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

on behalf of the Minister of Transport: I present a legislative statement on the Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill (No 2).

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): That legislative statement is published under the authority of the House and can be found on the Parliament website.

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: Where’s Michael Wood? Where’s “Napoleon”?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! [Interruption] Order! Ayesha Verrall.

I move, That the Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time.

On 22 February this year, the Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill received the Royal assent. This amendment represented a major step towards decarbonising our transport system and our economy. The amendment established the clean vehicle standard, which requires vehicle importers to progressively reduce carbon dioxide emissions of the light vehicles, both new and used, that they bring into New Zealand. It does this by setting carbon dioxide targets which get more ambitious year by year. The standard is critical to reducing transport emissions because emissions from our light vehicle fleet are the single largest source of transport emissions. Emissions from road transport have also been New Zealand’s largest source of emissions.

One of the reasons for that is because, before we intervened, there was no legislative or regulatory leadership in the area of vehicle fuel efficiency and carbon dioxide emission reduction. Before the bill was passed, New Zealand was one of only three countries in the OECD, alongside Australia and Russia, that did not have a vehicle emissions standard. As a consequence, light vehicles entering our fleet are more emission intensive than most other developed countries.

There is clear evidence that in the absence of a regulated carbon dioxide emission standard, overseas vehicle manufacturers have not supplied the cleanest, most fuel-efficient vehicles. New Zealanders have paid, and are still paying, the cost for the lack of regulatory oversight in higher vehicle running costs. Vehicles with higher emissions burn more fuel and cost more at the pump.

We have moved quickly to establish the clean vehicle standard because it is a critical policy to transition our vehicle fleet to be low emission. It also lowers the cost of living because it lowers fuel bills. It was very clear that if we did not regulate in a world where countries focus on bringing cleaner cars into their fleets, we will become, even more than we are now, the dumping ground for the dirtiest vehicles in the world.

💬 Hon David Bennett: Oh, that’s rubbish.

It’s true.

💬 Hon David Bennett: What a load of rubbish.

It’s true. Already, we are seeing that the wider clean car programme is working well. Due to the Clean Car Discount, record numbers of electric vehicles and hybrids are being imported and bought by New Zealanders. The standard will reinforce the discount by improving the supply of low- and zero-emission vehicles, giving New Zealanders more choice in the variety of vehicles available.

Now, with this bill, we are moving to ensure the implementation of the standard is as successful as it can be. Key to that is making the commencement of the standard’s obligations as smooth as possible for the vehicle industry. To simplify compliance, the bill will provide a six-month phase-in. It will also exclude mopeds and motorcycles from the standard carbon dioxide account in reporting requirements.

The standard’s requirements start on 1 December 2022. From this date, all vehicle importers must hold a carbon dioxide account where the carbon dioxide emissions ratings of their vehicles will be recorded. Without this information, vehicles will not be able to complete entry to New Zealand and be registered. From 1 January 2023, the carbon dioxide emissions ratings of vehicles will start to count towards the achievement of carbon dioxide targets. For vehicle importers complying on a pay-as-you-go basis, each vehicle will incur a charge or a credit based on its carbon dioxide emissions. Credits can be used to offset charges or be transferred to other importers.

The bill provides a six-month phase-in that’ll defer, from 1 January 2023, the first requirement to pay charges to 1 June 2023. Charges will still be incurred from 1 January 2023, but will not be payable until 1 June 2023. Second, the ability to transfer emission credits from 1 June 2023. Credits will still be accrued from 1 January 2023. Third, the requirement for a publicly available record of account holders to apply from 1 June 2023. Between 1 December 2022 and 31 May 2023, importers and the public need to apply to Waka Kotahi to access information from the record of account holders. The purpose of these phase-ins is to give vehicle importers time to become accustomed to operating with the new requirements and online system run by Waka Kotahi. It makes it less likely—[Multiple members interject]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! That’s enough.

—that vehicle importers are penalised by charges because they were unfamiliar with the requirements of the standard’s carbon dioxide emissions targets.

The bill also corrects the Ministry of Transport’s inadvertent inclusion of mopeds and motorcycles in part of the requirements of the standard. Without this change, importers of motorcycles and mopeds would need to unnecessarily hold carbon dioxide accounts and record emissions.

The amendments in this bill seek to make it easier for the vehicle industry to comply with the clean vehicle standard.

💬 Hon David Bennett: What’s the bill called?

Compliance is key to achieving emission reductions from the standard. I commend the Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill (No 2) to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

National will support this bill, but it’s a stuff-up by the Government—an absolute stuff-up that we’re here, again, this year, in Parliament, fixing legislation that this Government rushed through Parliament earlier this year, and it’s a clean car stuff-up. And I just want to congratulate Minister Verrall for her promotion as the “new Minister of Transport”, who managed to make it down to the House to read the speech and not to express any apology to the New Zealand taxpayer, to the car industry, or to the people who are being affected by this piece of legislation for this absolute stuff-up by the Government.

