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

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

Thursdays at Parliament are well-known by all members as being “Doughnut Day”, the day on which doughnuts are available for all to enjoy at Copperfields. I am very, very pleased to hear that the spirit of “Doughnut Day” has spread to the House, as expressed by members of the Opposition in their new-found support for the Clean Car Standard. I do commend members for that and for the clarity that they have provided in that respect, given the utter lack of clarity we experienced last week when the Leader of the Opposition got into the position of having to speak about the National Party’s policies in respect of the clean car package. We heard that they supported the Clean Car Discount, and then we heard that they didn’t. We heard that they supported the Clean Car Standard, and then we heard they might have supported a clean car standard. So it is somewhat useful, I think, for the House to get clarity from the National Party, today, that they do in fact support this piece of legislation and the Clean Car Standard coming into effect.

It is an important piece of legislation, because this is a House which has declared a climate emergency. This is a House which has voted for the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act. This is a House which has established the independent Climate Change Commission and said that we need to get to net zero by 2050. Having done all of those things, it behoves this House and it behoves members of this House to actually do something to get us to that point of substantially reducing our carbon emissions. No member of this House can stand with credibility and say that they support a net zero New Zealand and say that they support emissions abatements without actually having policies to do anything about it.

The thing about the Clean Car Standard is that it is one of the most impactful policies that has ever been brought to this House to reduce emissions in a substantial way. I encourage all members who do take the time to speak on this bill in the debate to go back and read the regulatory impact statement, which was prepared at the time of the primary legislation and confirms that this policy will reduce over 1 megatonne—that is over 1.07 million tonnes—of carbon dioxide emissions in New Zealand by 2050.

And what’s more—and this is an important point, given the crocodile tears and pearl clutching that we’ve heard from the other side of the House in respect of their new-found care for the low-income people of New Zealand—this is a policy, which according to the regulatory impact statement, has its biggest impact on vehicle consumers because it lowers the cost, for Kiwis, of running their vehicles. What’s more, it confirms that the distributional impact—that is the impact on the lowest-income New Zealanders—is a positive one, and I’ll read directly from the regulatory impact statement for the benefit of those members who clearly haven’t and for the benefit of the record in the House. This isn’t the Government speaking; this is a regulatory impact statement from officials: “As we consider the risk of vehicle price rises to be low, we also consider that it will have little negative distributional impact. In fact, long-term evidence from the United States over the period of 1984 to 2014 suggests that the households that benefit the most from carbon dioxide standards, vehicle fuel-efficiency standards, are low-income households. This is because, as a percentage of incomes, savings from improved fuel efficiency are highest for households with lower incomes.” This is not only a policy which is good for our environment and that will lead to a significant abatement in emissions and a real impact on climate change; it is a policy that gives Kiwi consumers more choice, more access to clean vehicles, and more access to clean vehicles at a low price.

I must comment on the most recent speech from the Opposition that we heard at the end of the first reading from the Hon David Bennett. It was once said in this House that “His brains could revolve inside a peanut shell for a thousand years without touching the sides.” Well, the Hon David Bennett did an insult to a peanut in the speech that he gave at the end of his comments, and here is the point: I encourage the members opposite, before they speak on this bill and this policy, to actually understand how it works. That member devoted nearly all of his speech, as other members have opposite, to an obsession with electric vehicles (EVs). Do they not understand that the Clean Car Standard does not just apply to EVs, and that the Clean Car Discount does not just apply to EVs, that both policies pivot around a carbon dioxide emissions standard, that in fact the Clean Car Standard—in respect of the ability for importers to claim credits, not to have, necessarily, rebates—applies to hybrids, and that in fact the top-selling vehicles under the Clean Car Discount are used Japanese imported vehicles? The member, David Bennett, stood up in this House and didn’t seem to be aware of that. He pivoted his entire speech and entire critique of this policy around the fact that, supposedly, it didn’t take account of the fact that most imported vehicles in New Zealand come from Japan where hybrids are the pathway they’ve chosen rather than EVs. The policy does. Both the Clean Car Standard and the Clean Car Discount provide rebates for importers who bring in hybrids, and the biggest-selling vehicles under the discount policy have been Japanese hybrids. So, once again, I ask members opposite who are in a state of flux, given the flip-flops that we have seen on this policy over the last week, to actually understand the policies that they are talking about and that they are debating.

