we think about the significant cost implications that are being placed on New Zealanders over the last few years, this is just another cost that is going to make it incredibly difficult for them. The cost of living has gone up massively—whether that’s power or fuel or some food items; any number of areas you can look at where we have seen significant cost increases. And, if you’re a family on a low-income wage, looking to replace a vehicle, and you’ve seen a $100 per week rent increase, you’ve seen a massive spike in your electricity prices, you’re having to pay a lot more for your fuel because you’ve got a fuel tax on top of the increases that we’ve seen, this becomes incredibly difficult. And I cannot understand how Ms Genter can stand up and say that this bill will save people a lot of money and also that this is a fair policy.

As I touched on, rural New Zealand will not be able to comply with this, even if there was an EV ute option, and we heard from Ms Simmonds earlier around the geographical challenges of the Southland region. Well, that’s similar in a number of rural areas around our country, where you simply cannot travel the distances necessary between EV charging stations. Look at any number of backroads in the rural Waikato, you will not find EV charging stations in those areas.

💬 Hon Member: What about a hybrid?

And hybrid vehicles are one option, and I drive one of those myself, but you don’t get the options under this piece of legislation. And so these are the significant issues that we’re touching on here that the Government just don’t seem to get. It’s another example of poor policy. And, whilst the intention might be good, the delivery is absolutely suboptimal. This Government time and time again has failed to account for the unintended consequences of their good intentions. New Zealanders are missing out, it’s costing them more money, and it’s simply not good enough. This Government needs to do better for all New Zealanders.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on the Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill. Thank you to the Hon Michael Wood for his work in this space. For this side of the House, I’m just really grateful for the conversations and the opinions that we’ve had this afternoon.

Climate change, as we’ve heard, is our biggest challenge that we are facing. I want to be on the right side of history to ensure that we are doing the right thing. I want to being looking forward, not looking back. My colleague Greg O’Connor earlier talked around the challenges of horse and carts turning into vehicles around the world, as it happened, but there also were the challenges when trains first became common use around Europe. In that situation, initially, women weren’t actually allowed on trains for fear that it might actually harm or hurt them in some way, because we didn’t quite understand the challenges of new technology. Here we are, thankfully, long gone are those old gas-guzzling trains, and we are looking at our future here. I want to be someone who ensures that we have options and opportunities.

Last year, 85 percent of all vehicles sold in this country wouldn’t have been connected to this piece of legislation. So it’s a very small amount. When I bought my vehicle at the start of the year, I looked at an electric vehicle (EV) but, unfortunately, prices just didn’t work out for me; ended up with a hybrid. As I looked at this, I would’ve hoped to have the opportunity to buy an EV, but just the price was not right and it was untenable for me at that time. I hope that, maybe, if we did this earlier, there would be far more options in terms of EVs, their price, and their availability.

I’m really supportive of this piece of legislation. I’m really supportive of the way that we are transitioning and we are moving forward. Just recently, Waka Kotahi announced investment on roads around New Zealand, and to see that it wasn’t just around tarmac, it wasn’t just around making sure the road networks were going; it was ensuring that public transport, cycling, and walking was also part of that. So I support this piece of legislation and I commend it to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to take a call on this bill. This is my first speech in the House for four weeks, and it seems like, since I was here, nothing’s changed, in terms of the National Party seeming to be completely out of touch with the average New Zealander. I am very surprised the National Party are not supporting this bill to the select committee. I understand that they have some issues with this bill, and they have highlighted those issues, but when I talk to people on the street, when I talk to people in my electorate about electric vehicles, about climate change, the overwhelming majority would like to purchase an electric vehicle, but there are some barriers. This bill starts to address that issue.

The previous Government signed us up to the Paris accord, and that was very good that they did that. I think everyone in this House would agree that that was the right thing to do. But the previous Government then did not follow up with any action. However, on this side of the House, we are seeing action on our climate change commitments, and this is one example of that action.

The former Prime Minister, the Rt Hon John Key, said that we will be a—

💬 Hon Members: Sir John.

—Sir John Key—that we will be a fast follower. Well, what does that mean? A fast follower on climate change? Well, that’s, obviously, in the past and that was a position the National Party took. But this Government, we don’t have the approach of being a fast follower; we want to lead the world in climate change. Yes, we are a small country compared to some of the larger countries, the likes of the US and China and India. However, we can be a leader, and we are committed to being a leader in the area of climate change. This bill that the Minister the Hon Michael Wood has brought to this House certainly fits in with that philosophy on this side of the House.

I am surprised the National Party aren’t supporting it at least to select committee, where we can have a debate about it. Maybe they want to do a quick caucus and maybe change their vote, but that’s up to them. I won’t try and tell them what to do.