We were told that the Government was rushing the clean vehicle legislation through earlier this year; the industry told us that was what was happening. The regulatory impact assessment made it incredibly clear: one of the big issues was whether the New Zealand Transport Authority would be able to be set up in time; whether they would have the ability to be able to actually implement the legislation. This was told to us back at the time and we made it clear: this is being rushed. And now we’re here in Parliament fixing up their mistakes, because they on that side—with their woke virtue signalling—always talk about “It’s a climate emergency. We need to rush things through. We need to do it quickly.”, and here they come, down to Parliament, and they’re like, “Well, actually, we can’t implement it that fast, so we’re going to have to delay things—delay it by six months.”, and that’s exactly what they’re doing. This is a clean car stuff-up. If only this Government actually took a little bit more time to get the details right, we wouldn’t be wasting this Parliament’s time pushing legislation through in urgency to try and clean up their mistakes.

So this bill does a few things. The first thing is it delays the implementation of their Clean Car Standard, which, as we’ve already discussed, is something which should have been delayed right from the start, to give the agency time to actually get itself set up and do the work that was needed—and to allow the industry to be able to prepare for it, as it is a significant change; the Clean Car Standard is a significant change to how the clean car importation business works in New Zealand.

But the bill also exempts, now, motorcyclists, because, oops, motorcycle importers were not meant to be—this was the Clean Car Standard, not the clean motorcycle standard. But the legislation—and we raised this at the time as well, we made it clear that this is going to have unintended consequences. Lo and behold, no, we have to rush this through; we can’t take too much time. Well, here we are; we’re now making it clear that motorcycle importers were not meant to be included all the way along. So, oops, we’re back here to clarify the legislation for motorcyclists. But, again, it comes back to a Government which just rushes legislation through Parliament and expresses its woke virtue signalling to try to say that “We’re amazing; we’re doing all these things”.

But let’s just get back to the basics of what this legislation’s actually doing—it’s doing two things: it’s got the Clean Car Discount and it has the Clean Car Standard. And so the Government passed both of those pieces back in back in February. The Clean Car Discount “feebate” system—this is a reverse Robin Hood scheme by this Government, the Government which says they’re here to help low income, the party of workers. The party of workers has become the party supporting Elon Musk’s Tesla, because tens of millions of dollars have been taken off the working-class people in New Zealand through the “feebate” scheme and have been handed out to millionaires who can already afford their $75,000 Teslas—already afford to buy them—and who are now getting these discounts. The people of Ponsonby, Parnell, Remuera, and Wellington Central are getting millions of dollars in discounts for their Teslas, which are being paid for by the working-class people of New Zealand, who are working hard, trying to get ahead, and are being punished by this Government who does not care about them, who does not care about the hard-working people of New Zealand.

This is a Government that’s putting reverse Robin Hood policies in place: punishing the poor to pay the rich. It’s absolutely disgusting. Their heads are hanging in shame. How disgusting. They know how bad this is—they know how bad this is—and they know that voters out there in the real world will punish them for it at the next election. And the National Party will get rid of the Clean Car Discount “feebate” reverse Robin Hood scam.

But what we have said is we will support a Clean Car Standard. We do support delaying its implementation, because we do need to reduce emissions of vehicles coming into the country over time, but we do need to make sure that those standards are achievable; we do need to make sure that they’re implemented in an achievable way. What we know from the submissions was that where they’re currently set is not going to be achievable. It is going to put significant risk on the fact that there will not be the amount of vehicles needed to come into the country, the stock availability won’t be there, there aren’t the options around utes and those vehicles that are needed for our farmers and tradies. So there will need to be changes made to that standard, to make sure that New Zealanders can still get the vehicles they need for their work and the things that they do, whilst, at the same time, making sure that we do reduce the emissions of our fleets coming in over time, because the risk is—and this is the very real risk that this Government has now set up for New Zealand—talking to car importers, that they will not be able to get the supply that is needed, and so New Zealanders will hold on to their dirtier vehicles for longer, and that is going to mean that our emissions stay higher for longer. So that is the—they say it could be an unintended consequence—

💬 Hon David Bennett: It was obvious.

—but that is—exactly: it’s an intended, obvious consequence with the standards set where they are currently set.

So there will be change needed. We will work with the industry, if we’re privileged enough to win the next election, to fix that issue to make sure that we reduce our emissions over time but that we are also able to make sure that New Zealanders can still get the access to the vehicles that they need and that we don’t end up with this issue of people holding on to dirtier vehicles for longer. It’s a very serious issue and we will fix it. We support this bill because it fixes their stuff-up—

💬 Hon Member: We’re fixing the stuff-up.

We’re fixing their stuff-up, we’re supporting fixing their stuff-up, but they need to stop doing these stuff-ups, take time, listen to the industry, and actually get it right the first time.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s my privilege to speak on the Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill (No 2). I just want to acknowledge my Transport and Infrastructure Committee colleague Simeon Brown for his support on this particular bill. At the same time, I did note that he called this side of the House disgusting, and just ask that the member consider perhaps more respectable language in a professional sense within this wonderful House that we work within.

