Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise to speak to the second reading, actually, of the Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill. In doing so, can I acknowledge Minister Michael Wood and the leadership that he has shown in this particular space. I know at first reading that the former Minister the Hon Julie Anne Genter was acknowledged, and I want to just note that as well.

This is an omnibus bill. It’s a bill that makes subsequent amendments to a number of pieces of legislation. I won’t go through all of them, but by my count, it’s at least four Acts and at least one set of regulations. When we take a look at the broad policy intent, it really is around achieving a reduction in the carbon dioxide emissions and doing some work in that particular space. There are two particular areas of focus that I’d like to touch on. The first is particularly in the area of emissions from light vehicles that are imported into New Zealand—that’s the first one. The second is that any reduction—and I would hope that members all around the House would agree with this particular point—needs to be rapid in nature. Some would say that that’s very ambitious. It is ambitious, but we all know on this side of the House that we believe that it is the right thing to do.

When I reflect on the Minister’s contribution, when he spoke at second reading in the House recently, he talked about the success that the Government’s changes have already had. He talked about that since 1 July, looking at the initial parts of the Government’s clean car package, that discount or subsidy coming into effect, that the average emissions of new vehicles coming into New Zealand had decreased by 15 percent across the fleet. He compared that to prior to 1 July 2021, and that it had taken eight years to achieve the same level of reductions in the country’s emissions for vehicle fleets previously. So that in itself is a clear indication to the community that it is a good thing to do.

But when you delve deeper into the bill, it looks as though it more specifically will achieve change in terms of the reduction of emissions in three particular areas. The first is a focus on the supply considerations of low-emission vehicles or zero-emission vehicles by setting a standard. We know this as the clean vehicle standard for those who import new and/or used light vehicles into New Zealand, so a bottom line in terms of what the regulatory standard would be—that’s number one.

Number two is that it creates an incentive for purchasing these vehicles by providing a rebate or a discount scheme, which we know out in the community has seen an increase in the demand for those vehicles. It’s important to note—and I know that the Minister touched on this at his second reading speech—that New Zealand had been lagging behind other global trends in terms of the uptake of electric vehicles (EVs), sitting around 50 percent, or less than 50 percent, other countries having that as a criteria. So the tide is turning. Again, ambitious—the right thing to do. So that’s number two.

Number three is, I would suggest, around transparency, so that New Zealanders actually will be better informed in terms of the decisions that they make around their vehicle emission levels, the levels of rebate and charges or fees—it might be fixed or payable as well—and ensuring that there is an adequate level of associated labelling. I note that the Transport and Infrastructure Committee touched on that as well.

The introduction of these incentives and changes is very clearly aligned with the independent advice that has been given by the Climate Change Commission—Ināia tonu nei: a low emissions future for Aotearoa. As a member of the Environment Committee, I’m pleased to see that the commission’s work has been transferred across the work of this House and of other committees, because it doesn’t just lie within the environment sphere or space, and it doesn’t just lie within the transport and infrastructure space as well. It is much more global and broad in that sense.

But in that particular report and advice that was given back in May of last year, they stated that fiscal incentives to lower the upfront costs of EVs are a matter of urgency. So we have an independent commission that is providing that advice and we have a Government that is intent on delivering outcomes that will achieve that advice.

I want to acknowledge the work of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee and the chair, Greg O’Connor. Actually, I was able to hear Mr O’Connor’s, I think, considered contribution in the House the other evening, identifying the position that many members—well, parties, and particular members within this House—have taken historically. We are certainly hopeful that perhaps they will return to those true roots in providing support for this bill.

But the select committee working through that process—and they clearly had a number of submissions and submitters to consider—they were able to identify some changes and suggest to the House some changes that I understand have been reflected in the bill. They are around things like a review option but also ensuring that the Minister initiates a review timetable and undertakes that after considering appropriate parties. So I’ll leave my contribution at that. I’m delighted to be able to commend this bill to the House.

I call Matt Doocey—five minutes.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It’s a real privilege to rise in my new spokesperson role of associate transport. I’m looking forward to getting into this new role because, as we know, every New Zealander is a transport expert. I am looking forward to ensuring that people who are transport experts, from their armchair, and who do enjoy getting into their car and driving on a road, get their views heard up here in the beltway of Wellington.

