Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Repeal) Amendment Bill

Members, when the committee suspended on the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Repeal) Amendment Bill, we were debating Part 2. Part 2 is the debate on clauses 18 to 26, “Amendments, repeals, and revocations concerning other enactments” and Schedules 3 and 4. The question, again, is that Part 2 stand part.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Thank you very much. I have been taking a call since the debate on Part 2 started, so I really appreciate the opportunity to take this call. I have some questions for the Minister. Clause 26 in Part 2 revokes all of the regulations of the Land Transport Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme charges, and those, I believe, are the regulations which put in place the charges related to the carbon emissions of the vehicle. So my question to the Minister is about the impact this will have on New Zealand’s carbon budget beyond the first budget, beyond 2025. What advice has he received on the impact out to 2030? Has he asked any questions about the fiscal risk or cost of not meeting our 2030 carbon budget and the potential penalties from the EU, given that our free-trade agreement (FTA) with the EU specifies that we will be taking action, and if we are not seen to be taking serious action to meet our 2030 commitments, there will be penalties under that FTA.

So I guess my question to the Minister is just really about the advice that he’s received about modelling of the impacts, beyond 2025, of repealing these regulations, what impacts that will have on the vehicles supplied into the New Zealand market to the average emissions of the vehicles in the fleet, and then whether or not he’s received any advice about a risk or fiscal cost related to increased emissions as a result of repealing this bill.

In addition to those questions, I haven’t had a chance to go up and check the Table to see if we did get an enlarged picture of the energy economy label.

💬 Hon Dr Megan Woods: It is there.

That’s great. I’ll have to go and look at that more closely so that I can read all of the wording on that energy economy label.

But I guess, firstly, I’d like to thank the Minister and the Government for retaining the energy efficiency labelling. That level of consumer information is extremely important so that people can easily assess the vehicle that they’re looking at buying, what it might cost to run, what the carbon emissions related to it might be. I think it is a useful label. But I’m wondering if the Minister has received any specific advice on what impact the label would have on consumer behaviour relative to a price incentive. Because we know from the Climate Commission report that was released the day before yesterday that the Climate Commission has provided evidence and a recommendation to the Government that there needs to be a specific step taken to deal with the upfront cost barriers of purchasing a lower- or zero-emissions vehicle. That’s exactly what the Clean Car Discount was designed to address. It was to reduce cost barriers to getting into low-emissions and zero-emissions vehicles for New Zealanders. So I’m just wondering if he has any advice on how the label will actually make it easier for people to purchase a vehicle compared to an actual discount in price, which would address the fundamental barrier that has been pointed out by the Climate Commission to the Government that we need to address the cost barriers.

So I’ll just summarise my questions one more time, because I realise I’ve said quite a few, and I want to make sure the Minister has an opportunity to answer them. Did he receive any advice about the risk or fiscal cost to New Zealand of not meeting our 2030 carbon reduction commitments as a result of repealing this legislation? And what impact would a labelling scheme have on consumer behaviour? But especially what impact would it have relative to a price incentive which actively reduces the cost of getting into a zero-emissions vehicle relative to a very high-emissions vehicle?

Thank you, Mr Chairman. Further to the very good question that the Hon Julie Anne Genter just posed—and I note that these were questions that went unanswered in Part 1 of the legislation. The House and the committee did not receive any information about what advice around emissions the Minister considered when making this decision. I think, given that we are not going through a select committee process and given that the House is not being released all the information that the Minister holds in the form of the regulatory impact statement, this committee of the whole House has a responsibility to understand the information that the Minister had there.

So in addition to the emissions information that the Minister did or did not receive—because, of course, this Part 2 is about the administration of what we’ve just done in Part 1 of the bill. So when we’re coming to this Part 2, that is still very pertinent, Mr Chairman. What I’d like to add to that is, of course—and it is linked to the emissions question—that the demonstration pathway, as outlined by the Climate Commission, has some very specific targets around what needs to be met in order to meet those emissions reductions. That is that from 2025 to 2030, we need to see our annual light electric vehicle (EV) registrations climb from 11 percent to 67 percent of the market, and reach 100 percent by 2035.