As the chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, it’s important to me that we get this right—47 percent of our emissions in this country are made up of our transport fleet. In Tāmaki-makau-rau, Auckland, in particular, we need to ensure that we have better modes, better options, and better tools available to us. This particular bill amends the Land Transport Act 1998 to support the clean vehicle standards in Part 13: “The Standard sets annual targets that require light vehicle importers to progressively reduce the carbon dioxide emissions of the vehicles they import.”

Just going back to the transport spokesperson of the Opposition, last week I noted that his leader actually did a bit of a U-turn on this particular piece of work. He wasn’t sure at the time if he supported clean car standards, the clean car discounts, and my friend and colleague Simeon Brown had to tidy up his leader and get clear on what the Opposition is thinking in this particular space.

It is important that we continue the work of reducing emissions, responding to the climate change challenges that are in front of us. For us that are congested in Auckland, we need to ensure that we have alternative modes of public transport but also that the fleet that we bring into this country is the best quality and cleanest fleet that we can possibly have moving forward.

We’ve heard the request from the industry, in particular, for a delay and have worked together to confirm a time frame that strikes the right balance between a successful implementation and, at the same time, the need for particular action. So, without further ado, I’m really proud to commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Listening to the chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, one would have thought that this was something that they had not been warned of previously. He said that they have been listening to the industry. Well, the industry was telling them that this piece of legislation was poorly timed, hopelessly inadequately prepared for, and would not be suitable for purpose. The industry was telling them, at the time, that this legislation, that the principal Act, was passed in a rushed, hurried way without the detail clear, and we warned them as well on this side of the House. And here we are now, in urgency, having to come back to this House, without the scrutiny and benefit of a select committee process, to correct and make good this clean car stuff-up of the Government’s.

Make no mistake, this is a retreat of Napoleonic proportions—literally Napoleonic proportions. Only someone with the grand planning of a Napoleon could have made such a massive tactical mistake. And I think that what will happen here—

💬 Simon O’Connor: It’s like Russia all over again.

Well, it is. My colleague Simon O’Connor says, “It is like Russia all over again.” Massive retreat, having made the grand statements, the grand visionary proclamations, and then thinking, “Oops, we got it wrong. We got it wrong.”

💬 Hon Member: Is this a Waterloo moment?

It’s a Waterloo moment. It’s a Waterloo moment for Napoleon. And, as I say, it’s a retreat of Napoleonic proportions.

So the original legislation was rushed. It was incomplete. It was against the advice of the sector and the industry. It included motorcycles, when it was never intended to include motorcycles. And, now, for the Government to have to pass this amending piece of legislation under urgency, without the scrutiny of a select committee process, without further input from the sector or from people who are affected, is an admission that they got it so horribly, horribly wrong.

So, notwithstanding all that, we’re going to support it because it’s the practical, prudent thing to do now that they are, if only belatedly, recognising the practical hurdles that the industry and the sector are going to have to overcome, let alone the unpreparedness of the New Zealand Transport Agency. They’ve got an army, a Napoleonic army - sized communications team—

💬 Simon O’Connor: La Grande Armée!

La Grande Armée of communications people—but they haven’t got, it seems, the people who can actually do the detail work in advising the Minister of Transport on the pitfalls of the piece of legislation originally, and, if they did advise the Minister, then the Minister clearly took no notice and pushed on regardless.

So we are going to support this piece of legislation. But, in doing so, I want to ask some of the same questions that my colleague Simeon Brown has asked. Where is the equity in providing free money in a reverse Robin Hood scheme that provides wealthy people, who do have choices about the kind of vehicle they drive, with free money, while, at the same time, taking from hard-working New Zealanders who have little choice and often little capacity to pay? Where is the equity for that? And colleagues on this side of the House were asking the question, where is the Labour Party of Mickey Savage? Where is the Labour Party of the workers? Where is the Labour Party of common, ordinary, hard-working New Zealanders? Well, these days, increasingly, those people, those hard-working, ordinary New Zealanders, they’re voting National. They’re voting National because they know that it’s National and the centre-right political side of this Parliament that has their back. It’s not the “Labour” Party any more. They want to imbue their friends, their small number of friends in Grey Lynn and Ponsonby and the leafy suburbs of Wellington with expensive Teslas. This piece of legislation could actually, probably, be renamed and recalled as the “Let’s Make Elon Even Richer” piece of legislation, because that’s, effectively, what it does.

So, on that thoughtful note, I’ll conclude my comments on the initial first reading debate of this bill, but we’ll come back and have another go at it during the second reading and the committee stages under urgency.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Always, it’s an honour and a privilege to take even a brief call on this bill, especially as a member of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. Really good to hear our Opposition colleague on the transport committee Simeon Brown support the Clean Car Standard, and go the electric vehicles (EVs)! Nice work, Simeon Brown.