The Government is very clear. Each year they have a year of something—the year of the vaccine. Well, it’s very clear this year is going to be the year of inflation. So we’ve got interest rates going up, we’ve got petrol prices going up, we’ve got rent going up, and house prices, and what do they want to do? Bring in a ute tax. That’s what this bill is going to do. It’s going to tax hard-working Kiwis who can’t drive an electric vehicle (EV)—farmers, tradies, those who have large families and need a larger car, those who can’t afford an EV. And it’s very clear, a Labour Government, when they run out of money, they come after yours. That’s exactly what this bill is about.

The Minister crowed at the start of his speech in the second reading, “Oh, this policy’s working already.” Well, no wonder it’s working already; they’re doling out free money. Of course it’s working. Oh, Labour 101—use the taxpayers’ money. And when they’re doling out that free money, it’s driving up the price of EVs so now EVs are more expensive. And, yet, what they’re doing is they’re stripping that money off hard-working Kiwis, farmers, and tradies, who now have to pay a ute tax to afford this Government blowing their money on, let’s be honest, fairly affluent people who want to buy an EV, and in the first week of the sitting year for 2022—the second kick in the guts for regions of New Zealand, because that’s where this policy is going to be the most hard hit, is in the regions.

The first kick in the guts was the Prime Minister’s statement. Nothing about regional roads, especially if you’re in the South Island. I challenge the transport Minister to come down to North Canterbury and explain this policy to hard-working north Cantabrians, because I do note that not one transport Minister has come to North Canterbury in four years of Government. And Duncan Webb knows why, because they’ve cancelled vital roading projects when they first came into Government in 2018, after the National Government announced the Woodend bypass as the next roads of national significance. Because let’s be very clear: whether it be electric, whether it be hydrogen, you’re going to need a road to drive that car on. Aren’t you? And here these guys are, they won’t build a road in regional New Zealand, especially in the South Island, and, yet, they’ll tax hard-working tradies and farmers who have no other option.

This side of the House stands behind increasing the number of EVs in New Zealand. Greg O’Connor—in fact, I thought he was going to cross the floor with his speech. He greatly outlined the legacy of the National Party in developing and incentivising EVs, and he gave a great history of it, and we’re quite proud of that. But what we’re not going to do is go out and kick hard-working Kiwis in the guts because they don’t have a choice. This is nothing but a tax on our farmers, on our tradies, on people who have large families and need larger cars, and for those, quite simply, who can’t afford an EV.

You know what? In the old days, Labour used to stand up for working people. Now it’s nothing but chardonnay socialism. This Government is a failed socialist experiment, and this law is another example of their socialist failure.

Naisi Chen—five minutes.

Tonight, I rise in this House as a proud Labour member, because we are forward-thinking; we actually think about the next generation. I’m here, and I actually asked for this speaking slot because I want to publicly on the record thank the Minister of Transport for this amazing piece of legislation. I am now the proud half-owner and driver of an electric vehicle. Why only half of it? Because I don’t need my car for all seven days of the week. But, this is the first car I have ever bought with completely my own money. And when we and my flatmate went in to make a decision about the new car that we were going to buy together, we had a choice. I love the Wrangler; that’s my little confession to make. I love cars that are square. Then we looked at all the other options that we could have had for the same price or less of a Wrangler. And do you know what? A Tesla Model 3 was cheaper than a Wrangler. And that is better for the environment as well.

In my generation, not everyone can afford a new Tesla or half a new Tesla. Many of my friends have come to me and said, “Naisi, why are there no electric vehicles (EVs) in the second-hand car market?” I’m reminded constantly, whenever I get asked that question, of the Chinese proverb that the best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago, the second-best time is today. And that’s what we have had to do. This is what we’ve done because we have to plant the tree today. I mean that by all meanings of that proverb, because this is for our planet. The reduction in carbon, the reduction in our footprint on this earth, is why we’ve put in this bill. Today, and here with this bill is a way that we’re not only going to support the next generation to make better choices about their car buying, but this is also a chance to really help our environment.

I did a bit of research before I got up to speak. The first electric car was invented in the 1800s—the 1800s. But why are we only starting to drive EVs now? It’s because the market has failed. It’s because big carmakers wanted to make money from petrol; that’s why they’ve blocked all mass production of electric vehicles. So it takes a Government as progressive as we are on this side of the House, as forward-thinking as we are on this side of the House, to really make the market be influenced by the right choice.