I think the Hon Julie Anne Genter put it very well around whether or not that label that is covered off in this part is going to be enough to form that switch. We’ve already heard from the Minister that he thinks the mechanism for inducing people to do the switch will be the emissions trading scheme (ETS). Of course, that requires the evidence that is in the public domain—that requires an ETS pricing of $235 a tonne, which will have around an 80c a litre, or more, impact on the price of petrol. So I think it’s useful to understand exactly where the Government’s coming from, of where they see the levers, and that is a price hike of 80c-odd a litre of petrol, rather than giving people the clean car rebate. So it’s good to get that out and flesh out that point.

My other point in the first part of the debate—and I just want to ensure that we’re going to have this labelling on our second-hand vehicles, and that that practice will continue. What I was able to get to share with the House was the evidence that’s there around the uptake on new to New Zealand used vehicles that have been such a big part of this scheme. So when we have the Opposition talking about this just being a middle-class subsidy for wealthy people to go and buy Teslas, that’s not always the case—clearly it sometimes is, but not always the case.

I do note that in the first part of the bill, my colleague Tangi Utikere put forward a motion to allow those people who feel so strongly that this is a bad scheme but none the less may have taken up the scheme themselves—we wanted to introduce a provision so that they could pay that money back directly to the Crown. But I do note that the Government didn’t want that.

In terms of the ability to—I just want the Minister to confirm that this information will continue to be on second-hand vehicles. That’s because that is such an important part of how it is we can ensure equity outcomes.

But also not only new to New Zealand used vehicles, what we will increasingly see—and one of the things that the Clean Car Discount has been really important for is actually creating a second-hand market of cars in New Zealand so that we will feed through that all of those brand new EVs eventually become second-hand cars. So will we continue within that not only new to New Zealand but the EVs that have been previously purchased as new cars, but then as they enter the second-hand market, will they continue to have that labelling so people can make those decisions around that, and we can ensure that we are fuelling that second-hand market?

Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you to the members for their questions. As I’ve answered numerous times—and I’m not sure if it’s actually relevant to Part 2 in relation to the question of the carbon impact, but I’ll answer it anyway—as I’ve said, advice I’ve received shows that this does not impact on our ability to meet the carbon budget for the 2025 period, and that is something I’ve answered. Again, it’s not actually relevant.

The part we’re dealing with here is, effectively, amendments to the Land Transport (Motor Vehicle Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2011 and amendments to Energy Efficiency (Vehicle Energy Economy Labelling) Regulations. I do note that the member did have some questions in relation to the labels, and I’m very pleased to see the new labels, which I hope members have received. They’re bigger. You can now read the labels. One is in colour and one is in black and white.

💬 Hon Member: I like the colour.

I prefer colour as well—it’s blue.

But what I would say is that the changes that are being made here simply are to revoke the regulation which requires that the label includes information about the Clean Vehicle Discount, because, of course, this repeals that legislation.

Kia orana meitaki maata. Thank you, Mr Chair. I thank the Minister for some of those responses. It’s pleasing to see that that label has been provided because it did cause some concern prior—well, earlier in the day—that things couldn’t be seen. I wonder whether the Minister, once he’s now seen it in colour or in black and white, whichever he chooses—actually it would be quite good to have the regulatory impact statement (RIS) that everyone knows about, whether it’s in colour or black and white, I don’t think members really mind. Just having it would be quite helpful. You know, digitally or even soft copy, hard copy, just having the RIS I think would be quite helpful, particularly given that, you know, we don’t have a select committee process, so the need of the House and this committee to scrutinise what’s currently before it is really, really important.

We will leave that with the Minister because we haven’t seemed to see much action in that space today. But there is still hope because the final vote on this bill hasn’t been taken yet. So there still is an opportunity for the Minister to provide that to inform the committee and the House’s thinking as to whether this bill should proceed or not.

Having said that, I wonder whether the Minister has had a chance to see whether there were any other gaps, because I note that my colleague Camilla Belich has a tabled Amendment Paper that does seek to insert new clause 22A. It does relate to the ability for sellers and importers of vehicles to identify a value that would have been applicable had the scheme not been repealed. I think that’s really important because it lends itself to how seriously some of these decisions are taken, but also that it’s going to be an opportunity to display that on the energy economy label as well. So I’ll leave that with the Minister, and any other gaps that he may have as well.

