Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Repeal) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Repeal) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

I move that this bill be read a second time and I commend it to the House. I’ve just been listening to the debate from the members opposite who have been trying to tell this House how amazing the scheme was, but they don’t have an answer to one of the key questions here: how are they going to pay for it? There’s a $300 million hole that has been created by that Government—$300 million hole created by that Government—of rebates being paid out over the top of taxes being collected, and they have no answers as to how they’re going to pay for it. That is just—

💬 Hon Tama Potaka: Show me the money.

Show us the money. They don’t know where the money is coming from, and it just shows the New Zealand public how much they don’t care when it comes to fiscal responsibility. That is why, on 14 October, New Zealanders voted for the National Party, the ACT Party, and the New Zealand First Party to get this country back on track, to fix the fiscal situation facing New Zealand. And this is only one of many fiscal holes left behind by the last Government.

So, as I outlined in my first speech on the first reading of this piece of legislation, the amount paid out in rebates has been $579 million, $13.5 million to administer the scheme, while only $290 million has been received from charges, leaving a hole of $302.5 million for taxpayers—hard-working taxpayers—to foot the bill.

I ask the members opposite when they make their next speeches: what would their plan be if they were to keep this? Would they be increasing the taxes even further on utes? Is that the option they’d be taking? Is that the option they’d be picking?

💬 Scott Willis: Yes.

Would they say, “Oh no, we’re going to”—the Greens say yes. The Greens are very keen on more taxes on utes. They want to tax our farmers and tradies. They hate the farmers. The Greenies hate the farmers. They want our farmers gone. That is exactly what the Green Party wants. They hate our farmers here in New Zealand. They hate the productive part of our economy, which is absolutely appalling. On this side of the House, we back our farmers in New Zealand. That’s why we’re passing a range of policies to help support our farmers here in New Zealand.

So what they’d do—well, the Greens, they’d increase the ute tax. They think, what, $10,000, $20,000 for a ute tax? They’d probably go higher. The Labour Party—would they reduce the electric vehicle subsidy, which would make the scheme more ineffective, or would they just say, “We’ll put more taxpayer funding into it”? Well, I’m sorry to tell the Labour Party, but they have left the Government books in an absolute mess. But their answer would be to borrow more money—borrow more money from future generations to subsidise people who can already afford to buy these cars and who will continue to buy these cars and who don’t need a subsidy. That would be the choice that the Labour Party would be facing.

On this side of the House, we see this as a fiscally irresponsible scheme. It is inequitable for our farmers, our tradies, people with larger families needing to buy larger cars to be able to transport their children to and from school and do the things that they need to do. We actually think this scheme needs to go, and that is what this piece of legislation does.

But we’re also confident that there will continue to be an increased uptake of electric vehicles in New Zealand, and that is because car manufacturers around the world are switching from internal combustion engine vehicles to electric vehicles and hybrids and other low-emission technology. Battery technology is continuing to advance rapidly and at pace, and those are the types of vehicles which will be imported to New Zealand, and the choices will be made available to New Zealanders. We are confident that that uptake will continue, and we will support that uptake by continuing to invest in the electric vehicle charging network, which New Zealanders need to have the confidence to be able to buy these vehicles, to be able to get past the range anxiety, which is one of the biggest inhibitors for people actually purchasing an electric vehicle. And we’re going to supercharge that investment by supporting the private sector through deregulation where there is regulation with barriers which get in the way, by providing support to ensure that we can actually get that supercharging going.

That is what the role of Government is to do: invest in the infrastructure that we need rather than just in subsidies and cash being paid out—

💬 Grant McCallum: Ideology.

—which is the ideological approach—the failed ideological approach—of the former Government on the other side of the House.

So this bill gives effect to what was committed to by the National Party, ACT Party, and New Zealand First Party in our coalition agreements. I acknowledge all of the coalition partners in their support and I thank them for their support so far in the passage through this House and their continued support as we progress this legislation through the House, and I commend it to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed.

Kia orana, Mr Speaker. Well, that was a concession speech if ever I heard one—that was a concession speech if ever I heard one. In my first contribution on this bill I talked about the leadership aspirations of the Minister of Transport. They are well and truly down the road, gone, because that was just a pathetic attempt from the Hon Simeon Brown to justify this Government’s attempt to move in this particular direction.

We had heard that this is about going back to the future. It is back to the future. This is a Government, whether it be a three-headed monster or something else, that loves to use the word “back”—backwards-focused; back whatever. This is something that clearly is back to the future.

Again, let’s also remind ourselves that it comes at a time when the House again is sitting in urgency to progress legislation that this new Government thinks—

💬 Grant McCallum: Important legislation.

Point of order. Mr Speaker, I note that Mr McCallum was objecting whilst he was on his feet. I appreciate that the member may not have been here for some time, but it’s a well-established convention that members need to be in place.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): I didn’t see that. If that is the case, you’ll stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 Grant McCallum: I stand, withdraw, and apologise.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): And just a reminder, Mr Utikere is dead right. You cannot improve your position to improve your voice contribution, and you certainly cannot walk around like you’re in a pub on a Friday night yelling. So, thank you. Mr Utikere, you can—did you stop the clock for that?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The House is in urgency to progress legislation that this new Government clearly thinks is a priority because it sits within their 100-day plan. But it’s very clear that this piece of legislation is a roll-back on climate. It is an absolute roll-back on climate.