Having said that, I do welcome the most recent change, the most recent doughnut, and the support from the National Party for this policy. Ultimately, it is common sense, and it is a good thing if we can move towards greater support for policies that have a definable impact on emissions reductions in New Zealand.

This bill is a pragmatic one. It is important to note that it actually does nothing to delay the outcomes of the Clean Car Standard. The standard applies from 1 January, and rebates and charges apply from 1 January. There is simply for category 2 importers, who probably import a minority of the vehicles into the country, a delayed implementation of when the charges will apply from and when rebates can be traded from 1 June. So for the benefit of the House, there is, therefore, no reduction in the abatement benefits that we get from this policy and no reduction in terms of the choice benefits that consumers will get.

In fact, one of the things that importers tell me is that even though this policy doesn’t come into effect from the beginning of this year, it is already doing what it was intended to do, which is giving New Zealand importers more ability to go to their head offices and get the stock of cleaner vehicles that Kiwi consumers actually want. Before this policy came into effect, New Zealand was one of only three countries in the world without a carbon dioxide emissions standard—the other two being Australia and Russia. And I’d say, “Watch out”, because I think Australia’s likely to move in this direction in the coming years as well. And because of that, we were becoming a dumping ground for the world’s dirtiest vehicles. Other countries had a standard in place which meant that their importers could go to their head offices in Japan, Korea, or Europe and require the stock of clean vehicles that they needed for their market. In New Zealand, because there was no standard, we were getting dirtier vehicles than other countries were getting. Importers tell me now that having the standard in place, as they put in their forward orders for 2023 and 2024, means that they can negotiate more effectively with their head offices to be able to get that supply of clean vehicles, which is good for our environment, gives Kiwi consumers choices, and will actually lower costs of vehicle ownership to Kiwi consumers as well. So it is good news all round.

As I’ve said, our Government has brought forward this piece of legislation to make sure that the legislation can be implemented as smoothly as possible. The Opposition seems to think, on one hand, that Governments should listen to sectors that they work with, and, on the other hand, is critical of a Government that does actually listen and does work pragmatically to bring in significant policy. The real reason, in the end, that the Opposition and the spokesperson who might get to his feet in a moment wants to focus on that is that they want to do anything possible not to actually debate how we reduce emissions in the transport sector, because they are opposed to virtually everything that we do in that area—they are the new form of climate deniers; they mouth the words about wanting to reduce emissions and then oppose virtually every policy that will actually do anything—and, secondly, they want cover the tracks of the past couple of weeks when they have flip-flopped three or four times on this policy and have had total chaos within their ranks.

This is a practical bill that will support emissions reductions and will support better choices for Kiwi consumers and the vehicles that they buy. It will support the smooth implementation of that policy, and I commend it to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

This Minister of Transport is the worst Minister of Transport New Zealand has ever seen, and that was just an absolutely appalling speech. He still can’t even answer the question: why are we here debating this legislation today? It’s because he stuffed things up. He stuffed up the implementation of the Clean Car Standard. He stuffed up the legislation when it came to the House back at the beginning of this year, and now we are here fixing up the mess he created because he didn’t listen to the submissions and he didn’t listen to the advice. So we’re here again passing legislation to fix up his stuff-ups.

The river of insults that comes from his mouth to people who dare to disagree with him is absolutely disgusting—insults from someone who’s ruined businesses up and down this country with his immigration policies. It’s absolutely appalling from the Minister of Transport.

The National Party will support the Government in cleaning up its mess. But we also make the very clear point that there is more mess that needs to be cleaned up in regards to this standard. The standard is something we do support, but we don’t support where the standard currently sits. If you read Newsroom, Toyota have just announced that they will not be supplying new utes to the police. That is something that people might say is a good thing over on the greenie side of the House—less utes coming in—but this is emblematic of a Government that put in policies that have unintended consequences, or intended consequences, which are now going to make it harder not only for our famers and our tradies but also for our police who won’t get the vehicles they need.