Can I just add, it is not just about high-end EVs as well. Hybrid cars are also really good for the environment. And can I encourage those who cannot afford a brand new EV at this moment to consider the hybrid vehicles that are, fortunately, a lot more popular in our second-hand car market at this moment, because every single decision matters, and we can all make a change. And on that note, I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m very happy to be speaking on this Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill. Why am I so happy to be talking about this? I was not fortunate enough to be on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee considering this bill, because I am on the mighty Environment Committee that meets at the same time. But it is because we are so concerned on this side of the House, and I know many members of the other as well, about climate change.

This is one of the many, many, many things that this Government is doing to address climate change. We have this aim that was instilled in legislation in the last Government to reduce our emissions, and we’ve got our “net zero by 2050” target. All parties in the House at that time, apart from the ACT Party, voted for that in that commendable bipartisan initiative. And I thank everybody who was in the House in the last Government for doing that, because it set in place a whole lot of work that we are now looking at in this Parliament.

Now, to reduce emissions, really, the low-hanging fruit in New Zealand is our transport emissions. Forty-seven percent of our carbon comes from transport and there was a 90 percent increase between 1990 and 2018. So in that whole time that people have been talking about climate change and saying that we need to reduce emissions, we have in fact been getting in more and more cars and not making a great use of public transport, and, of course, we’ve not done very well on electric vehicles (EVs). And I say this: I was very lucky—I’m embarrassed to say I can’t quite remember when, but some years ago, maybe about five years ago—to travel to Norway where my sister-in-law was getting married, and it was amazing to see all the EVs that Norway had at that time. I was very hopeful that New Zealand would soon follow suit. That has, unfortunately, not happened at this point, because New Zealand has under 1 percent of our vehicle fleet, our private vehicle fleet, that are EVs.

We do have this target of 30 percent of EVs by 2035, so we’ve got to do a lot to get to that point, given a very low starting point and our late starting point. And, of course, we do have an abundance of renewable energy, which is why the PCE, the former Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Dr Jan Wright, said that one of the things New Zealanders could be really doing to reduce their emissions is to invest in an EV.

I live in Dunedin, a beautiful place to live and many Dunedinites have taken up this challenge with a second-hand Leaf. These are imported from Japan and people have really embraced them. When I first drove one, you used to wave to the other people driving them, but, then, you know, you’re going to get repetitive strain injury or something, because there are so many of them, and well done Dunedin. But these Leafs, in winter they really only drive for 100 to 200—well, in winter an old one will only really go for about 100 kilometres. If you have a good summer, which doesn’t happen every year, it’ll be about 200 kilometres.

Of course, now there are more and more fancier EVs coming into the market, and that is what this legislation will encourage. I was very pleased to see today on one of my social media feeds of a rural person actually in your electorate, Madam Speaker, who’s about to do the Kathmandu Coast to Coast. He’s driving there in a Hyundai Kona—it’s a 64 kilowatt an hour—and normally it goes for about 400 kilometres, he says, but he’s going to have two kayaks on his roof and a bike on the back. He’s planning to charge at the wonderful charging infrastructure we have at Hokitika, Arthur’s Pass, and Christchurch. That’s so pleasing to see this uptake of EVs. And, of course, the climate commission, as my colleague has mentioned before, has endorsed what the parliamentary commission report said many years ago about the importance of moving as much of our fleet as we can to electric. Of course, that’s not going to be everyone at every time, but we can do so much.

We know that our public procurement of light vehicles is changing and we have the goal for central government to be carbon neutral by 2025. So, obviously, there’ll be some uptake of EV purchases there. But that is not enough to really get the secondary market up so all the people that the Opposition have been so worried about can then afford some sort of EV as a second-hand. So we do need to incentivise these EVs coming into the country and people purchasing them first as a new vehicle and then as a second- or third-hand vehicle.

This bill will create a standard, the discount scheme, and assist with labelling it as well. There will be many regulations from new section 167A, inserted by clause 5, and if anybody is interested, I would really recommend having a look at clause 5 of the bill that spells out all the criteria that the Minister must be satisfied with before making regulations that set these fees and charges.

This is one of the very many measures this Government is doing to combat climate change, to do our bit for the world, for the Pacific, and for our country so that we can export all of those rural products that we were hearing about before. So thank you, Madam Speaker. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill in its second reading. I’m certainly going to want to have a couple of things to say about comments from my colleagues—previous speakers across the House.