Now, the House is under urgency. That’s one thing. But the other is that this bill has not had the normal process of going through a select committee, and the Minister of Transport should hang his head in shame that members of the community, the hard-working folk around this country, organisations and other groups within and outside of the sector, have not had an opportunity to submit on this particular bill. The select committee process is often set aside for things that are extremely rare, and, actually, I will point out that there is not even a truncated select committee process. Members will know that, in terms of the history of the House, there have been opportunities to have—even if it’s a one-day select committee process, it still provides the opportunity for organisations and individuals, even if it was selected individuals or organisations that would be asked to submit. So the Minister of Transport has clearly indicated that he is not interested in listening to the hard-working folk of this country; he is not interested in listening to the various organisations that exist within the sector; that he knows best. And I think Kiwis around the country will judge for themselves whether they think the Minister of Transport, who is new in the role, is on to a good thing. If that is how he intends to go about engaging with communities of interest in his portfolio, it is an absolute shambles and a shame that that is the approach that he has chosen to take.

It’s also interesting that this clearly is a Government that is very prepared to simply pull up the ladder from under them after households, like the Prime Minister’s household, have benefited from this very scheme that has been put in place. I also think that many would think about whether or not it is appropriate for that to be the case; perhaps there are some members who have a conflict of interest in relation to this within the Government. You know, it’s a sad day when this House has to set aside other time to spend focusing on removing the very rebate that the Prime Minister’s household himself has benefited from.

We hear from members opposite that it’s about, actually, not benefiting the rich. It’s not about that at all; it’s about making sure that it’s a fair process. So members opposite I think will be interested to see that when we move into committee stage, it’s the intention of this side of the House to put forward some amendments that might provide an opportunity for members to reflect on, indeed.

Since we haven’t had an opportunity to have this bill go to select committee, I think it’s important that the House, whether it’s in committee or not, is aware of some of the concerns and some of the feedback that certainly I have been made aware of since this announcement was made to progress this piece of legislation. I’m sure that other members will do the same. You know, we’ve heard from a number already, including my colleague the Hon Damien O’Connor, who simply said that this has been, when we reflect on this particular scheme, a very good investment in reducing our emissions. And it’s very clear that the Government doesn’t have alternative plans. I look forward, actually, to putting questions to the Minister around exactly that: what are the alternative plans that they seek to put in place to, effectively, meet the needs of climate change to reduce our emissions as we are required to do in terms of our global responsibilities? I think that is something, not just as a global citizen, that many people around Aotearoa New Zealand would expect that the Government turns its mind to. So I look forward to hearing from the Minister around that.

It’s also very clear that this is a scheme that clearly has encouraged people to reflect, I guess, on their personal responsibility, but also those in corporate sectors to think about what change they can take, what change they can make, and this is clearly a scheme for many that has been a positive opportunity.

Yesterday, alongside others, I’m sure, I received some information from a number of organisations. One I just want to start with, and that’s from Drive Electric, which is a not-for-profit organisation—I’m sure this was circulated to other members as well. But they start out by indicating that there is a compelling case for electric vehicle (EV) incentives, and just at the very start of what they’d sent through, “New research shows that the new Government’s policy to remove the Clean Car Discount and weaken the Clean Car Standard could mean between 100,000 and 350,000 fewer electric cars on New Zealand roads by 2030”—fewer cars by 2030—“and increasing emissions by between 900 and 3,000 kilotonnes.” But, also, that it will “also increase costs to the economy by between $900 million and $3.5 billion”—that’s right; between $900 million and $3.5 billion, mainly due to an increase in importing fossil fuels. So this is a Government that is wanting to pursue this with that particular screenshot as the background to it, that particular cost to our economy, that particular cost to the globe as well.

They also, in terms of a further document that they sent through, which relates to some work by Concept Consulting, indicate that if policies and initiatives such as this are actually removed, then there is absolutely an expectation that the EV percentage of the sales mix to fall to similar levels to actually prior to the incentive coming in, prior to this scheme coming into place. That’s really quite an indictment on the Minister of Transport wanting to lead this piece of work for communities and for NGOs, for businesses, for individuals, for families as well, because we don’t have the select committee process. I’ve had a number of constituents from my own constituency of Palmerston North, but also around the country, who have indicated that, actually, this does make the difference for them in making the choice between whether they are actually able to transition to a lower-emission household or not. For many families, this is a big thing in terms of encouragement to making that decision easier.

One of my constituents said for them, they’re going to have to save up a little bit longer. That means that the closer they are to a lower emissions future for them, their household, and their family is just one step further away as a result of this Government wanting to take limited to no action on climate change. And let’s also be very clear that this is happening at a time where the globe is just coming off the end of COP28, where the focus is on the need to take responsibility. What sort of sad particular view does that send from our country where our Government is saying that an incentive that encourages people to take the choice for them and their whānau, which is an easier choice, is actually no longer going to be an option? It is no longer going to be an option.

So, on this side of the House, we will be focused over the coming hours on, yes, scrutinising this bill. Our fundamental view is that this is a bad piece of legislation, but, none the less, we will be putting questions to the Minister because he is accountable to this House in terms of explaining why it is that he has brought this dire piece of legislation at this time, in urgency, without any reference to a select committee process, without any opportunity for our wider community to submit and for their views to be heard. So it will be dependent on members of this House to reflect and share with others the views that have been articulated to them, because there is no other option for the community to participate in this process.

They say, “People voted”. Well, should we talk about smoke-free legislation? You know, where do you stand on that? Oh, they’re all silent now, aren’t they? All silent waiting for the smoko break, probably. Well, I tell you this: it’s one thing to say that we went to an election and they told us this; well, there are many things that this Government went to the election on and they have failed to deliver, because they are a Government that has not been able to deliver. They took their time trying to actually form one and now they’re in a sad state of affairs—many of us will continue to hold this Government to account. We oppose this bill.

I reiterate that we are all in this together. We have to tackle the climate crisis together, and that requires us to look at the system. It’s very easy in politics to frame everything in an individual way and talk about individuals, but we have to look at the system and how we can tweak the system to get better outcomes for all New Zealanders in a way that is fair.