That’s why, whilst we support a standard, we don’t support where the emissions standards currently sit, because it is going to punish those people who currently don’t have a choice for the vehicles they need. I quote from this article in Newsroom, where the Inspector Brian Yanko says, “If we were to suffer, God forbid, another Christchurch or Kaikoura-type earthquake …, we will have to be able to respond. We don’t want our fleet incapacitated within 24 hours and staff being grounded—we need to still be able to respond even in those circumstances.” So what this Government is doing with where they have set the standard is they are putting the ability for our police in New Zealand to be able to respond to significant events which happen in our country from time to time—they may not have the ability to respond because they will not necessarily have the vehicles that they need to be able to get to those places. That is something which is incredibly concerning for New Zealanders, and that is what is going to happen if the standard stays where it is.

So it’s good news that the Government is slightly delaying the implementation of the standard. It’s good news that they are removing motorcycle importers, who were never meant to be in it. It’s the Clean Car Standard—it’s not the clean motorbike standard. But, oops, they put the motorbikes in there, intentionally or unintentionally, and now they’re removing them—again, finally. But this is a stuff-up and we’re telling the Government that this is only going to cause havoc because some sectors of our country don’t have the alternative vehicles. The standard, where it is set at the moment, is going to make it impossible for them to get the vehicles they need, and that, as we see from that example with the New Zealand Police, is going to be incredibly concerning. It will need to be fixed and we will fix it.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. You know, I feel sad, some days, for my friend and colleague Simeon Brown and his view of the world. Some would say, “all steam, no hāngī”; some would say, “bark and bite”, but the reality is National needs to explain to this country how they are going to reduce emissions. That is the important thing, because by all means criticise the Government, challenge us to do better, but the reality is we’ve all got to front up with policies and initiatives, ideas, but most of all action on how we are going to reduce emissions.

We saw the U-turn last week: Christopher Luxon wasn’t clear on National’s position, whether they supported the Clean Car Standard or the Clean Car Discount or what that was, and my friend and colleague Simeon Brown had to step in and support him to get their position clear. But, again, National needs to be very clear with the New Zealand public on what their ideas are, what their action is on reducing emissions in this country.

When it comes to the Clean Car Discount, it’s very clear on the progress of this particular bill. In 2014, there were fewer than 100 electric vehicles on the road. By 2018, 4,123 were in this country, and, in the first nine months of 2022, that number shot up to 13,000—there was that spike from 4,000 up to 13,000. The goal of this is to clean up our fleet in New Zealand. Yes, it starts with those people who can afford to buy new vehicles—who can afford to buy new vehicles—and, of course, as they are traded out to second-hand, third-hand, the goal here is to clean up our fleet. That will take time; we have to start somewhere, but, most importantly, people need to understand that in transport, it’s not about one initiative. We’ve got to have a number of tools, a number of solutions on how we are going to reduce emissions and how we are going to decongest our roads. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well the current and soon not-to-be, I suspect, member for Northcote really needs to understand that it is his party that is currently in Government. It is his party that has the current privilege of deciding policy and policy direction. It is the Opposition’s role to critique and criticise and point out the failings of their legislative and policy agenda. It is full of holes. That’s why we are here today in urgency, passing and amending a piece of legislation without the scrutiny of a select committee process to fix up a stuff-up made by the Minister of Transport who is also the Minister of Immigration and has become the most notoriously inept Minister in the Labour Government’s administration. The person who will almost single-handedly be the cause of so many of those Labour backbenchers leaving and exiting this Parliament at the next general election because of his inept, his arrogant, and his “I know best” approach to everything that clearly does not work. That’s why we are here, because we are fixing up a mistake of his that is of Napoleonic proportion. When the principle legislation was first introduced, he was advised and warned not only just by us here in the Opposition but by the sector and the industry themselves, that what he was imposing upon them was unworkable, that the time frames were too tight, and that there would be perverse outcomes as a result of his arrogant, stubborn determination to push on with his ideological approach that bears no resemblance to pragmatic and practical approaches that exist in reality.

Now, on “Planet Labour”—we know that on “Planet Labour” they operate in a little hermetically-sealed bubble of self-congratulation, self-affirmation, and self-supporting. They don’t mix with ordinary New Zealanders; they don’t understand how the economy works. They have no regard these days at all for their traditional base: the working people. The trades halls are empty these days because so many of those people that used to be the champions of the trade hall now sit in this debating chamber. They now sit in this debating chamber distant, aloof, out of touch, arrogant, and soon to be out of Government.