We know that we were the only country to not have a clean car standard, which, of course, meant that we became a dumping ground for dirty cars all around the world. Of course, the more dirty cars we imported, the more readily available and affordable they became. That’s not the case now. Even in that short period of time that this Labour Government put in the Clean Car Standard, we’ve already started to see an uptake in terms of people being able to afford EVs and hybrids.

My family is also one of those families that were able to purchase a hybrid. I would say “us”—we purchased it, but, actually, I had to get a loan from the bank, so the bank probably owns most of it, but we have one. What we did notice is the massive amounts of money it saves in our family budget in terms of our petrol. But, also, what that shows us is that the uptake is making EVs and hybrids more readily available and, therefore, more affordable as well. But we know that not only is this saving our budgets, it’s also saving Papatūānuku. So, for me, it’s a win-win.

This six-month phase-in responds to the concerns and the delivery and the time and the flexibility that we heard from our importers. We know our importers also want to make sure that they can make those EVs and hybrids readily available for our whānau but also to make sure that they are able to support us in lowering our emissions, and that’s what this phase-in does. Again, this is—I spoke earlier on another bill—the Labour Party or Labour Government’s plan of showing what we’re doing to support our people, what we’re doing to support climate change, and making sure that everyone has access to good, clean EVs and hybrids. So thank you again to Simeon Brown for supporting that initiative and supporting the Labour Government’s plan, and, for that, I commend the bill to the House.

Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Responding to the climate crisis means giving New Zealanders options about moving around the country in lower-carbon ways, and that’s something that for decades has not happened. I was just conversing with my colleague over here Simon Court, who was a civil engineer before coming into Parliament—unfortunately, the decisions made by engineers and transport planners in the second half of the 20th century led to a situation where people only had the choice to rely on private cars. That means we have to buy many more cars, and that has a cost to New Zealanders of not having the money to do other things, and it excludes those who can’t drive, for whatever reason, from getting around.

So, anyway, the point is that there’s a huge opportunity here, that, right across the House, we could all agree on, which is providing people with more choices—low-carbon choices like frequent public transport, like safe walking and cycling and using e-bikes and e-scooters, and those things being all joined up. Of course, there will still be a need for cars for some journeys, and that’s where the Clean Car Standard and discount come in.

Now, New Zealanders have been disadvantaged for quite a while by not having fuel economy standards like almost every single OECD country. Indeed, they were intended to come in in 2008, 2009, but the then National Government’s Steven Joyce cancelled those fuel economy standards. As a consequence, New Zealanders have been paying more money on fuel than they needed to travel a given distance because we don’t have a competitive market. In the absence of fuel economy standards, the car companies and car manufacturers were sending us their least-efficient cars because they make more profit off those, because other jurisdictions had fuel economy standards and price incentives, and, therefore, New Zealanders were missing out on the choice of fuel-economic options when it comes to cars.

So the Clean Car Standard and discount together were our just ideal policies to change the type of vehicles that are provided to New Zealanders in a way that makes it easier for them to get more fuel-efficient cars. Even the most fuel-efficient utes, because there were double-cab utes, or single-cab utes that didn’t—work vehicles that wouldn’t have attracted a fee, but they weren’t being supplied to our market because we had no incentives and we had no standards. So how these policies work together is that you set a standard and you say that vehicle importers need to meet an average standard over time, and that means they look to bring in the more fuel-efficient models to meet the demand for those particular cars. They, of course, are still bringing in some that are above the average, which is the target, but they offset that with more low-emissions vehicles.

For second-hand vehicles, it’s not such an issue because Japan, which is the main market we import second-hand vehicles from—95 percent at least—has had very stringent and ambitious fuel economy standards. And so, in the absence of an age limit on the second-hand vehicles we’re importing, it is possible that we could be importing 20- or 30-year-old vehicles from Japan that were slightly polluting. But, the truth is, if you look at the second-hand market, the average fuel economy was much better than even the standard, so it’s not a huge negative impact at all on the second-hand vehicle market.

What was not coming down, in terms of fuel economy, were the brand new vehicles. That’s because of the proliferation of inefficient, gas-guzzling sports utility vehicles, double-cab utes, and Range Rovers. And, look, to be honest, the vast majority of those are being driven in the very suburbs that Simeon Brown was castigating earlier in his speech. I mean, they’re in the wealthiest suburbs. Why? Because the wealthiest people are the people who buy brand new vehicles—

💬 Simon Court: Tow boats, they tow boats.

—and they tow boats, and they tow their jet skis—they need the double-cab utes for the jet skis.

So, far from being for work purposes, the reality is that these are lifestyle vehicles that are expensive. And that is why the Clean Car Discount is a fair policy, because it says we—so we’re going to import more fuel-efficient vehicles, but it was the industry itself which asked for the Clean Car Discount, and so I find it so interesting that the National Party members are saying, “Listen to the industry—listen to the industry.” The industry wanted the Clean Car Discount because they knew it would help them sell vehicles to achieve the fuel economy standards that were being brought in and the Clean Car Standard. And so, clearly, the National Party hasn’t been talking to the industry, because they have no clue that they want the Clean Car Discount.