Look, once more, this is a Labour Government doing harm to the very people that they purport to represent, middle and low income New Zealanders, and at a time when they can absolutely least afford it. National, of course, is supportive of a transition of New Zealand’s light-vehicle fleet to lower-emissions vehicles. Heaven knows the poor farmers have been taking flak from this Government on carbon emissions for long enough. All the while, there has been virtually no progress on reducing the country’s transport footprint.

We don’t support this legislation because it is not practical, but that’s never stopped a Labour Government before. It will do more harm than good—again, that’s never stopped a Labour Government before—and it is working against industry instead of with it, and there are no surprises there with a Labour Government. It will add cost to the vehicles, the very vehicles, that middle and lower income New Zealanders buy—the humble Suzuki Swift, the good old Toyota Corolla, and the hybrid RAV4—even though one of the previous speakers from the other side suggested that people should be buying the hybrid vehicles. Perhaps you should have a look to see that they will also be hit.

I sat on the select committee for a number of the submissions on this bill. The Motor Industry Association are absolutely frustrated and have withdrawn their support for the Clean Car Standard. They’ve calculated that the increase in prices of cars from these standards will be 15 to 20 percent. They believe that Government has ignored well-thought-out and considered advice from the industry. Absolutely no surprises there. This is what this Government has got a reputation for.

The bill deviates from standards that are being implemented in other countries. The rate of reductions is so steep that it will only be able to be met by those distributors who currently are supplying solely battery electrical vehicles at the moment. So why is this Government introducing something so impractical? You’d have to think it’s because they think if they say something can happen, it can happen regardless of what the worldwide situation is, regardless of what industry tells them. The reduction targets are greater than any other jurisdiction in the world. They are setting us up for failure. We don’t produce vehicles, we can’t get ahead of what industry is doing. We are a tiny player in this market, so we don’t get to call the shots on industry. When industry can’t meet the targets, they will be fined. So who will bear the cost of these fines? You can be absolutely certain it will be the consumer.

You’d have to wonder, and I’m sure there are plenty of people out in the country at the moment wondering just how much more does this Government want to increase the cost of living and hurt average New Zealanders? We’ve seen the housing market go absolutely haywire. Petrol—people having to pay over $3 a litre. Food—cauliflowers over $9 each. And now they want to increase the cost of cars by 15 to 20 percent. Where do they think the average New Zealander is going to magic up the extra money to pay for these things?

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Norway.

Well, as my colleague says, “Norway.” Well, that was a delightful intervention. The previous Labour speaker spoke so glowingly about Norway’s electric cars. Does she not know Norway’s wealth came from their vast oil reserves? Goodness me. It just is an embarrassment to hear that given as an example.

This Government is absolutely allergic to performance indicators. They do not like to be measured on anything, but gosh they should have put their hand up to be measured on making the cost of living higher, because they would have excelled in that performance indicator.

This legislation is also punitive. It attacks the very people that make money for this country: the rural people, the tradespeople, and those that need utes and light commercial vehicles to operate their businesses. The Government knows very well there will be very few options for low-emissions alternatives for light commercial vehicles before 2030. They might again stand up and say, “Oh no, they’re coming.”, but it must be embarrassing when over and over the industry says they won’t be here—they won’t be here in the supply that is needed, at the price that is needed, by people who need these vehicles for their businesses.

So Government is penalising farmers and business people again. They simply don’t care about anyone running a business and about anyone in the rural sector. But that will be no surprise to farmers after what they have got from this Government. It will be no surprise to business people for the costs that have been added on by this Government, and it will be no surprise to the tradies.

I wanted to give an example—and I will give this example, although I was terribly tempted to give the example of a Dunedin relative of mine, seeing as the previous speaker, Rachel Brooking, talked about how many second-hand Leaf vehicles there were running round Dunedin. She’s right. A relative of mine has one. He can’t come down to us in Southland for Christmas because he can’t get down and back. But I’ll give you the example of the roofers in Southland that regularly go to Te Ānau daily for their roofing work. That’s 155 kilometres each way, carrying materials, equipment, and a number of staff. Two hours’ drive each way, eight hours’ work up there, and perhaps the Government thinks they should just stop for half an hour each way and have a coffee to make it possible for them to do this. Do you not wonder why tradies laugh at the impracticality of this Government and the sort of things that they are bringing in?