So this Minister, who is often referred to as being a potential successor to lead the Labour Party, is going to be the cause of their demise. Now, we know on this side of the House that it’s in his personal best interests to bring down the Government, and by crikey, he’s doing a wonderful job at doing that. He’s making everything he possibly can do happen to bring down this Government. One has to ask—and certainly those members that sit on the backbenches of the Labour Party in this House, they must be questioning what his motivation is, because clearly it is not to support them or their political or electoral success. It is his own.

So what’s happening here is a retreat of Napoleonic proportions. We are going to have to support this piece of legislation because it was a stuff-up in the first place. It was a mistake in the first place. The industry and the sector told the Government it was a mistake. We told them it was a mistake. It included a whole range of vehicles like motorcycles that were never intended to be part of it. Now they want us—now they want us—to provide them with the solutions to their conundrums and their problems. Well, they will just have to wait. But trust me, there are better solutions.

The parties of the left in this Parliament don’t have a monopoly on climate policy, and they don’t have a monopoly on ideas about how to better bring a decarbonised economy to New Zealand. The political Labour Party is imbued with their own ideological mantras that are so distant from reality and practical application that they simply are out of tune and soon to be out of office. So here we are in urgency in the second reading of this piece of legislation, having to support them, because it’s the right and prudent thing to do to dig them out of a hole of their own creation, of their own making. An arrogant, out-of-touch Minister who comes to this House, talks about doughnuts, and by crikey, he’s had more than his fair share of doughnuts, and it’s very obvious to see that. But he is the Minister that is single-handedly causing the most anguish, hurt, and pain in this Parliament. So thank you, we’ll support this legislation because we understand the need to dig them out of a hole.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just forgot where I was for a moment; I thought—after the last speaker took their seat and what they were saying—I was at a comedy show. But, anyway, it’s always really interesting to hear those whose suits probably cost more than most people’s cars talk about being in touch with New Zealanders—especially, as I know, with my second-hand hybrid that, as I said, I had to get a loan for, and the money that saves me in petrol: five bucks over Transmission Gully. Five bucks is not a lot to you guys over the other end of the House, but lots to us.

Anyhow, as the Minister of Transport said, the Clean Car Standard is about giving New Zealanders options. It’s about supporting New Zealand’s budget and reducing the cost of petrol—something that they wouldn’t really care about; just bubble gum change, but to us it’s a lot of money. So giving people money back into their family budget.

This is about taking real action on climate change and supporting New Zealanders, including our importers, who we are sure you would wish to support as well, to reduce their carbon emissions. This is our Labour Government supporting New Zealanders, and our Labour plan to tackle climate change. It’s a no-brainer. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Climate change is impacting us right now, and it shouldn’t take much of a Google to realise that many communities are already facing displacement and major disruption to their lives because of the effects of a change in climate. Responding to the climate change also requires bold action, particularly in the transport sector, where we know that domestically so many of our emissions are being produced. And in order to do that, we should be discussing how we can ensure that we can take bold action while supporting people instead of just taking jabs across the House on who’s going to lose their jobs and who’s going to retain their jobs, and just making political hot takes about who’s the most useless person here. Because, ultimately, if we’ve got people who are still climate deniers who are, effectively, more interested in political hot takes rather than doing the best for our communities, they are doing a disservice to the future generations who are going to be displaced.

In order to take bold action, we should be focusing on how we can better support people into cleaner vehicles, how we can invest into free public transport services that are frequent and the workforce in the sector that is well-supported and well-paid. While this Government may be moving in the right direction—in a direction opposite to where National would be heading—it is definitely not moving fast enough. We as the Greens have been pushing Labour to do the right thing and to take the climate crisis with the seriousness that it deserves.

New Zealand has been historically disadvantaged by a lack of fuel economy standards that support people into cleaner vehicles. That is one part of the puzzle but an important one, considering that historically in New Zealand we’ve been the dumping ground for high-emissions vehicles. The Clean Car Standard and Clean Car Discount have started to change the types of cars that people are driving. It will have a major impact later on. This is why this Government should be moving faster instead of delaying this action. This is why the Green Party cannot be supporting this bill.