The Clean Car Discount has been phenomenally successful. Because of these two policies working together, we have massively increased the fuel efficiency of the vehicles coming into New Zealand. That’s what we knew, that every country in the world that had increased fuel efficiency or reduced emissions from their fleet had done it through policies like this—a price incentive and a standard working together to just shift the balance of the vehicles that were coming into the market and, indeed, give people more choice.

That is the key thing. If you don’t have these policies, you’re actually reducing the option for New Zealanders to even be able to buy those fuel-efficient vehicles. I have some friends who are looking at a brand new electric vehicle (EV), and before the Clean Car Discount was announced, the importer—Hyundai, I believe—said, “Oh, there’s no way you’re going to get this. It’s a wait-list of at least six months.” And the day after the Clean Car Discount was announced, they rang them up and said, “We’re going to be getting a bunch of these in.” So the reality is: these policies aren’t just about influencing the choices of New Zealanders; they’re influencing the vehicles they can choose from. So it helps improve the market for fuel-efficient vehicles.

So, as I said, New Zealanders have been disadvantaged by a lack of fuel economy standards—this is down to decisions by the National Government in 2009. The cars sold here use more petrol and diesel to drive the same distance as cars sold in the UK or Japan. It means we have higher emissions. We spend more money importing oil, which is bad for our economy, really. The Clean Car Standard and discount have started to change this, but we should be accelerating change, because the reality is that Aotearoa New Zealand is way behind in this space and we’re not really doing anything ambitious at all to reduce emissions from agriculture. Certainly, the National Party wouldn’t change that; they would slow it down even more. So we have to do it in transport.

I’m sorry to say that, despite some marginal increases in investment in rail to keep it from completely falling over, there’s been no substantial investment that would create a step change in people’s ability to use public transport or rail to get around the country. And that’s because, sadly, the Labour majority Government is still spending the vast majority of money on a few urban motorways, just like that the last National Government would have done—it’s slightly worse, to be honest. Of course, that’s going to make traffic worse; it’s not going to make it possible for people to get around not using a car. So the one thing we could be doing is bringing in the Clean Car Standard on time. So the Green Party won’t be supporting this bill because it delays the implementation of the Clean Car Standard.

I just want to note that, of course, everywhere the efficiency standards have been brought in—whether it’s for buildings or for vehicles—the industry always pushes back. That’s just what they do. They’ll see how far they can go to avoid complying. And, ultimately, most other Governments bring it in and things don’t fall over; it works perfectly fine, because when there’s a will, there’s a way. But if they can push back and delay, they will. And if every industry keeps pushing back against climate action—like the farming sector, like the vehicle sector—then we are not going to make the changes that we need to make. What’s the consequence of that? Well, we’re going to have a destabilised climate that is going to be bad for everyone. It’s not like a choice that we have either the environment or the economy—you know, if we have an unstable climate, if we have worsening conditions for growing food, if we have droughts or floods, all of that, it’s going to come back to human wellbeing and it’s going to be a negative impact. So that makes it harder to trade; it makes it harder for us to live good lives.

The whole point of the economy is simply a system of trade, and that’s part of what we rely on to make sure that people have what they need. But, right now, it’s not working for everyone. The economy is not working for many people. It’s just being abused by those who already have a lot of power and wealth to get even more power and wealth. To what end? It’s unclear, because money in the bank account isn’t going to mean anything if we don’t have food, clean water, and a stable climate in which we can raise our children and live good lives.

💬 Simon Court: But, with enough money, you can build a decent bunker!

Oh, all right, yeah. So there’s the plan for the really rich people: they’re going to build bunkers. But that’s really not going to help them if they don’t have access to food and water.

So the Green Party won’t be supporting this bill. The Clean Car Standard and discount are excellent, evidence-based policies that are already making a difference. And, quite to the contrary of what the National Party says, it is the wealthiest New Zealanders who buy Range Rovers, who are paying the fees that lead to the rebates on the moderately priced EVs.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, the ACT Party won’t be supporting this bill, but not because we don’t share the concerns of the industry, who have said, “Look, this bill’s not ready; the regulations aren’t ready to implement. The New Zealand Transport Agency has had to hire 80 more pen-pushers to try to do manual processing.” We really appreciate the fact that the industry was going to have to start complying and paying a fee on new vehicles and used vehicles arriving on the wharf from 1 January. I mean, who in their right mind would pass a piece of legislation that forces an entire industry to prepare for and report on compliance on 1 January? Doesn’t the Minister of Transport know that New Zealand shuts down and has a Christmas holiday for just a few weeks a year?

Before we get into the real problems with the piece of primary legislation and this amendment, I just want to respond to the member the Hon Julie Anne Genter. I understand it was one of her thought bubbles that led to this piece of legislation in the first place. Julie Anne Genter described some of the problems that have caused climate change. She said that civil engineers caused climate change because of our need to build roads and our need to build things, apparently, out of concrete and steel and non-renewable materials, and she said that if you build roads, you’ll make the traffic worse. Well, I’ve got a different perspective to the Green Party’s Julie Anne Genter, and probably quite a different perspective to the current Minister of Transport, Michael Wood, who’s just joined us here in the House to hear what ACT thinks. Thank you, Minister Wood, for joining us.