That’s why I would ask members in the Government benches to listen carefully to my speech. Because I’m going to lay out the rationale for the Clean Car Discount and the evidence that it actually was reducing emissions in a fair way; that it is popular and supported by New Zealanders despite the misinformation attack ads perpetuated by the National Party and the ACT Party over two years, mischaracterising the policy so that New Zealanders didn’t get the full opportunity to understand just how beneficial this policy was to our country.

But no matter what, despite the repeal today, we’ve saved 2 megatonnes of carbon, we’ve saved 70 million litres of petrol a year, there is $100 million a year that New Zealand is spending less on imported oil, and it would have been more if they’d carried on the policy. So this is a policy that not only reduces emissions, it saves New Zealand money as a country, it reduces our reliance on imported fossil fuel, and it did something that was considered impossible before it was brought in: our average carbon emissions per kilometre of the new vehicles coming into our fleet—this is not the existing fleet. We have a massive existing fleet of over 4 million vehicles that was not affected by this policy; over 400,000 to 500,000 utes, probably, that were not affected by the policy. But the new vehicles coming into New Zealand emitted 186 grams per kilometre on average before this policy, and within two years the average was down to 121 grams per kilometre. That’s on par with European countries that had been far more advanced than we were at having fuel economy standards, at having price incentives like the Clean Car Discount, and that was a 35 percent reduction. So not only did we reduce carbon emissions and pollution but we reduced the amount of money we were paying to power our vehicles, collectively, as a country. That’s a direct productivity and economic benefit to “New Zealand Inc”.

So that’s why it’s a really good policy. The numbers don’t lie, and I know that this graph isn’t as big as I would like, but what you can see is the impact of the policy; that we’re importing fewer fossil fuel vehicles than we were importing low-emissions vehicles—not just electric, but low-emission. So one of the problems that New Zealand was facing—and this is a problem for business and for households in New Zealand—was that we had no fuel economy standards. We’re one of only three countries in the OECD to not have fuel economy standards—along with Australia and Russia—and we had no price incentive at the point of purchase. So the vehicle industry was not prioritising low-emissions vehicles to our market, so New Zealanders didn’t even have the choice. There was, for example, more fuel-efficient utes on the market in the UK that were not available in New Zealand before this policy.

So this isn’t just about influencing the choice that New Zealanders make when they go to purchase a vehicle—and by the way, over 50 percent of all brand new vehicles purchased in New Zealand are purchased by businesses, not by households. The vast majority of households, and I would tell you: there is not a single low-income household in New Zealand buying a brand new vehicle in New Zealand. So the entire market for new to New Zealand vehicles is wealthier than average as individual households or as businesses.

So what the price incentive did is it let the vehicle manufacturers and vendors prioritise low-emissions vehicles to our market, and I have an anecdote about this. So my friends, in 2021, wanted to buy an EV. They were talking to Hyundai. They said, “We want the new Ioniq.” and they were told they were going to have to wait at least six months to get one. The day after the Clean Car Discount was announced, they said, “We can have it within four weeks.” So this policy, the Clean Car Discount, changed the market of vehicles that were available to New Zealanders.

The highest-emitting vehicles are the most profitable for the vehicle manufacturers—that’s why they like to prioritise high-emitting vehicles and that’s why they spend most of their money advertising SUVs and utes as lifestyle vehicles, not work vehicles. They advertise them as lifestyle vehicles and they try to sell as many as possible because they make more profit off that. But that’s why you need fuel economy standards and you need the price incentive at the point of purchase.

So this number doesn’t lie, OK? This number doesn’t lie. If the new National-ACT Government actually has any way of achieving the carbon budgets that they’ve signed up to, they are now going to have to rely on increasing the price of fuel. Now, that affects not just the vehicles coming into New Zealand—it really doesn’t affect the vehicles coming into New Zealand—but it affects every single person using a fossil fuel - powered vehicle in the country. So now you’re saying, “Oh, we need to reduce emissions, we have to put up the carbon price in the ETS.” People have no choice but to pay more or drive less. So that’s why trying to do it through the ETS isn’t a good idea: because now the farmers are going to have to pay more for fuel because we haven’t imported more zero-emissions vehicles to reduce emissions.

So I know maths is hard for the National Party—that is obvious—but the maths says that you are going to make it easier for farmers and easier for those tradies who need to drive utes to do their job and not be affected by the high price of fuel if you have a policy like the Clean Car Discount, which results in more zero- and low-emissions vehicles being brought into the country. That is the truth, and the policy is fair. We have polling that shows, despite the misinformation attack ads that have been out there waging a culture war instead of trying to constructively solve a problem that affects everyone, that will affect our farmers probably more than anyone else—the climate crisis is going to affect our farmers. It has already affected our farmers. It has already affected our rural areas: billions of dollars in damage because of storms that are directly caused by human-caused climate change, and those are going to keep flowing in. The world is looking to us, New Zealand, just like every other country to pull our weight and do our bit, and we are capable of doing that.

When I presented this policy to the imported vehicle association, the VIA, I talked to them about how my grandfather went to World War II—and I’m sure many of your family members did as well, and they made a huge sacrifice to do the right thing. When it comes to the climate crisis—something that is affecting the whole world—we will all have to make changes. The question is: are we willing to do our bit? And from the National and ACT parties, the New Zealand First Party, the answer is, “No, we’re not going to do our bit. We’re going to wage a culture war rather than constructively looking at practical solutions that will actually achieve the outcomes we want, that will improve productivity, that will reduce cost.”