The Green Party will continue standing for bold action on climate, rather than delays. We’ve seen a bit of a conflicting trend over the past 24 hours, because it is not just delays on things like clean cars that we’re seeing; it’s delays on healthy homes. Right now, when we know that so many people are facing massive pressures on the cost of living, people are struggling to access the healthcare system. We should be moving faster, not slower. So the Green Party cannot be supporting this bill. Kia ora.

It gives me great pleasure to be in Parliament speaking on this bill introduced by transport Minister Michael Wood under urgency—the Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill (No 2). Now, ACT will be opposing this piece of legislation for completely different reasons than the Green Party.

Firstly, we don’t think that any policy, like ute taxes, subsidising Teslas, or taxing vehicles as they arrive on the wharf in New Zealand is necessary to actually reduce carbon emissions. And I want to give you an example about bad Government transport policy or climate policy or social engineering policy that doesn’t reduce emissions. I’m just going to refer, as a comparator, to the car scrappage scheme. The “cash for clunkers” scheme also proposed to reduce carbon emissions, which, for $569 million, will only reduce 4,500 tonnes of emissions—it’s $126,000 per tonne of carbon reduced.

Now I’d be interested to know—and maybe this is a question we can wait until committee stage—for the cost of this policy, how much carbon will be reduced and what will the cost per tonne be? Because if the clean car scrappage scheme, the “cash for clunkers” scheme promoted by Michael Wood as a carbon reduction scheme—if that can reduce carbon from $126,000 a tonne, how on earth is that justified when you can buy a carbon credit on the emissions trading scheme today for about $85 a tonne, put it through the shredder so no one else can use it again. Eighty-five dollars a tonne, or $126,000 a tonne for “cash for clunkers”.

And I wonder where this scheme fits in. Is it somewhere in the middle? Is it maybe that we can reduce a tonne of carbon for $60,000 or is it $20,000 or is it $10,000? But who would know? Because when the Government makes polices like the clean vehicle bill, which ACT opposed at primary legislation, what they do is they say, “We’re going to help shift the dial. We’re going to pull a whole bunch of levers in the economy so that New Zealand meets its carbon emissions reduction targets.”

But what this Government fails to tell New Zealanders is that not a single policy lever will reduce carbon emissions because we already have a cap on emissions under the emissions trading scheme. And if Minister Michael Wood wanted to reduce carbon emissions, then he would go to his buddy climate Minister James Shaw, assuming he’s back from an Egyptian resort or wherever he’s been—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Barbara Kuriger): Can we please go back—

—where they have dates and figs—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Barbara Kuriger): Order! Can we please go back to the Clean Car Standard. Thank you.

Yes. So if the Minister of Transport wanted to reduce carbon emissions, he’d go to the Minister of Climate Change and say, “Could you please reduce the cap on emissions under the emissions trading scheme?”, because that’s the only cap that matters—the only cap that matters. None of these other policies reduces emissions.

Then we have to ask ourselves, what is the point of this policy? Well, ACT asked that at the Transport and Infrastructure Committee last year and officials were in a spin, because when you ask an organisation like the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA), whose responsibility is safe and efficient road networks, actually building highways to connect communities to workplaces and recreation and schools, for example, and you say, “Oh, by the way, could you please design a scheme?”—because the scheme wasn’t designed when the bill was presented to select committee last year. The scheme wasn’t designed, and they said, “We’ll have a crack at that, but we don’t know if there’ll be enough time to do it.” So that was advice that NZTA gave to the Minister, and then it turns out that not only was NZTA right, but the industry was also right.

The industry also pointed out that this legislation, when it was passed last year, had the potential to capture motorcycles and mopeds. And, of course, who could imagine that a motorcycle or a moped is a high-emissions vehicle that needs to be taxed at the wharf? Well, the ACT Party asked the Minister in written parliamentary questions whether the legislation would in fact capture motorbikes and mopeds, and he acted like there’s nothing to see here. “Everyone move along. These are not the motorbikes you’re looking for.” And then he introduces a bill correcting the errors in the legislation.

But it’s wonderful the Minister’s finally decided to listen to the industry. They’ve been crying out for months the system wasn’t ready and would wreak chaos on the imported vehicle industry. The entire New Zealand motor vehicle industry relies on imports. We don’t make cars here, and the Clean Car Standard, which this legislation sets up, is actually designed to incentivise the production of clean vehicles at the factory gate in Europe. The EU first produced a standard of this type to incentivise or penalise the likes of Volkswagen and others who produce cars in a factory in Europe to produce cars with lower-emissions values. And if they went over the limit, then they had to pay a tax to the EU, but if they were under the emissions limit, then they got a credit. And, overall, the likes of Volkswagen can kind of balance things up so they produce a combination of high-emissions and low-emissions vehicles.