I do think it’s also important to just hear from the Minister about the price differential between electric vehicles and non-electric vehicles (EVs). You know, all the evidence seems to suggest that that will narrow over time. And I’m sure that having a best evidence - based approach is one that the Minister, I’m sure, would appreciate, in practice and in reality. I just wonder whether there are any comments around why the life of the scheme perhaps shouldn’t be extended as a result of that—that narrowing of that price differential over time, that there is a justification there about, well, why not extend the life of the scheme to allow that narrowing to get to the point where, effectively, there is an equilibrium, I think would be quite helpful.

I wonder whether, also, in terms of Part 2 which is around the administration, the Minister had given any thoughts to possibly decreasing the discount threshold—that’s actually very important. My colleague the Hon Dr Megan Woods talks about the importance of labelling being applied to second-hand vehicles that are new to New Zealand. That’s important, but also the accessibility to the market is equally important in making sure that that is the case.

I want to just very briefly touch on my amendment that has been tabled, and my colleague Dr Woods has already referred to that. It does seek to in clause 26 insert a new part within the Schedule, and that relates to an ability to have a purchase arrangement in place, Minister, by the end of 31 December 2023, and if that is the case, then the rebate would still be applicable. Now, we have heard previously that members of our community can just go on out to a lot, get a car before then, and all will be sorted and sweet. The reality is that most people who would look to use this as an incentive can’t just go out and pick up an EV off the lot.

Now, if this was an opportunity to say, “Look there is provision, let’s have arrangements in place at the end of 31 December, let’s honour those arrangements”, in terms of those households who—and many of us have referred to this in contributions in this Chamber already—have been thinking about getting an EV and have made that decision. I think I’d be interested to hear the thoughts on the Minister’s approach, or the Government’s approach, to, basically, penalise those members who may be planning to do this in the lead-up to Christmas, but for whatever reason they don’t.

💬 Hon Dr Megan Woods: All I want for Christmas is an EV.

All I want for Christmas is an EV. And I think, you know, it might be an opportunity to provide a level of fairness for those that may wish to have that as their Christmas present come this Christmas.

Thank you, Mr Chair. It has been a long day after another very long day, and yet I’m yet to get any answer to the question I’ve asked more than once to the Minister of Transport. It is really important. It’s important for many in our rural communities who are leaders or are keen to be leaders in reducing emissions that I get an answer to this question. I would like to encourage the Minister, firstly, to visit Mike Casey’s electric orchard near Cromwell and see what rural leadership is in electrification for our rural communities and to show New Zealand leaders how we can change things.

I would like to hear from the Minister an understanding of the proportion of fees and rebates that are paid and received by rural communities, and what is the proportion of fees and rebates that are paid and received by urban communities—noting that many in rural communities drive Leafs, not simply utes; noting that many in urban communities drive Ford Rangers and other large vehicles that are a danger to children on bikes. You don’t really need them to get through the supermarket challenges. So, to the Minister, please, can I have an answer, or will you continue to dodge?

Thank you, Mr Chair, and I thank the members for their questions. I note member Tangi Utikere was referring to a tabled amendment in the name of Camilla Belich which suggested that there should be continued identification of what the rebate values would’ve been if the scheme had not been repealed. This adds no value as we’re discontinuing the scheme. We don’t support that tabled amendment.

I note there’s a tabled amendment by the Hon Julie Anne Genter which seeks to extend the scheme by, I think, six years. Obviously, we don’t support that, because it’s not within the Government’s policy intent.

I thank the member Scott Willis for his question. You know, this part that we’re dealing with here is dealing with amendments to the Land Transport (Motor Vehicle Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2011, amendments to energy efficiency labelling, revocation of land transport regulations. The question I don’t think fits within the part that we’re debating.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. There’s still a number of questions that I have about the labels, and I’d like to thank the Minister and his officials for getting down copies that members in this Chamber can read so they can ask the questions. I have to say, if I had to choose between the colour and the black and white version, I’m going black and white. Blue’s not really my colour. The Minister asked us to state a preference in terms for the kind of copy we want, so when it comes for releasing the regulatory impact statement we’d quite like that, whichever way—colour or black and white will work.

But my question about this is whether the Minister sought any advice or gave any thought to other information that could be on the label. Of course, Part 2 of the bill is all about what is the label, and the changes that are being made to the label. One of the things that we do know is that in other jurisdictions where you have had increased uptake of electric vehicles (EVs)—so usually one of the triggers of getting rid of a rebate scheme is actually that you get to price parity between an EV and an internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle, so that the need for there to be assistance is no longer necessary, because there isn’t that delta in terms of the capital expenditure.