Now, let’s just address traffic congestion first. What causes climate emissions? It’s sitting in traffic, being stuck in traffic, for up to five days a year, for Aucklanders—just waiting at the lights, stuck in traffic, instead of moving at the posted road speed. Now, that’s bound to cause more emissions than just driving your vehicle at an efficient speed and getting to your destination on time.

The Green member the Hon Julie Anne Genter said that building roads makes traffic worse. Well, I want to offer a perspective on that. Near where I live in West Auckland, there’s a little town called Kumeū, and it’s a lovely little town. It’s on State Highway 16. About 20 years ago, the council at the time—and, since then, the new Auckland Council—zoned that area of Auckland to take tens of thousands of homes. Since then, about 12,000 have been built—since about 2007—and that means about 30,000 people have moved to the area. Now, on State Highway 16, between Kumeū and the north-western motorway, they have 36,000 vehicles a day using what is primarily a two-lane, rural road. That’s a 45-minute journey which should be a 10-minute journey. There are 36,000 vehicles a day crammed into a two-lane, rural road, and 36,000 vehicles a day is the number of vehicles that pass through the Takanini interchange, which is six lanes wide, on State Highway 1.

So when the member Julie Anne Genter—and, no doubt, Minister Michael Wood will stand up to defend his transport policy at some point—says that building roads isn’t the answer, well, tell that to the people of Auckland, who have responded logically. Where councils have zoned for people to live and they’ve bought homes there and they live there, it’s a surprise to them when a Government or its support partner, the Greens, say that building roads isn’t the answer. Frankly, they thought that the road would be delivered, because that’s where the zoning said that they should live. So there’s another issue there, which is the fundamental disconnect between urban planning and infrastructure provision.

Now, I want to come to the major problems with this bill. The bill, apparently, is going to help us meet our climate targets. The Clean Car Discount is a separate piece of legislation which taxes utes and vans and people who want to buy petrol and diesel vehicles, and it then gives a subsidy to those who would prefer to buy and can afford to pay some extra money to buy an electric vehicle or a low-emissions vehicle like a Tesla.

Now, it seems remarkable that a Government that purports to support the lowest-income people and to stand up for the workers—as well as being the Minister of Transport, he’s also the Minister of Immigration and Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety who has introduced the fair pay agreements to the House and is so proud of all his achievements in standing up for workers. He doesn’t seem to think that applying an additional tax on people who have large families and who need to buy a larger petrol or diesel vehicle, tradies who need to take the tools to the job site, or courier drivers and other people who need to buy a Toyota Hiace van or something similar—by taxing them, it might be at odds with all of this Government’s stated position on how much they care for working people. I think we know that they don’t really care, Minister.

Then I want to come to some of the other problems with this policy in the bill. There’s no point in having any policies that cost the taxpayer and consumers money to reduce climate emissions when all the emissions are already capped under the emissions trading scheme. The Minister knows that this doesn’t reduce emissions any more than they would be reduced by paying an emissions trading scheme charge and paying for your carbon, and every Kiwi who fills up at the pump with petrol or diesel currently pays 20c a litre for their emissions. This policy doesn’t reduce emissions at all.

Then we come to the problems with the bill. Well, when the car manufacturers came to select committee, they told the Labour, Green, National, and ACT MPs sitting on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee that it didn’t matter a darn if this Government taxed utes and vans arriving on the wharf, if they applied a clean car standard and a clean car discount, because not a single extra electric vehicle would be manufactured in a factory in Europe, Japan, South-east Asia, or Korea because of this policy. The car companies that make cars have a production line that is maxed out, and it doesn’t matter whether New Zealand taxes utes, subsidises Teslas, or taxes new or used vehicles arriving at the wharf, because there is no factory in Japan, South Korea, or Europe that’s going to make a single extra car that will have the effect of reducing global emissions because of this policy.

This is bad policy, and that’s why ACT doesn’t support the primary legislation and it’s why, even though we feel very strongly that the motor vehicle importers, new and used, have been hard-done-by by the provisions of this legislation, which requires them to start taxing vehicles as they arrive at the wharf on 1 January—they’ve been hard-done-by. We won’t be able to support this amendment, because we think that the bill and the presumptions behind the bill are absolutely flawed.

So then people say, “Well, what would ACT do? Does ACT care about the climate and does ACT care about emissions in the environment?” Well, of course we do. I trained as an environmental scientist because I cared about the climate, and I wanted to make sure that, in the work that I did and the companies that I worked for, we protected and enhanced the environment.

I’ve got children. I care about intergenerational issues. I want them to enjoy the same kinds of experiences in the environment—

💬 Shanan Halbert: Just not willing to do anything about it.

—whether it’s hunting, whether it’s swimming at the beach, or whether it’s being able to dig in the garden and plant fruit and vegetables, knowing that the site is not contaminated. That’s what I want for my children.