Well, that doesn’t apply to New Zealand. It couldn’t possibly apply because we don’t make cars here, and that is exactly what the Transport and Infrastructure Committee was told by submitters last year. That’s what Julie Anne Genter was told in her role as a former Associate Minister of Transport who proposed this. That’s what Michael Wood was told, the Minister of Transport, but, of course, they ignored all the advice, and here we are today trying to work through why this bill should be amended.

The ACT party won’t be supporting this amendment because we don’t support the primary legislation. We voted against the zero carbon Act. We voted against a climate emergency. As a civil and environmental engineer, calling something an emergency does not help solve long-term problems. A hurricane is not a long-term problem to be solved; it’s a real emergency. A tsunami is a real emergency. The climate emergency is a problem to be solved that requires long-term and considered solutions, but it can’t be solved by Government, clearly—certainly not by this one.

Now the Minister’s listened to the industry, but now he’s kicking the can down the road by just six months. This is going to be a huge burden on importers who will still be liable for the charges under this scheme when those vehicles—about 200,000 a year—arrive on the docks in New Zealand. They’ll still be liable for the charge, but they won’t get an invoice for six months. Can you imagine operating a business knowing you’re incurring a cost for which, if you don’t pay it, you could be not just penalised but potentially bankrupted, and not knowing the costs that you’re racking up on a weekly, monthly, and daily basis? You’ve got to remember: a thousand cars a day come across the wharves in New Zealand. A whole lot of importers who import a few hundred or a few thousand cars a year, they won’t know what their actual liability is until six months after that car has landed on the wharf.

What an appalling thing to do to New Zealand businesses, but that’s what this Minister is now proposing. Rather than saying we’re going to delay the whole legislation, and we’re going to delay the implementation date, he’s just saying we’re going to delay the due date for invoices. What a terrible thing to do to New Zealand businesses. But rather than a 1 January date for having to reconcile your costs, he’s pushed it back by six months, so at least some of the importers get a Christmas holiday back that the Minister was intending to take away with the original 1 January implementation date.

But, you know, as I mentioned, this Minister, he’s like a bad Santa, giving vehicle importers a break on the one hand, but making sure that he’s got a terrible, terrible present boxed up for them six months down the track. The importers will pay the price later. They’re going to pay the price with stress, uncertainty, and, of course, everybody who buys a vehicle that comes across the wharf in the next six months is also going to face the uncertainty of, “Did I pay the right carbon price? Did I pay a carbon price I shouldn’t have paid? And will they come to me later and say, ‘When you go to register your vehicle again, you’ll be liable because the vehicle didn’t pay enough carbon tax.’?”

Now, this is terrible law. There is no doubt that this, again, represents a net transfer of wealth from one group of people to another at the direction of the State. Now, if the State knew better how to invest in things, then maybe we could trust them. But under this Government, there’s been absolutely no evidence that the State knows better how to invest your money. So telling you that they’re going to be encouraging you to purchase a lower-emissions vehicle by taxing utes at the border—they’re already taxed at the dealer’s lot with the ute tax. What they call the clean vehicle discount is just another tax on Kiwis; ACT will oppose it.

First of all, I just want to say congratulations on your new role. It’s lovely to see you in the Chair. The part of this that I want to just focus on for a couple of minutes is the success of this scheme and the context of these changes. We have had a scheme that has meant, so far, that there’s been this huge uptake in these vehicles, and these minor adjustments are absolutely par for the course when you are actually changing things. And that’s my challenge to the Opposition. This is about changing things and being sensitive to people when you’re doing it so there isn’t a giant backlash. This is a pragmatic Government. This is also a visionary Government.

I was in the submissions when I had people tell me, for example, that they were never going to see heavy vehicles in this area, that it wouldn’t happen—things like vans wouldn’t be able to be brought in, we couldn’t because we were a tiny place in the world. We’ve done it. It’s extremely successful. One of the examples of this was that one of the vans that was $100,000 before the scheme went down to $80,000 so it could get the subsidy. So it actually reduced the cost of those vehicles.