So, as we’ve heard from a previous speaker, 20 percent of New Zealand’s emissions come from the transport area. This is a challenge. This is certainly a challenge for us as a country, because the reality is that transport personally affects all of us. We’ve seen some good work by councils supported by Waka Kotahi New Zealand Transport Agency around moving towards public transport and cycling. But the aspect around electric vehicles is going to play a key role in us achieving our Paris targets. It’s absolutely vital that we do achieve those Paris targets. That’s something that we have made a commitment to as a country. So, therefore, we need to act.

So what the bill does: it increases the supply and variety of zero- and low-emission vehicles available for purchase in New Zealand by applying the clean car import. The reality is there are rebates of up to $8,600—that is a significant rebate, $8,600—and $3,450 for used vehicles, to make them more affordable for New Zealanders. As I said earlier, I believe that the majority of New Zealanders, those I talk to, those conversations I’ve had with my very own family, want to purchase electric vehicles; they’ve wanted to for quite a while, but the cost has been a barrier.

You know, they understand that there are benefits to the climate around electric vehicles. They also understand that they are cheaper to run. Linking to that point, I’d like to talk about power generation in New Zealand. If there’s ever a country that is well positioned to move more into the electric vehicle fleet, in terms of the power generation, it is our country, with over 80 percent of our power coming from clean-energy sources. Now, vehicles can be charged overnight during the off-peak hours, when the water is still flowing through the turbines and that power is unable to be stored. So there’s an obvious solution here around battery storage, because—now, we do have a shortage of battery storage here in New Zealand—we can have electric vehicles in people’s garages, they can be supporting our grid to store energy, which can then be fed back to the grid at a later point.

Now, I’d just like to finish with the one point, and as we drive around as a family my children tend to really notice the electric vehicles; it’s almost like a little sort of competition to spot the electric vehicles. Our children are very engaged in this issue, and, as politicians, it’s important that we are. I would like to see support from the National Party through to select committee, but we’ll have to wait and see when the vote takes place. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, the member that just sat down, Jamie Strange, made an interesting point about electricity and power generation, because that actually goes to one of the key points that is missing from this bill, and that is, actually, that at the moment, for every extra megawatt of energy that’s used it is going to call on, probably, more coal being burnt in Huntly to keep the lights on. So the natural place that you would go first to lower emissions in New Zealand would be to sort out the coal thermal production in electricity that peaks and keeps the lights on in New Zealand. The other night, Mr Speaker, in the weekend—I’m sure you’ll be interested in this—the 840 megawatts of hydroelectricity that was going across, being generated, pushed across the strait into the North Island, and yet we were still burning coal, and we were burning coal because the wind wasn’t blowing. So we have a significant issue with our electricity sector, and that is where we should be focusing our efforts before we go off down in bringing in legislation, actually, that’s not going to have much effect at all.

In fact, I think, one of the things that’s been forgotten in this—there’s been a lot of talk about this and about cost, and I’ve asked throughout the debate, “What are the emissions that are going to be saved by this policy?” No one has told me. No one has said what it is, but I’m going to tell you, Mr Speaker. From 2022 to 2050, the emissions will be reduced by this policy by 0.9 percent. Less than 1 percent of our overall emissions will be lowered by this piece of legislation.

It really just shows the lack of work that’s gone into this. I’m surprised. Julie Anne Genter, who spoke earlier on this, she loves this policy, and she got the credit from the Minister, when he spoke earlier on behalf of the other Minister, for being the genesis of this bill, and good on her. She’s very passionate about it. However, she should know that. She should have known how little effect this would have. It’s all there. Treasury came out very strongly against this policy because it’s a very, very expensive way to lower emissions.

We have an emissions trading scheme (ETS), an emissions trading scheme that is—actually, thanks to James Shaw—capped. Good on him. That’s a fantastic thing to do. That means that we can set emissions budgets, which the Climate Change Commission have come out with the first three budgets showing us how we’re going to lower our emissions out to 2035. But we’re going to go on from there right to 2050, and we can limit our emissions by limiting the number of credit units that are available to offset, which will have to be surrendered when people omit. So we can control what our emissions are with the ETS. The commission have said that we will get to net zero by 2050 with the emissions trading scheme on its own.

Now, that, admittedly, does come with some issues around planting trees as a means of offset. I think the good Simon Upton, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, made a very good point in his report some years ago, which pointed out that, actually, the best way we could avoid that problem would be to only allow forestry sequestration for farmers to offset their methane emissions, because they have a similar life cycle to the life cycle of the pine tree, in terms of emissions.