So there’s a couple of ways in which this could be expressed on the label. I was giving this a great deal of thought, and one of the things that I think would be the most useful way for it to be expressed on the label would be the marginal abatement cost that sat around that vehicle. So I want to know from the Minister: did he receive advice on the marginal abatement cost of this policy? If so, what was that advice? What is the marginal abatement cost of both the Clean Car Discount but also the marginal abatement cost of removing this policy? I think this is the kind of information—the marginal abatement cost—that would help consumers to make really good decisions. They would know, then, in terms of the benefit that was flowing through to them.

One of the things that I am mindful of is that it is very rare for climate change policies to have a negative marginal abatement cost. What I mean by negative abatement cost—it means that people will be better off because of the policy. Actually, the Clean Car Discount was one of those policies that did have a marginal abatement cost—and certainly there is—which we released when we passed the law, because it is useful to have that information. They had a marginal abatement cost per tonne of between minus $170 and $199.

I want to know whether the Minister has received information on the marginal abatement costs of removing the policy—i.e., how much worse off New Zealanders are going to be, or how much better off New Zealanders will be as a result of his policy change, and whether he has given any thought for that being the kind of information that could be displayed on the label. Because it’s not only the efficiency that consumers will want; it’s important information. One of the things that we know and all the research shows us is, actually, people are doing their sums and working out whether that extra expenditure—that extra capital expenditure—upfront is something that makes sense for them and their families.

Since the Minister referred to it, I did want to take a call to speak to my proposed tabled amendment and the reason for it. So the reason why I’ve tabled an amendment suggesting that they phase out the Clean Car Discount at 2030 instead of now or some years in the future is because we know that, as the Minister has often stated himself, over time the vehicle manufacturers are moving to produce entirely zero-emissions vehicles. So there’s just this gap, now, between now and when that happens, where we need to take steps to address price parity, and that’s the purpose of a policy like this. It’s not meant to last for ever; it’s meant to last as a transition to shift the vehicles being offered and also to shift the demand profile from, you know, businesses and New Zealanders so that we shift the average tailpipe emissions to be lower than what they would otherwise be. That’s the point of Government intervention at this point.

Every vehicle purchased between now and 2030 is going to lock in 20 years at least of emissions. If we can influence the market so that we’re selling lower-emissions vehicles here in New Zealand, we’re bringing in, we’re importing, more low- and zero-emissions vehicles. That means that we’ll have reduced emissions over a long period of time, and, as the Hon Megan Woods was just saying, of course that has a positive economic benefit for New Zealanders because they’re spending less money on fuel. So at the same time that we’re reducing carbon emissions, we have an added benefit of spending less money on imported petrol and diesel, and that’s a direct productivity gain; it actually helps us with our current account deficit.

I don’t know if the Minister is aware—but he might be interested to know, especially with his portfolios—that currently our imports of vehicles and fuel to run them exceed the value of our exports in dairy. So all of our dairy exports are not even covering the cost of the cars that we need to use and the fuel that we need to use to use our transport system. So there’s a huge opportunity there to reduce our current account deficit. Obviously, lots of people are going to continue carrying on driving their petrol and diesel vehicles, and that’s fine. But this policy, the purpose of it is to make it easier for more New Zealanders to access low-emissions and zero-emissions vehicles and that has economic benefits for us, it has environmental benefits. It’s really a win-win policy, and if the Minister and the Government were to accept my amendment it would mean that the policy would continue for that period of time that we’re waiting for the global market to completely transition to zero-emissions vehicles.

I would also note that the reason vehicle manufacturers are moving in this direction is because most other countries have policies like clean car standards and clean car discounts or other price incentives at the point of sale that are deliberately targeted at reducing emissions from the vehicle fleet. And we know that relying on fuel being in the emissions trading scheme (ETS) will not work to that end. It does not work. It will not work. That’s why fuel is not in the ETS in Europe and I would be totally fine with fuel being taken out of the ETS here if it meant we could have a policy that was more effective like the Clean Car Discount. But, of course, European countries largely have much higher fuel taxes than we do, and maybe that would help the Government close the gap in its infrastructure spend, because it’s promised a huge infrastructure spend with no revenue really to pay for it. I think they’re going to be very unhappy when they realise how much costs have inflated compared to the prices that they put in their manifesto for those so-called “roads of national significance”, which are really roads of private greenfields-developer significance, particularly in the Auckland region.