💬 Simon Court: Point of order, Madam Speaker. The bill we’re debating is the Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill (No 2), which relates to the Clean Car Standard. The policy that the member was discussing was the Clean Car Discount, which is a completely different policy and regulation. Madam Speaker, I just urge you to ask the member to come back—thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Barbara Kuriger): Stick to the bill, please. Thank you.

Thank you. It’s an interesting and rich statement given the speech that we’ve just had from the member. But what I would say is that this particular change, these little minor changes, are the stuff of actual real big change, that we’ve got to be prepared to adjust things when we need to. And actually, the kind of barking that we get about this is really the result of people not liking success. This is a successful, good policy for New Zealanders. I look forward to one day being able to afford to own an electric vehicle, and I look forward to those who are bringing in vehicles which are not so environmentally friendly being sheeted home with the cost of that. Thank you.

💬 Simon Court: Madam Speaker, I seek the call.

Look, no. Sam Uffindell was actually on his feet, so I’m going to take Sam Uffindell—five minutes, thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, I note that I support efforts to improve mitigation of climate change and to bring cars into this country that are going to reduce our emissions. I think that’s a really important thing that we do as a country. I support initiatives in that favour. I, too, would like to have a couple of hybrids; they’re pretty punchy at the moment. But my plan is to put solar on my roof and to then have some hybrids. It is a bit frustrating that we’re here having to clean up this stuff-up. It would have been good to have got that sorted out earlier; we didn’t—we’re here, we’re amending it, and we are supporting these amendments.

I will take a bit of exception to how the Minister had a crack at of my colleague earlier. I thought it was pretty disrespectful. I think if you look back over the Minister’s record, he’s had a terrible time as Minister of Transport, whether it be a $30 billion light rail project, whether it be all the pot-holes, whether it be the speed signs, whether it be the cycle bridge—next month, it will be a cycle tunnel; I don’t know what his next initiative is. Don’t get me started on how bad he’s been on immigration; he’s causing so much damage to families and businesses out there. He’ll do damage to you guys as well, and you know it. I support this bill.

Thank you. Just before I call Ginny Andersen, I will say that there have been some comments going both ways, so it’s not been all one-sided this morning. It’s a tense topic. I call Ginny Andersen—five minutes.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, that was an enlightening contribution, again, from that side of the House. Look, climate change is a challenge. We’re not putting our heads in the sand like National are. You know, they’d be quite happy to go on driving big cars, churning through the gas, and doing that without really making any lifestyle changes to make sure that we mitigate climate change. They’re the first to complain about the effects of climate change, when you look at pot-holes—first to complain about that—but don’t want to do anything about the increasing environmental factors that New Zealanders are facing.

This bill actually does something to address those issues that are going on around our country. This bill is about taking your head out of the sand and about making it accessible and available to everyday New Zealand families to make clean choices and to convert to having an electric car.

The Government’s Clean Car Discount scheme has been a roaring success, with more than 57,000 light electric and non - plug-in hybrid vehicles registered in its first year of operation. We’re seeing that pick up and we’re seeing people make those changes, and people are also making those changes not just for environmental factors; they’re making them also because it’s a cheaper way to run the family car. With the rest of the world moving to phase out petrol vehicles, we’ve kept with our ambitious targets to stop becoming a dumping ground for the world’s dirtiest cars.

I’m proud to be part of a bill that’s progressive. I’m proud to be pushing forward a bill that makes electric vehicles more accessible for New Zealanders, and I commend it to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was remiss not to acknowledge your presence in the Chair in my last contribution, so thank you for taking up this role for us all.

Now, as we know, this bill is about this Clean Car Standard. The Clean Car Standard is to improve both the health of the community and also the climate by reducing emissions. It’s important to note that this idea of a clean car standard has been around for some time. It was put to the previous National Government and they did nothing. That is a theme.

We’ve just heard from the Hon Scott Simpson in his contribution. I think he was saying that we need to do things for climate change, but when challenged on this, he said he had no examples of what should be done differently from what this Government is doing. His speech was full of imagination. So I was disappointed not to hear any examples from him.