The reality is they’re either not going to make any attempt whatsoever to meet our carbon budgets, and therefore we’re not going to play our part on the world stage and we’re going to be penalised in our free-trade agreements where we’ve committed to those targets; or they’re going to have to put up the carbon price so much that everyday New Zealanders, when they go out to try and drive around because they don’t have more fuel-efficient vehicles because we’ve imported hundreds of thousands fewer electric vehicles as a result of repealing this bill—

💬 Simon Court: I haven’t had enough coffee to understand this.

—they’re going to have to pay more to drive around the country. Because you’re relying only on the ETS.

Simon Court very accurately says he can’t understand, and I can see members opposite are having a difficult time following me because it is a little bit complex. But that’s why it’s so important for New Zealanders. It’s our responsibility—it’s the responsibility of Government—to do the work, to look at the practical solutions, to look at the system and say, “What is going to reduce the average emissions coming from new vehicles imported to New Zealand?” The answer is a combination of fuel economy standards and a price incentive at the point of purchase—exactly what this Clean Car Discount was. The Clean Car Discount was a huge success, and this Government will never take that away from the Greens or from New Zealand: that we saved 2 megatonnes of carbon through this policy; that we kicked off a massive increase in the market for zero-emissions vehicles, for electric vehicles.

But the truth is that they are going to slow down progress now. They’re going to slow down progress, and that means it’s going to be more expensive later, it’s going to be harder for New Zealanders to access second-hand electric vehicles, because without the price incentive, we’re going to import fewer electric vehicles, which means there’s less vehicles in the second-hand fleet for New Zealanders to access.

It will be worse for farmers because they’re going to have to spend more money on their utes when the carbon price goes up, and they’re going to be hit again and again by storms and our fair-trade—sorry, free-trade agreements; I wish we had fair-trade agreements. In our free-trade agreement with the EU, we’re going to be penalised. Our farmers are going to be penalised because we’re going to be seen to be pariahs on the world stage, and not doing our bit when we could have done something that was good for the economy, that was good for the climate, and that was fair. That is the reality of this National - ACT - New Zealand First dinosaur Government taking us back into the dark ages with their culture wars.

I would like to invite that member, Julie Anne Genter, to nominate what kind of dinosaur she thinks I am. Some days I come to work, I fancy myself as a pterodactyl, soaring high above the forests of ancient New Zealand. But today, I feel like a T. rex, smashing and stomping—

💬 Hon Julie Anne Genter: Dinosaurs are real and right there.

—stupid policy passed by the previous Government—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Ms Genter—Ms Genter. Just—hold on, stop the clock. Return to your seat, stand, withdraw, and apologise.

💬 Hon Julie Anne Genter: I withdraw and apologise, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): No. Sit down—

💬 Hon Julie Anne Genter: I’m leaving.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Then stand up. Now, withdraw.

💬 Hon Julie Anne Genter: I withdraw and apologise, Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Thank you. Please do not yell as you’re leaving the Chamber.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, that’s what happens when you mess with the T. rex or the Speaker.

Now, to those New Zealanders listening to Parliament or watching on Parliament TV today, we are proud, in the ACT Party, as part of the coalition Government, that the National-ACT coalition agreement commitment to repeal the ute tax will happen before Christmas. It is on the 100-day plan; we’re going to get it done. We’re just a few weeks into Parliament and we’re already making a significant difference in New Zealanders’ lives.

Now, what we’ve heard from the Opposition—that previous group of political parties that passed the ute tax bill—is that this bill will lead to some kind of climate catastrophe, that our emissions will go through the roof, and that only with this policy would New Zealand’s transport emissions be reduced. Well, it ignores one basic fact. The previous speaker, Julie Anne Genter, could not explain why this policy was necessary; she gave an overly complicated description of why it was necessary and how it would work. There’s a much simpler solution: the emissions trading scheme. Every single vehicle that fills up with petrol or diesel in New Zealand pays for their emissions under the emissions trading scheme—somewhere between $9 or $10, maybe $12, for a 50-litre tank of petrol or diesel. That is an incentive to reduce fuel and move to a more efficient vehicle. Now, that is the most simple solution available to New Zealand consumers and businesses.

This policy, the clean vehicle discount, or ute tax, was completely unnecessary. It ignored the trade-offs that were obvious to the ACT Party when we were in Opposition proposing that this bill wasn’t necessary. The trade-offs? A $300 million deficit, now, between the revenue collected under the scheme and what was paid out to people to subsidise them to buy electric vehicles. That $300 million deficit is a terrible trade-off. We have all kinds of infrastructure in New Zealand desperate for investment, and yet the previous Government chose instead to invest taxpayer money into supplying electric vehicles to New Zealand’s wealthiest people, as the former speaker, Julie Anne Genter, pointed out.

We’re pleased that this bill will repeal the ute tax, and we look forward to stopping the transfer of wealth from consumers and taxpayers to others who don’t need it, and restoring sensible, practical, public policy.

Mr Speaker, thank you. New Zealand First continues to support the repeal of the clean vehicle discount scheme. May I just endorse the fine speech that we’ve heard from Mr Court—one of the more brave speeches I’ve heard. Starting out with an anecdote about being a dinosaur, he did well to pull that one round.

The last point that he made, and that’s been introduced to me since the first reading, is the $302 million fiscal hole that this scheme was running into. This is a time when we’ve got a $3.4 billion Budget deficit and a huge infrastructure crisis, but yet the Labour Government chose to subsidise Teslas—absolutely unbelievable.

Where I would take issue with Julie Anne Genter is she talked about how we need tweaking solutions—well, this is kind of what that was. We actually don’t; we need step changes in decarbonising. This is why the electrify New Zealand programme—that big picture stuff to massively scale-up our generation of renewable energy, wind, solar, geothermal, and hydro. If you’d listened to Minister Jones yesterday or the day before, you would have heard about the new fast-track planning legislation which is going to make this stuff happen. We’ve lost all ability to build things in this country, and this Government is going to turn that around. We are going to build stuff, and this piece of legislation will do far more than taxing tradies and farmers who might want a ute, or low-income families that may want a people mover. I cannot believe how out of touch the Labour Party is with their core working-class base.