But seriously, Minister, seriously—he says the market’s going in this direction and we’re going to be mainly offered zero-emissions vehicles, hopefully, by 2030. How do we close the gap between now and 2030? The Minister’s only referred to meeting our emissions budgets to 2025, not beyond 2025. Obviously, there will be penalties and fiscal risk for New Zealand if we aren’t on track to meet our emissions reduction commitments by 2030, beyond 2025.

Some further questions have been raised by members. I note that the Hon Megan Woods asked whether I’d received further advice on the label. No, I had not asked for further advice on the label, but I’m glad we can now read it. It’s good to see that it’s big enough to read.

The other question was in regards to other jurisdictions, and I just would like to note that the New South Wales Labour Government is ending subsidies for electric vehicles (EVs) on the same date that we will be ending subsidies on EVs.

I note the Hon Julie Anne Genter continues to ask questions about her tabled amendment. I’ve already said we don’t support it.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I note that the Minister in the chair, the Minister of Transport, for this part of the bill gave a previous answer that referred to emissions budget (EB) 1. What he was asked about, he has answered, about emissions budget 1, under this part of the bill—and I thank the Minister for that. He said New Zealand is on track to meet emissions budget 1, and that is absolutely the case. And a big part of how New Zealand is going to meet emissions budget 1 is because of the reduction in transport emissions, largely driven by the uptake in electric vehicles that the Clean Car Discount has brought around.

But what we still want to know, despite asking multiple times and not hearing from the Minister, is what the impact will be on EB2 and EB3. I think they’re the ones that have the most consideration. Certainly EB2 is the focus of the Climate Change Commission’s advice that was released this week, which makes it abundantly clear that if we are going to see the uptake that we need to get baked into our emissions reduction plans—if we’re going to see that uptake, there do need to be supplementary measures. People aren’t going to make the shift of their own volition at the moment.

So I’m really interested to know what advice he’s had, and given the Minister’s already alluded to EB1 under this part of the bill, I’d like to hear more from him around emissions budget 2 and even out to emissions budget 3. And, of course, his Government will have to start putting together emissions budget 4 in the not too distant future.

Obviously, the Government can repeal things and is repealing things, but one of the things that we did change in the last Parliament—actually, I think it was the Parliament before, and there was cross-party support for it—is we now have a framework that if you remove something that is baked into an emissions plan, you need to say what you’re substituting it for—what is going to be put in its stead.

I can’t imagine the Minister is saying that on 1 January the Government will be raising the emissions trading scheme price to $235, because that has been the answer that he’s given for what will drive the uptake.

But if the Minister is saying that on 1 January the Government is planning to raise the emissions trading scheme price, the unit price, to $235 a tonne, then I think New Zealanders probably need to know because when they’re coming back from their summer holidays, they’ll be paying around 80c a litre more for their gas.

Kia orana, Mr Chair. I still have a few questions that I’d like to cover off. Just looking at Part 2, there is reference to Schedule 2—which we’ll come to in due course—but I do want to just identify that, obviously, colour is quite important because it’s referenced there in the section around that.

But my question to the Minister is whether he is comfortable that the time frame for the administrative functions in terms of winding things up that might come post 31 December 2023, if this bill is enacted—whether that is sufficient; whether he has received any advice relating to whether there might be a need to delay that somewhat or have some provision within Part 2, or indeed within Schedule 2, that might provide an opportunity if things were not winding up by the particular time in question; that there was provision around that. I think that is important.

The other is about the cost of winding things up, as they relate to the administration of it and whether there is provision for that. Can I just turn to the specifics of Schedule 2, because it is referenced in clause—well, within Part 2, specifically, its first mention comes from clause 22 and then clause 25 as well. It identifies a range of particular purposes for which that close the financial year, which ends on 30 June 2024, would kick in. I know that there is an Amendment Paper on the Table that relates to clause 2, which we’ll come to, around the particular time that things would wind up.

But I wonder whether the Minister has any thoughts or whether he’s received any particular advice as to whether or not any of those specific elements or purposes that are contained in clause 15 of Schedule, (a) through to (e), might be impinged or there is to be some impediment. Now, the reason why I’m referencing that is because Part 2 is where the reference to Schedule 2 comes in—specifically, as I’ve already said, clause 22 and clause 25.