So this bill, though, comes in and seeks to actually put a cost on cars coming in so that they’ll lower their emissions and their fuel efficiency, etc. However, it misses the biggest opportunity. The biggest opportunity to lower emissions in our light-vehicle fleet is to deal with the old clunkers that are going around—we’ve all followed them up the motorway, puffing smoke out the back. Most of that smoke’s unburnt fuel. They’re poorly tuned. We don’t do anything through our warrant of fitness system to test those vehicles; overseas they do.

I’ve talked to the motor trade industry, and it was very interesting. They told me, well before this got to this stage, that this wouldn’t work. They came out with some suggestions. The big suggestion from them was to ensure that we tested vehicles for their emissions at source every year when they go through their warrant of fitness and ensure that those vehicles meet those standards. They also mentioned cash for clunkers. I’m not sure I agree with that one. But, however, those are at the other end of the market than where the Labour Party is focused on.

I know Angela Roberts has all of a sudden had a road to Damascus experience. She’s now a fan of trickle-down economics. So she’s, effectively, advocating for trickle-down economics, because you buy the new electric vehicles (EVs) and they’ll trickle down through the economy. That’s how we’re going to deal with it.

💬 Hon David Bennett: Trouble is there are no EV utes.

I don’t know if you’ve ever heard, Mr Bennett, the Labour Party advocating for trickle-down economics; I certainly haven’t.

💬 Hon David Bennett: I’ve never heard of an EV ute either.

No, I don’t think I’ve heard that. But it’s fantastic. I think good on her for coming along.

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! Come on, let’s get a bit of focus back on the bill.

Certainly. I’m just about there. What we have worked out: this is a $1 billion tax grab. Trickle-down economics doesn’t quite work that way usually, but, anyway, it’s a $1 billion tax grab, instead of actually assisting people in the right way.

Now, I note some months ago that the chief executive of Toyota, Neeraj Lala, came out pointing out that the vehicles, that the EVs and hybrids that the Government think we are going to be able to get massively into New Zealand and replace our fleet, simply aren’t available. In fact, the Prime Minister made a statement about a Toyota ute coming out into the market, and he had to come in and correct her and say that, actually, that’s not the case. Now, who do you think would know, the Prime Minister or the head of Toyota? I think the head of Toyota might know a bit more about that.

There are definitely issues here with shortages of supply. The fact is: car manufacturers are not falling over themselves to sell cars to New Zealand. We’re a very small market. We’re right-hand drive. We have our own needs in this country. That is why the Motor Trade Association came out against this particular bill. It was quite a surprise, actually. I would have thought the Minister would have done a lot more homework with that association to try and get them on board. To have them come out strongly against what is one of their best policies, I think, in climate change that they thought—well, they view it as one of their best policies in climate change. To have the main industry peak body come out against it quite strongly and well argued in their view, I think, was very, very telling.

I think, Mr Speaker, if you’ll indulge me for a moment, they talked also about—

💬 SPEAKER: I’ve been doing it for the last eight minutes, so we might as well continue!

I’ll try not to leave it too long, then. They pointed out that cars were going to use the Worldwide Harmonised Light Vehicle Test Procedure, WLTP, protocol, and if that’s not available, the American Environmental Protection, EPA, test. And that what they further pointed out is actually the vehicles—it was quite a mistake made by the officials in their paper saying that our vehicles come from Europe and for European standards; actually, they come from Japan, made to Australian standards. We don’t even recognise those standards that are noted in this bill. It’s unbelievable and it’s sloppy. For something that’s actually a $1 billion tax bill, I think it’s unbelievable that they’d be so slack in this. It’s really important that you get these things right.

Look, I have an EV, but I think there’s some reality here. I didn’t get a discount, either. Lou Sanson, when he was the chief executive of the Department of Conservation, he took his EV for a ride round the North Island and he had to call into two separate farmhouses to charge it up because he ran out of electricity. That’s the reality in rural New Zealand. I think that, while there are a number of charging stations around New Zealand, as EVs go up, there’ll have to be a heck of a lot more. The coverage isn’t there yet. It’s a great technology, but it is limited. It’s a car with a very small fuel tank that takes a long time to fill. It’s something that we have to all remember when we purchase them. They suit a lot of uses, but they’re limited in others. And to have a one-size-fits-all piece of legislation like this one, which, I think, is actually pretty shoddy, is not doing a good service for New Zealand and it doesn’t reflect well on those people that promote it. So I do not support this bill.

💬 SPEAKER: Members, it’s kai time. The House stands suspended until 7 o’clock tonight.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.

Ā, kāti rā, tēnā rā tātou katoa. The House is resumed. So, members, before the dinner break, we had just finished call 11 on the Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill, and it’s now call No. 12. No? No. OK then.

The question is, That the Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill be considered by the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.

Instruction to Transport and Infrastructure Committee