People watching at home would have seen Simon Court’s contribution. I agree with the part where he says that climate change needs some long-term planning. It certainly does. It also needs short term actions, and this is one of those. I commend the bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Wow! What did I say to the Minister to upset him? I don’t know what I said. Was it because he had failed on Auckland light rail that upset him? Was it because the cycle bridge has been a complete failure? Was it because he cancelled major roads throughout the country and then had to reinvent them? Was it because he was reducing speed limits around the country because he can’t fix the pot-holes? Was it because of his incompetence around this bill, where he deliberately, arrogantly came to the committee at the start of the year and overrode submitters, saying, “We will get it done.” And, actually, they are coming back now because he couldn’t get it done. Which of the failures upset him so much that he had to engage in “little man syndrome” and go out and attack other speakers? What is so sensitive about that man that he can’t handle criticism? Why can’t he handle the actual fact that he is the worst Minister of Transport that we’ve ever seen in this country?

Now, I made the very valid point that in New Zealand we are in the Australian-Japanese car market, which has hybrids as the solution for the environmental concerns—not the European car market, which uses electric vehicles (EVs). The whole point of the submissions that came in front of the select committee at the start of the year, were two things. First of all, the rules you’re setting in place won’t work, and the Minister said, “No, I can override that” and “they will”, and here we are today doing the opposite. The second thing they all said was “You’re using the wrong standards for the market of the cars that come here—you’re using EVs as the crucial thing.”

The Minister interrupted me rudely in my speech and said that I didn’t know what I was talking about basically, and so I asked him: is it the European standard or is it the Japan standard? He said it was the Japan standard, which backs up what I was saying. Then he had the gall to come and use his speech at the start of this reading to say, “Oh, he doesn’t understand the difference between hybrids and EVs.” Well, I’ll give you submissions here that show that in 2026 hybrids actually pay—they pay under this legislation. Hybrids don’t get a free ride like the Minister tried to indicate to the House. EVs are the ones that get a free ride, but we are not in the EV market. We are in the hybrid Australian-Japanese market. There will be a certain percentage of EVs that are imported but it’s very small. But if you really want to do the environmental change, you go for what our market is.

The Minister has deliberately misled this House. He’s got an opportunity in a few moments to come in and actually change that. Now, when you deliberately mislead the House—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Barbara Kuriger): Order! During the first reading I said there will be the opportunity to ask the Minister questions during the committee stage. Please come back to the second reading.

We will ask him that question.

💬 Hon Dr David Clark: Point of order, Madam Speaker. The member accused another member of deliberately misleading the House. He cannot do that.

Point of order. It’s a matter of truth. The reality is that he deliberately misled. It’s not that I’m making it up. The truth is that he deliberately misled.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Barbara Kuriger): No. Order! Mr Bennett shall stand, withdraw, and apologise. He is not to accuse another member of misleading the House.

I withdraw and apologise. He deliberately misled the House, though, and there’s nothing wrong with saying that.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Barbara Kuriger): Mr Bennett, your speech is completed.

It’s wonderful to see such strength and kindness from Taranaki-King Country in the Chair. It is wonderful to stand and take a call on this bill. This Government is ambitious and progressive, and that means that we do new things. The original bill was evidence-informed, and it also meant that we’re required to continue to be nimble by working with industry to make sure that we have the best way to effect this in this House and make sure we’ve got sustainable change.

Mr Halbert talked about a suite of changes that we need to reduce emissions, a suite of changes to reduce transport emissions. Madam Speaker, as you well know, public transport isn’t an option in the part of the country I live in. I don’t live in a leafy suburb; I live in a very damp part of Taranaki, and I cannot catch a bus to work. I and my neighbours aren’t in the market for a Tesla, and I and my neighbours are really pleased at what this Government is doing to build a solid second-hand market for clean vehicles. It is a great example of how we’re ensuring a just transition, something the other side of the House knows nothing about. They don’t know about giving access to all New Zealanders so they can play their part in reducing our emissions. I’m really disappointed, and I feel like I’ve got my full economics teacher voice on here—really disappointed. It’s really obvious that no one on the other side of the House passed level 1 economics and understands the basic concepts of supply and demand and the part that this bill plays in ensuring that the supply that we need is going to be effective.

This Government is proven to be able to lead and to navigate in times of immense change. We are not scared to go where it is difficult to be. The planet deserves it, my neighbour deserves it, and our kids deserve it. I commend this bill to the House.