So I wonder whether the Minister has any comments on that. And I still haven’t quite received a response around whether or not there is some justification for having a purchase agreement reference in there. Again, we haven’t had an opportunity to hear from people about what they think about this bill as part of the parliamentary process, and so I would be grateful if the Minister could turn his mind to those questions.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m hoping this is raising an issue that we may not have had a bit of a deep dive into. It’s still on the emissions reduction plan, but in the area of light vehicles, light fleet, and the potential—well, not the potential but also—so the target from the emissions reduction plan was to increase zero-emissions vehicles to 30 percent of the light fleet by 2035. So I’m wondering if we have had enough response from the Minister around the impact of this repeal on that target from the emissions reduction plan. We can link that target to the Climate Change Commission’s advice released just this week, which shows that the emissions trading scheme alone is insufficient to substantially move people away from fossil fuel - powered vehicles. So what then? What then is the actual plan and the vision for moving people to the solutions and supporting our communities and our people, moving to the way that the world is going to have to adapt rather than clinging with desperation to an old world with old energy and dirty energy?

Tim van de Molen: Point of order. Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ve been listening closely to the last several speakers now, and at the beginning of this committee stage, I sought leave to have all provisions taken as one debate so that we could have a more free-flowing debate across the breadth of the bill. That leave was declined by the other side, which, of course, then requires them to stick quite tightly within the confines of the specific parts as we’re going through, and we’re straying quite a wee way from that, I would suggest, across the last several speakers, Mr Chair, and I’ll just ask your view on that.

I absolutely agree that it is important to take this part by part, and perhaps I should have been clearer that my repeal in my speech at least—I know I can’t speak for others—is specifically pulling into Part 2 the amendments, repeals, and revocations concerning other enactments.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Thank you. Just for members’ awareness, we are starting to stray from Part 2. There have been some contributions which have been focused on Part 2, but we are starting to drift. When we start to drift, we start to get repetitive, then we’ll need to move this debate on. Anyone wants the call?

Point of order, Mr Chair. I’m just seeking your guidance. I understand the need and the necessity not to have repetition at the committee stage. But you can see the dilemma that members are in in this Chamber, Mr Chair, when we simply aren’t getting answers to questions that have been asked. So we’re seeking some guidance from you Mr Chairman.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): We’ll take a few more calls and see where we go, but people are drifting, and then we’ll have to move this debate on.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I still am yet to receive—

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): And if we can focus on Part 2, that would be helpful.

—yes—a response from the Minister about the purchase arrangements being put in place, which actually is specifically on the tabled Amendment Paper in my name, and it does relate to Part 2. Perhaps members opposite do need me to go through that again, so I’m very happy—

💬 Hon Dr Megan Woods: I think you should read it out.

I’m very happy to. For clarity, the amendment seeks to, in clause 26, in new Part 7 of Schedule 1 of the Land Transport Act, add new clause 28 after clause 27. If I just draw that to members’ attention, that is contained there, but it also relates to the transitional provision for vehicles purchased before the close of 31 December 2023.

I think that there is a really interesting point here, as well, that I think my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking has some comment on, in terms of an Amendment Paper in her name that relates to what that actually means—these dates that relate to the close of 31 December 2023, and other dates that are contained here—and whether there needs to be some specificity, which I think is why my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking has suggested, I think, midnight. You know, the reality is that if you’re looking to register a vehicle, a motor vehicle—and it’s the application or the administration process for which Part 2 is responsible, as I understand it. People need to know what that actually means. Does it mean that it’s going to be at 5 o’clock when the shop closes? Does it mean that you can go online and take care of those aspects at 11.59 p.m. Does it mean that if you’re on there at 11.58 but you hit at 12, you’re not captured? This is important information.

Now, members opposite may not like to hear this, because, again, I remind the committee, and I remind the public of Aotearoa New Zealand, that we are in urgency—those who, again, are tuning in, thinking, “Why is it that the Parliament continues to sit?” It’s because they want to know.

You know, I think what we also need to reflect on is the fact that we are leading into Christmas. Christmas is upon us. People need to know certainty. You know, this is a Government that seems intent on simply rushing this through, during a state of urgency, to get things done. Now, there is no problem in having a line in the sand in terms of when something will kick in, but there is a problem when things are ill-thought-through, when they’re not relevant, and when there is some confusion. I know that members on this side of the House do not want to have to come back to the House to address some shortcomings, in terms of misfortunes, because Part 2, which is about the administration, simply cannot be adhered to.