In fact, I will give an exception, Mr Speaker, to your good self. I had the pleasure of accompanying you, recently, to your electorate and going to the Johnsonville working men’s club, where you were well received by your—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): We don’t bring the Speaker into these debates, do we, Mr Patterson, as an experienced member?

Apologies, Mr Speaker. I accompanied the member from Ōhāriu into his electorate, where he was well received. In the car park, I did not see Teslas; I saw utes. We did talk to tradies. The president of the club is a painter and decorator. Those are the people that you are punishing. It’s no wonder that that the member from Ōhāriu was one of the few Labour MPs to retain an electorate seat.

We have committed to putting some certainty around the emissions trading scheme, which the Labour Government tinkered with to the point of absolutely trashing it—against James Shaw’s recommendations. And we have sent clear signals to the market.

We’re doing other things, too, in the macro. Low-methane genetics and blue carbon have the ability to solve a lot of our problems. We’re doing this sensibly, not with nanny State micro-managing solutions that disadvantage some members of our public over others. So New Zealand First continue to support the introduction of this bill. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

💬 Darleen Tana: Mr Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Certainly. Now, I’m going to have to consult my list here, unless you offer me your name—it might be easier.

💬 Darleen Tana: I’m Darleen Tana for the Green Party.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Darleen Tama.

💬 Darleen Tana: Tana—as in ton of awesome. Kia ora.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O’Connor): Go ahead.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the Whare for this chance to take this call. I stand in opposition to the repeal of the Clean Car Discount scheme, and I stand on the basic tenets of—well, firstly, actually, New Zealanders want to engage in their personal responsibility to significantly reduce their carbon emissions, and, frankly, if it ain’t broke, then don’t fix it.

Having a look at the submissions that came in on the original legislation, one thing stood out for me. It was recognition amongst the submissions that countries and car manufacturers around the world are all doing their thing, and we need to protect ourselves from being a dumping ground from receiving the dirtiest cars or the dirtiest vehicles. I am a business person too. I like things to be efficient. I like a good business case, all right? When I had a look at this, what I saw was that—in terms of efficiency and performance—when we have the combination of the Clean Car Discount and the Clean Car Standard and applied them at the level of the supply into the country, because we gave the market the very clear dual signalling, we saw the vehicle importers encouraged to bring a greater choice of electric vehicles into the New Zealand market. We saw them coming in faster, just as the Hon Julie Anne Genter referred to earlier. So for me, that’s a win for the people in exercising their personal responsibility, and with two megatonnes of carbon dioxide saving, it’s a win for the planet as well.

When I come to the matter of costs, I’ve heard the kōrero from that side of the House that a loss or a fiscal hole of $300 million is there, and this is the reason why they are pulling the plug. The clean car rebates and fee scheme was designed to be reviewed and adjusted regularly, so that the fees could generate enough revenue to cover such costs. What I’ve also observed is that there was actually an implementation delay in the period between when rebates were granted and when the fees were applied. That’s an implementation issue. The scheme is not broke. It just requires that that side of the House read the user manual and use it as per design. Fiscal neutrality was designed over a 10-year period, and here we are, not even 18 months before they are withdrawing early.

I just want to also offer a perspective. In France, they introduced rebate 20 years ago. It was costing around €2,000-3,000, and that’s evolved to €30,000 between 2008 and 2025, so over a 20-year period. The largest fee here in New Zealand is $6,900 on the most polluting vehicles in New Zealand, which, let us be clear, only the rich fullas can really understand at a retail of around $50-60,000.

Frankly, if the Government is truly concerned about the workers in this country, then maybe, just maybe, you might want to consider actually implementing higher corporate taxes, or introducing a capital gains tax. Now I hear that the Government is wanting to put everything back into the emissions trading scheme. But come on. Members on that side of the House: truly, we know this will not do anything or send any signals to the market. What it will do, though, is impose further costs on to the oil suppliers who will pass that on to the average people.

We’ve heard about blunt mechanisms a lot in the last couple of days, but jeez, this takes the cake. We are in a climate crisis. Two megatonnes of carbon dioxide is nothing to smirk at. We need fuel economy standards and pricing incentives at the supply end to move us forward. Tēnā tātou.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise again to support this great change today from our transport Minister. January 1st is going to be a great day for those of us who need to buy utes to run our businesses. It’s a day we can finally go into the local dealer and purchase a ute that we need so we can help drive New Zealand’s productivity and, therefore, get on with life without the restrictions of the previous legislation.

I’ve noticed with interest the amount of attacks that have been sent on the farming sector about our commitment to emissions reduction. Well, I’ll just point a couple of things out that a few people on the other side of the House might not be aware of, one of which is that Fonterra recently announced that we’re going to have a 30 percent reduction in our carbon intensity on-farm emissions by 2030. That is our goal. And Nestlé, one of our biggest customers, are very happy with that. We understand our obligations. We’re doing our bit. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Well, this certainly is an interesting debate and I’m very much looking forward to the committee stage where we get to ask the Minister some very detailed questions, because there are a lot of questions that we have on this side of the House. But what we do know is that this is yet another piece of legislation that this Government is putting up which is about dragging New Zealand backwards.

Now, I’ve heard speakers in this debate ask why we need this. Well, I think it shows something when members on the Government benches are asking why we need it. So let’s go back to the very basics. New Zealand has signed up to something called a nationally determined contribution (NDC) in terms of our climate change targets. This is something that was agreed by the John Key Government. In order to reach that NDC, when we came into Government, we needed to put together a plan because there was no plan of how to reach our nationally determined contribution. What that resulted in was multi-partisan agreement on an approach to climate change, which was that we would have carbon budgets and that we would have emission reduction plans sector by sector that would show what work that sector had to do to reach New Zealand’s targets.