You say, “What would ACT do about climate change—what would ACT do?” Well, we say that the emissions trading scheme is the way to price emissions, and, if you have a cap on emissions, no other policy is necessary. The $1.5 million to $2 million that’s collected under the emissions trading scheme from people who put diesel in the ute, from people who put diesel in the truck and in the digger, and from people who fuel up their petrol-powered vehicles, like my Subaru Outback—we pay for our emissions every time we fill up and drive.

ACT says the emissions trading scheme is the best way to incentivise people to use less fuel and reduce their emissions because it puts a price on emissions. But because climate change is a global issue, we would also modify the emissions trading scheme to allow New Zealand businesses—people who emit carbon—to engage with other countries and businesses and communities in other countries to actually reduce emissions in their country. Imagine being able to restore mangroves or restore a forest where orang-utans live, claiming the carbon credits, and actually enhance global biodiversity. That’s ACT’s climate policy.

Thank you, Mr Court.

Thank you. It’s a pleasure to take a call on this bill, the Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill (No 2). I was one of the people who was quite sceptical at the beginning of this legislation and became increasing persuaded that it was the right way to go. And it has proved utterly successful. Just for people out there who are trying to get their heads around this, this is about moving the fleet from one that is dirty to one that is clean. So it’s not about the first owner of the car; it’s about the rest of us who usually buy second-hand vehicles. It means that, over time, we will actually have an option we never had before. And that’s incredibly important if you live in the outer suburbs of Auckland, because, at the moment, we have not got enough mass transport, and those people need to be able to move around, and those are the families, those are the workers, and they need those vehicles, and this is their way in.

This scheme has been incredibly successful. There is obviously a balance to be struck, which is making sure that we are being fair on everyone in terms of how we implement this. This makes three minor changes to a situation where I don’t think anybody in New Zealand is going to regret this decision, because we are going to have a cleaner fleet that is better for our air and that is better for our missions—that is substantial change in our society. We need these vehicles. I am pleased to support this bill.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. As we have noted, we are going to support this bill. We’re standing up here to talk on the amendment to the stuff-up that was made. It’s completely unnecessary. We’ve got an urgency week, and here we are, rushing through, cleaning up Labour’s mess. I don’t know how we managed to include motorbikes and mopeds on this, but we did, and that’s what happens when you generally don’t consult or listen to the feedback.

I do support the general provision that we want to bring cleaner cars into New Zealand, and I think that’s the right way to be going about it. We probably should’ve listened a bit more about when we wanted to implement that starting date. I take note of my colleague Simeon Brown, who made some excellent points about the reverse Robin Hood scheme. The way this Government thinks that your ordinary Kiwi out there can just go out and buy an electric vehicle (EV) is completely ridiculous. The only people who are buying EVs are highly privileged people living in leafy inner city suburbs. Your normal Kiwi is not going to buy an EV.

That’s my problem with the Labour Party, that you guys have forgotten your roots. You’re not the party of the working-class people anymore. If you go out there and you talk to small-business owners, they can’t stand you guys because you’re completely out of touch with them.

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: Just playing to the privileged elite.

Just playing to the privileged elite—that’s right, the Hon Scott Simpson. But, hopefully, they get a good message next year. I think the people of Northcote will be looking at how they’re being represented by this Government.

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: The people in Northcote are looking for change.

They are looking for change, and we’re here changing this today because we are fixing this stuff-up. We are hoping that we do lower our emissions, but I also think it’s important to note that there were some comments made—that what this may do is mean that people hold on to dirtier vehicles for longer, and that feedback probably should’ve been taken on board a little bit more.

I’d also reiterate the fact that there are no EV alternatives for farmers out there. I’m from Tauranga. We have a very heavy horticulture scene. I see a lot of people driving utes; there’s a lot of tradies in our part of town, and there is no EV option. So you are punishing working-class Kiwis to give to privileged New Zealanders, and that, as Simeon Brown has said, is a reverse Robin Hood scheme. Nevertheless, we will support this amendment to clean up Labour’s stuff-up. National supports this bill.

Ginny Andersen—five-minute split call.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It’s always great to have a lecture from the privileged elite about the privileged elite! So thank you for all those tips on how to reconnect with the working class! I’ll take them all to heart!

The Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill (No 2) helps smooth the implementation of the Clean Car Standard by providing a six-month phase-in to the standards requirements for importers. It’s a transitional measure, and it’s important that we do that. It’s excluding motorcycles and mopeds from the standard’s carbon dioxide account and reporting requirements, to correct the previous speaker. We support this bill because the amendments assist the successful implementation of the Clean Car Standard and they will make it easier for both vehicle importers and also those who want to purchase a cleaner car to comply and reduce compliance costs. A smooth implementation of the Clean Car Standard makes it easier for the vehicle industry to comply with the standard and it’s also key to achieving our emission reductions from the standard.