This Government needs to talk to—or, even better still, listen to—some of the real people out in the country doing real jobs and making money for the New Zealand economy so that they can understand how impractical this legislation is that’s to be implemented. We oppose it because it is not practical. It will do more harm than good, particularly to those people who can least afford it. It is working against industry and it is punitive to the business people and the rural people who make money to keep the economy of this country going. This Government needs to start listening to people instead of just talking, because their talk doesn’t mean it can happen. Thank you, Madam Speaker. National opposes this bill.

It is my privilege to stand and take a final call on the Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill. Yesterday, we heard the National Party say that they are ready, but despite all of the evidence and the mahi on climate change to date, despite saying—and we’ve heard it again today—that they are supportive of the transition to a low- and zero-emissions light vehicle fleet, they have offered no alternative proposition, nothing, to accelerate the growth of our low-emissions fleet that we need. Nothing. We’ve been listening very, very carefully and very, very patiently.

In contrast, this Government is a Government of action. The Opposition may not be ready, but New Zealanders are. The goal of this bill is to improve both the supply and the demand, as well as improve the variety of zero- and low-emission vehicles. We were told moments ago that the clean vehicle discount scheme wouldn’t work. Well, you know what? It is working. We’ve heard numerous numbers, numerous statistics, from various speakers about how impactful the scheme has already been. Way back in September, we had our highest ever number of light vehicle imports: $53 million, 6 percent of all of the imports—6 percent—and that was way back in September. The National Party may not be ready—may not know what’s going on, may have no plan—but New Zealand importers and consumers are.

There are flow-on effects of such a commitment to a cleaner fleet. The certainty that this bill and these propositions provide to the market means that it makes it easier for those who are importing to access appropriate vehicles for New Zealanders. It has also seen significant investment in the infrastructure that we need to support our light vehicle fleet. Electric vehicle (EV) charging stations: the Nats aren’t ready but our provincial communities are. I need to make a shout-out to The Lines Company, who have had ongoing investment across the King Country and Ruapehu districts: Te Kūiti, Piopio, Ōtorohanga, and Waitomo. Even Mōkau, which has no petrol station, population 117, has an EV charging station conveniently located outside the Mōkau Museum. So not only can you stop for a coffee but you can also get a little bit of local culture and history.

I need to acknowledge the work of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. They engaged, they listened, and they adjusted the bill to clarify and strengthen both the clean vehicle standard and the clean vehicle discount scheme. The National Party might not be ready, but with the rules that provide more robust information about emissions and the vehicles that we are importing, it means that we will be better informed and consumers, who are ready, will be even better prepared. There are amendments that the select committee brought in—many of them. Amendments that include rules about reviews and consultation, and ensuring the targets—because we do have targets; somebody obviously hasn’t read the bill—are consistent with the Climate Change Response Act. This will ensure that these two schemes remain relevant, that future changes will be responsive and effective. As so many other countries are also seeking to do, we will be able to continue to renew our targets following COP26. We can continue to be ambitious for our country.

This Government is prepared to act and to keep moving forward, and we’re doing it now to balance what is possible and what is needed. I know that sometimes we stand in this House and we revert to type, and I think that, given some of the misunderstandings, we need to have a little NCEA level 2 economics lesson about flow-on effects. We keep hearing that this Government doesn’t understand the impact on working people. Well, actually, this Government understands all too well that most of us cannot afford a brand new vehicle. Most of us are relying on the fact that there are others, because of the subsidies, who will be able to increase the vehicle fleet that is available to those of us who need to look at a second- or third-hand vehicle in a few years’ time.

When I replace my four-wheel drive, and I need one because I live in a rural community; I need a tow bar and I need a vehicle I can rely on—unlike some have suggested, it won’t be a new one, and I don’t do it every year—a hybrid will be an option, and maybe even electric. But I will have a more affordable fleet to choose from and a greater variety of vehicles, so that I can choose something that is appropriate for my family, for my job, and for where I live, as we build on our second-hand fleet. This Government is about evidence-informed planning, about execution, about implementation that means we will make progress. We are ambitious for this country in making sure that we can address the climate change challenges ahead of us, and I am very, very proud to commend this bill to the House.

The question is, That the amendments recommended by the Transport and Infrastructure Committee by majority be agreed to.