Now, transport has some work to do. Transport is responsible for a large number of emissions and, therefore, there are a number of emissions reductions that are needed. Light vehicles are a critical part of the contributions to our vehicle emissions. In order to do that, people either need to stop travelling in cars and mode shift or they need to switch the kind of cars they are driving and that is to electric cars. In order to do that and to get the kind of uptake that is required—and let’s be very clear, because, Madam Speaker, this is a debate about specifics and I am yet to hear a member on the Government benches venture into the realm of specifics and tell us what they are going to do to substitute in the emissions reduction plan (ERP). There is a legislative requirement to do that, Madam Speaker.

The ERP sets out the target to reduce transport emissions by 41 percent from 2019 levels by 2035. And the ERP also sets a further target to increase zero-emission vehicles to 30 percent of the light fleet by 2035. Now, if there is not to be a Clean Car Discount, how are we going to achieve that? We have heard from Government members that the emissions trading scheme (ETS) will do that. I am looking forward to contributions that tell us at what price does the ETS have to be to drive the behavioural change that will cause the switch. Because every piece of research that has been produced has said that it currently is not enough. So I want to know from members opposite: what will the ETS price be that will be required to drive that behavioural change?

It hasn’t happened in any other jurisdiction. We have our independent Climate Change Commission, and the report released just this week tells us that there needs to be supplementary measures to the ETS in order to drive the behavioural change. They’re very clear on that. So that is something that I am looking forward to us getting into the nitty-gritty and the detail. I’m sure the Minister will come armed with the details, because, of course, this is a Minister that thinks he doesn’t have to release the regulatory impact statement (RIS) before the legislation is passed. He’s told New Zealanders they can request it under the Official Information Act and read it after the legislation is passed. So I’m sure he’s got the details, because a Minister that is that confident must be all over every detail of the policy, and we’ll see that when it comes to committee stage.

Then the other argument we’ve had is, “We’ll let the ETS do it.” So I’m looking forward to knowing the modelled pricing of the ETS that will be required for that. He’s telling us, “We’ll build it and they will come.”, that there will be a charging infrastructure, and this is part of the National Party commitments. There’s only one thing: this is a throuple, and in the coalition agreement with the ACT Party—and I read—they poured some cold water on it. They haven’t said they can just get on with the roll-out of the 10,000 public electric vehicle (EV) chargers by 2030 that the National Party promised in their manifesto commitment. They’re saying: show us the business case—show us the business case. So I look forward to the Minister telling us, when he’s in the chair, what the time line is, how many there’ll be, are they AC chargers, are they DC chargers, where will they be—all this kind of detail. Because if this is the kind of policy we are relying on to get the kinds of upticks that I have talked about in my speech, we’re going to need to see some detail.

Then we have heard the crocodile tears of the Government benches over the equity considerations of this policy. The problem is those members need to go and look at some detail. And again, I point those members to the very fine document released by the independent Climate Change Commission this week on advice on their second emissions budget that reports on the equity provisions of this policy. Because that was something that we thought about as a Government when we implemented it, and is the very reason that we made the Clean Car Discount apply to New Zealand new second-hand vehicles. I know, and I do represent an electorate—I represent an electorate of people who would never dream usually of buying a brand new car. They buy their cars second-hand, and it is the very reason that we included New Zealand new second-hand electric vehicles within this.

Let’s put some facts into this debate, and I’m going to read you what the Climate Change Commission says around the equity provisions of this. It says, “The second emissions budget presents opportunities for the Government to ensure more equitable access to EVs. Second-hand vehicles have been a major portion of imported vehicles, accounting for approximately 40 percent of light vehicles registered. For many, these vehicles are more affordable than new vehicles and have provided a critical means of transport. During the second emissions budget, supply of second-hand EVs may be constrained” and goes on to say that more work needs to be done.

I take you also to the work that was done on the previous policy, when we looked about for what we were going to do to amend the policy. It said: “While there is evidence that wealthier New Zealanders are more likely to adopt EVs—and by implication benefit from the Clean Car Discount—purchase data suggests that ‘average New Zealanders’ are likely to have benefited most. To date, markedly more buyers of used-imports received rebates (56.2 percent) than buyers of new vehicles (38.5 percent). At the same time, fewer buyers of used-imports paid charges (14.7 percent) than buyers of new vehicles (39.7 percent).” Unfortunately for the members on the Government benches, their claims to finally be standing up for working New Zealanders, despite cutting employment as a Reserve Bank consideration and removing fair pay agreements yesterday, fall on deaf ears when you look at the evidence, when you see how the discount has been applied, who’s been benefiting from it, and who has been paying it.

So I think it is time, given that we’ve got a Government that is so confident in itself that it’s passing this under urgency—no select committee process and a Minister who has the RIS locked in the safe in his office rather than releasing it to the people of New Zealand—that we get down to some details on this, because details matter. And I look forward to the Government being able to answer the plethora of questions that we will put to them in the committee stage, because listening to this debate has only led me to write down more and more questions. We have a Government that is taking New Zealand backwards; it is done for no other reason than “You guys did it, therefore, we want to reverse it.”