The clean car vehicle import standard will mean more climate-friendly cars are available and millions in tonnes of emissions will be prevented. It will give those families better access to electric vehicles, with an estimated saving of around $7,000 over the average life of a vehicle, which is a big deal for a family. Look, I’m looking forward to seeing more New Zealanders take up the opportunity of switching to electric. I know there are a number of benefits for that, for not just economies on a week-to-week basis through saving on fuel but also by making sure that we’re doing the right thing for the environment. I commend it to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. We’ve heard a lot about working people today from the National Party. It’s quite rich coming from the party that vote against every single policy that was designed to help working people—minimum wage, sick leave, and fair pay agreements. None the less, I rise to take a short call on the Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill (No 2).

We know that car emissions are a major source of pollution, and unless we do something and act now, it will be too late. Every single step, every single action we take now, is going to help in the long term, and this scheme is all about lowering carbon dioxide emissions by encouraging a greater supply of low- and no-emission vehicle imports to New Zealand.

This is a good bill and I commend the Minister of Transport for bringing it to the House. I am on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, which did some work on this issue. This is a good bill. It’s a good day. I commend it to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m glad that member Ibrahim Omer just mentioned the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, because, when we had the select committee hearing on this bill, we had numerous submissions saying that it’s not going to work; it can’t be done. That was what the submitters actually said, “The time frames will not work.” The Minister of Transport came into the committee and deliberately overrode those submissions and said, “We’re doing it now, we have to do it now. We will make it work.” That was the Minister’s exact attitude to the submitters. He ignored them. He said, “No, we know better. We’ll get it done now.” This Minister has failed completely in everything in transport. He has failed in this area where he overrode the submitters. He has failed in his walking and cycling bridge across the harbour, which is one of the greatest failures in New Zealand political history. He’s failed in cancelling all the roading projects of significance, and then having to rebuild them. He’s failed in his electric transport options for Auckland around light rail. He’s failed in having speed limits of 70 kilometres or lower throughout the country. He is a failure and this is a failure.

The other thing the submitters said—and this is what everybody here needs to understand—is that we are in the Japanese car market. We are not in the European car market. The European car market makes electric vehicles (EVs); the Japanese car market makes hybrids. In the Japanese-Australian car market, the approach has been to reduce the emissions of the vehicle by the use of hybrids and better energy sources; it is not through the use of EVs. There’s only 200,000 EVs in the whole of Japan, and that’s where we get our vehicles. So when the Government talks about looking after low- and middle-income New Zealanders and making a change in our transport emissions, remember we are not in an EV market; we are in a hybrid market—that is, the New Zealand and Australian car makers. That was the other fundamental thing that the Minister ignored when all the car companies said that to him. He said, “No, no, no, we’ll go for the EVs.” And they’ll go on and say, “Oh, look how many Teslas have come into the country in the last year.” Well, OK, there has been an increase, but it’s a very small proportion of the actual cars that come in the country. And the reason you’ve had an increase is because you have given a tax deduction on it for people that can spend over 70 grand, which are wealthy people in New Zealand. The actual real change, if you were looking at doing something about the climate in New Zealand, is looking at the Japanese-Australian car market, where 90 percent of the cars that come into the country are from, and that car market it is not an EV market; it is a hybrid market.

💬 Hon Michael Wood: You actually don’t know how this works.

I do know how this works, because that’s exactly what the submitters said. The Minister says—he doesn’t know how it works. The Minister overrode the submitters and said he knew better. And six months later, we’re in the House doing exactly what the submitters said. I know what happened in that committee: the Minister was arrogant and overrode the submitters. He’s being arrogant again here today and saying people don’t know how it works. So we’re not—

💬 Hon Michael Wood: No, no. Just the member—just the member doesn’t know how it works.

Answer this, answer me this, Minister: are we in the Japanese-Australian car market for our manufacture of vehicles? Answer that.

💬 Hon Michael Wood: Yes, and those vehicles are—

Yes. We are. I don’t know what I’m talking about! How many EVs are there in Japan, Minister? How many EVs in Japan? Answer the question.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Barbara Kuriger): Let’s save the questions for committee stage. Debate is fine, but no questions please, Mr Bennett.

The arrogance of the Minister to come into here and to say that we don’t understand. I asked him the one fundamental question that is about this bill and he said I was right. So, Minister, stand up and take a call. Don’t get some junior Minister to come in and take your call because you don’t want to have your name on this bill; actually come in here and do your job and admit your failings, because you are the worst transport Minister ever. That has been shown time and time again and today is another example.

Thank you. I rise as the owner of a second-hand Japanese electric vehicle (EV). As a person living in Dunedin, Dunedin is full of these Nissan Leafs—all second-hand Japanese full EV imports. In response to one of the first National speakers—Simeon Brown—I’m very concerned about what I am hearing from National about using terms like “woke virtue signalling” in regards to climate change. Climate change is real. It affects us all—poor, wealthy, rural, everyone in New Zealand. We need to act on climate change, and that is what both the Clean Car Standard and Clean Car Discount schemes do. This Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill (No 2) is going to help that. I commend it to the House.