So while members opposite may wish that, actually, we don’t tease these out and the Minister doesn’t respond—which is their prerogative—I do think that members of the public all around the country will be expecting to know if they are going to purchase an electric vehicle that would be eligible for the rebate scheme. And that is in the lead-up to the Christmas period. There needs to be some certainty for them. That’s all that I’m asking, yet I have still failed to receive a response from the Minister about the purchase agreement and the particular time around that. I know that it might be cumbersome for members, but that is, unfortunately, the position that members in the Opposition are in, because we are not getting an answer to the very questions that we are putting to the Minister.

A lot of this stuff could have been teased out if there was adequate information in front of the committee. There was a question about the nature of advice that officials had provided. There have been questions provided by my colleague the Hon Dr Megan Woods around the nature of some of the efficiency gains and how that relates also to emissions budgets. Yet we still fail to have a response from the Minister, and I invite him to provide that response to allay some of the concerns that, as of now, still continue to not be responded to.

I thank the member for the question. In regard to his tabled amendment, we don’t support it. The policy intention of the legislation is for the rebate and ute tax scheme to end at midnight on 31 December 2023.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I do have a question for the Minister about the vehicle emissions and energy economy label in Schedule 3, now that we have the larger version of it, and thanks to the officials for getting that, or whoever it is that provided that.

I was just wondering if there is the ability for this label to be updated in line with changing costs. So, for example, the energy economy, if you look under the energy economy side, next to the star label, it says its cost per year is an estimate based on a petrol price of $2.50 per litre, an electricity price of 15c per kilowatt hour and an average driving distance of 14,000 kilometres. I’m just wondering if the Minister can tell us if there’s provision for the information that’s used to calculate the estimated cost to change, based on rising petrol prices, because petrol prices have been over $2.50 a litre, I think, for quite a while, and they stay above $2.50. Obviously, the higher the petrol price, the more cost savings from an energy efficient vehicle like an electric vehicle or a low-emissions vehicle.

So, if anything, this label, if it’s using $2.50 per litre as the estimate, is underestimating the cost savings of an energy-efficient vehicle. Or it’s underestimating the cost of an energy inefficient or gas-guzzler vehicle, and I think that’s really important. I just want to make sure, given that it’s in the Schedule, is this word for word in the Schedule or is there a provision for the wording around this to change to reflect changing petrol prices, which I think would be quite important to give accurate information to consumers?

Now, maybe this is just an example and it is possible to make those changes, but I guess I’m just seeking guidance as to whether the actual specific wording in here and the numbers that are used to calculate the cost estimate are limited to what’s in the Schedule or whether that is something that can change. And if it does change, how often is the cost of petrol updated in these energy labels? Could the Minister tell us that?

Thank you, Madam Chair; I was being vigorous based on your previous advice. This will be a short contribution, and I note that these new MPs across from us are very full of themselves. It’s interesting that they are not embarrassed that the Prime Minister said in question time that he was all for—what was it?—“proper process”. And here we are in urgency in an all-stages debate, and yet the Government benches are so loud and not embarrassed, and I would hope that people like James Meager would be embarrassed by this process. [Interruption] Here we go—I was planning on making a very short contribution but apparently I’m to talk about the last six years and my contribution since I’ve been here, which is interesting.

I did very much enjoy being an Associate Minister for the Environment and, of course, doing our great legislation to do a whole lot better for mitigating climate emissions, Madam Chair, which, of course, you know about having served on the Environment Committee. That was important work that we have done, and I very much hope that it will not be undone.

I will, of course, refer more about that in the third reading when we’re talking about the whole bill, but here I was just going to remark on a remark of the Minister mere minutes ago when he was discussing an answer to Tangi Utikere’s question about the timing of when the scheme ends. He said—if I heard correctly—that it will be at midnight on 31 December 2023. I’m interested in why he’s saying it’s at midnight on 31 December 2023, because of course the Schedules refer to the close of 31 December 2023, and if the close is to mean midnight, I think it should say midnight. But if we can have the Minister on record, on the Hansard, saying that it should indeed be midnight and to clarify the point that it wasn’t an offhand response, that would be a very useful thing for the member to do. Thank you.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that Camilla Belich’s tabled amendment to insert new clause 22A be agreed to.