Look around the world—to those on the Government benches—and you will see conservative Governments around the world have implemented similar schemes. This is not something that should be about the political divide. This should be about how we as a nation meet our commitments and our targets to reduce our climate emissions. I want to see what the Government is going to do to meet that. They are scrapping—and make no mistake about it—one of the most successful schemes we have had to reduce our domestic emissions and they are signing New Zealand up to pay other countries to decarbonise rather than backing New Zealanders.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Just following on from that contribution from the member Megan Woods about stating some facts, I point her to the departmental disclosure statement, which says, “The scheme has challenges that are likely to intensify the longer the scheme is in place. The main challenges of the scheme are as follows: it is difficult to make financially sustainable and self-financing: it poses ongoing equity and fairness concerns: it will become less effective over time as electric vehicle prices fall, battery technology improves, and model variety increases: it requires constant changes to its rebates and charges that impose significant costs to vehicle suppliers and consumers.”

I say to hard-working farmers, tradies, and all-round good New Zealanders who need their utes for everyday life that common sense has returned to the Government benches and help is on its way. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This is my first opportunity to speak in this 54th Parliament. I’m obviously disappointed that it is on such a regressive piece of legislation, but I am delighted to congratulate you on becoming a presiding officer.

Now, we just heard the last speaker referring to the departmental disclosure statement, and I would note there it does say under “Regulatory impact statement”, Cabinet has decided “to suspend the requirement for regulatory impact statements for decisions relating to 100-Day-Plan proposals (taken within the 100 days) [which] solely involve the repeal of legislation.”

We know, in fact, that the departments involved in this legislation had already prepared a draft regulatory impact statement (RIS), yet we have not seen it, despite its existence. The Minister made a cynical interjection before and made cynical statements to the media that “Oh, well, the Opposition can OIA it.” Of course, the Opposition can OIA it, but the point is, and the point of why that comment is cynical, is that we are doing, in urgency, all stages of the bill. All stages. That is very different from urgency of one stage, sending a piece of legislation to select committee so that people can, even in a shortened time, make submissions on it. This is all stages. Soon we will be in the committee stage of the bill. All here on a Thursday morning when of course the date says the 12 December.

💬 James Meager: Do RMA reforms ring a bell?

I’m hearing about Resource Management Act (RMA) reform. Well, that’s interesting. That is an interesting interjection, because the RMA reform had a very full submission process. In fact, when submissions were open over Christmas, there was much debate from the Opposition about how it was so unfair to have a six-week submission process that was over the Christmas break. So, of course, that was extended time and time again to enable a very good process for some very fine legislation.

💬 Arena Williams: So it wasn’t even truncated. It wasn’t even a truncated process.

It was not truncated. There were periods during that large process that were in urgency, but they were stage by stage. That is totally different from this bill, which is every single stage all at once. Of course, there are arguments for doing all stages of a bill at once, if perhaps there has been a natural disaster. But even then, it is not good practice, and we should always do things like having a short submission process at the very least—none of which we have here.

But, of course, the irony is—and we had the last speaker, Tom Rutherford, read out that statement from the departmental disclosure statement—we don’t even need to be here debating this legislation, because the legislation sets up regulations, and all that I’ve heard from the other side saying so far about, “Oh, this scheme, it needs reviews. It’s not working perfectly.”, that can all be done through the regulations. We will be asking the Minister questions about this in the committee stage.

Going back to why that we had this piece of legislation in the first place—this very sensible Act—it is because, as the Hon Dr Megan Woods said before, we need to do things to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions. This is very specific to our carbon emissions, and you will see all through the Act and the repeal legislation that we are talking about the pollution, the pollution of the carbon dioxide from some cars, and how we cost that pollution to incentivise behaviour so that people have low-emitting vehicles. We want that, because we have signed up to international agreements. We have trade agreements.

If farmers are worried about the future of farming, they need to be worried about their carbon pollution and to reduce it as much as possible—and for the whole country to reduce our carbon pollution as much as possible. One of the ways of doing that—it is no means the only way—but one of the ways of doing that is to electrify our fleet and to have these electric vehicles (EVs). And we know that because of this scheme, we have many more EVs on the road than we would have had without this scheme. And that is progress, and it’s about to be taken away. Shame.

It’s a pleasure to rise in support of this bill. Electric vehicles are a great thing for New Zealand, they’re a great thing for our environment, and I’m proud to drive one, but I didn’t claim a discount on it. We don’t need that. There are plenty of incentives to make this shift. What we don’t need is this ideologically driven policy that we’ve been stuck with that is punishing everyday New Zealanders—that is punishing the taxpayer as they subsidise people that don’t need the help.

Members opposite have asked for some specifics. Well, let me give you some. The tradies in my electorate, in Ōtaki, the good people of Horowhenua and Kāpiti—they don’t have another option. They don’t have another option. They don’t need to be forking out taxpayer dollars to support Tesla owners. The farmers that need to drive up the western faces of the Tararua Ranges, they don’t have an electric option and they don’t need another ute tax, and neither do the growers that are providing 30 percent of our leafy greens for New Zealand.

I’ll tell you what’s happened to the cost of living crisis. You think it was bad enough before this came in—we can tackle that, and we need to make sensible changes. That’s why I’m commending this bill to the House.

Thank you. I was on the Transport and Infrastructure Committee when we heard the submissions on this bill and I remember the fear of many people about what would happen as a result. The manufacturers told us that they wouldn’t be able to get enough vehicles in. We were told that there wouldn’t be alternatives to the kinds of vehicles available. All of those things turned out to be rubbish. We’ve done good; this has been an extremely successful scheme and as a result there are less poisons flying around the electorate of Mt Albert, because there are real issues with the kinds of emissions.

It’s actually one of those schemes that is neutral as to who it affects because, actually, if you’ve got a really good petrol low-emissions vehicle it got the discount too. So there are all these vehicles that are going to be brought in that do harm versus vehicles that are actually not even electric but do good. Those will no longer be available to ordinary New Zealanders when they become second-hand vehicles. Now I just want to explain that for the public because they don’t necessarily know what the point of the scheme is or how it works, and maybe that needs to be something that the new backbenchers in the Government understand too. This is a scheme that’s not about the person who buys the vehicle in the first instance, because they’re wealthy. Like, let’s face it, if you can buy a ute that was new, you’re not your hard-struggling tradie or your hard-struggling farmer, because it’s a new vehicle, right? Actually, those people buy second-hand vehicles. So if you front-foot it with the new vehicles, what you get is the moving into the second-hand market. So about now we’ll start to see those vehicles turn up in the second-hand market and be available to people much cheaper because we’ve created a pipeline and that’s what Government does well, right? It creates a pipeline and encouragement. This had a carrot, this had a stick, this had all the things that would work, and it did.

I wonder if that’s why we haven’t seen the RIS. The RIS, by the way—for the normal public who don’t use words like “RIS”—is a regulatory impact statement. So it looks at what the effect of the legislation would be. And this is not a situation where you wouldn’t want to see one of those on repeal. It’s not a situation where there is nothing to be seen. In fact, there’s a lot to be seen; there’s the evidence from the last year. It would be really interesting to see what’s in that regulatory impact statement, because there’s been a year of something people said was not going to work, and guess what! It’s worked and it’s worked really well and we would be able to see that.

I actually think one of the best things about this bill is that we had a bill and an Act in Parliament which had regular review, which was nuanced, which allowed people to tweak it and change it as the climate changed to balance the amount that people were paying. It was a fantastic thing—it’s not a bad thing, that’s a good thing—and I think that one of the things that the new Government is finding hard to swallow is that this was something that worked. There is nothing inconsistent about this and putting chargers all around New Zealand—if that ever happens—because you can do both. You know, you can probably chew gum and walk at the same time, people, and you might need to learn to do it.

So it’s time to actually look at that RIS, isn’t it? It’s time, and I challenge the Government to give us that impact statement so we can have a look, because why are they so afraid that the public might see what the impact of this is?

💬 Arena Williams: What might be in it?

I wonder what might be in it? I wonder what’s in it. It’s an interesting thing for a new Government to suppress such information, isn’t it? Hot into Government and already suppressing information to the public—quite shocking really, and I’d be really interested in that if I was a journalist. I’d be interested because it shuts down the debate in this country, it shuts down information, and it allows myth-making.

Now, I really enjoyed the process of being involved in the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, and I enjoyed being part of the process of listening to the industry, listening to the farmers, listening to the New Zealand public on this. I really enjoyed it, but I also learnt some lessons: sometimes people do act out of fear, sometimes they act out of their own self-interest, and some people just don’t like to move with the times. Some people don’t like to change. So, yes, we heard that manufacturers would never be able to supply us with enough vehicles. Well, we have been able to get vehicles into this country; it was a much greater number than we expected that were bought in the time, and yet we don’t seem to have a problem with the pipeline of vehicles coming in. So we’re actually helping move car dealers and car manufacturers into a new greener economy.

We did really good here, people, and what a shame it is to see what’s going on now. I hope that those people who were in the Opposition at the time and were on that committee watched and listened and learnt and at least learnt to take some of those self-interested groups with a grain of salt, because they are very convincing when they tell you that they won’t be able to supply the vehicles, that it is too quick, that we should wait for the rest of the world and then do it later. All of those things are lessons that you need to learn, and I learnt during that process. I learnt what happens if you’re a bit steely, if you stick to your principles and you actually wait and see and let something play out. But you allow yourself, in the legislation, the capacity to change and to get nuanced, to actually fix any problems that come up, that you’re a bit humble about the way that you draft things, so you’ve got some flexibility in there.

I learnt a lot of good things which I intend to take into Government in the next election. I know now how to be a good Government as a result of being on committees like that. I know what works and what doesn’t and it’s such a shame to see a bunch of people listening to lobbyists who are self-interested and taking such a backward step for New Zealand, because what our young people want desperately is a future that involves less pollution, actually an addressing of climate change, actually some basic equity in this country. They want a grounded approach, and this is not grounded. This is way from grounded. This kind of reactionary policy and the suppression of the evidence—that’s the opposite of grounded. That is a Government that’s running on myth. That’s a Government that’s running on very, very old ideas of how things run.

We have this wonderful process in New Zealand in our Government that we should be guarding jealously. We have a process in Parliament where we have select committees where we don’t think we know everything when we come in here. We don’t think, “We’ve got it, just ignore everyone.” We listen to people, we take account of people’s views; it’s called the select committee process. We send something—we get a regulatory impact statement so we can see what our officials are telling us. We don’t necessarily take on board everything that they say—that’s our job, we get the ultimate judgment, but we listen first. We let those groups and those voices come through and that engages the New Zealand public. You know, I go into little primary schools and I talk to the kids in those primary schools about how great our system is in New Zealand, that we actually do have a say. And if they want to write a submission on the Clean Car Discount, and some seven-year-olds probably do, then they can. They can write one of those submissions, and we as a Parliament will listen to them and we’ll engage with them. And I have been so impressed with that process. But where is it today? Why is this so urgent? There are no roll-outs of other things at the moment. There is no actual positive response at the present time. That’s all in the wind. But we’re going to get rid of something that’s working without even looking at the evidence, without sharing the evidence with the public, without engaging with the public—without engaging with anyone, we’re going to get rid of it.

Tim van de Molen: We just engaged in an election.

We’re not engaging here, Mr van de Molen. This isn’t engaging; this is the start of an engagement. Usually this would be the very first thing we would do, and then we would send things off to a select committee and then we would look at the evidence and then we would respond. And in fact, in that way, we’d probably be able to work together, Mr van de Molen, instead of this approach, because that’s actually the best of us.

The member’s time has expired.

Debate interrupted.