Road User Charges (Light Electric RUC Vehicles) Amendment Bill

Members, the House is in committee on the Road User Charges (Light Electric RUC Vehicles) Amendment Bill and the Misuse of Drugs (Pseudoephedrine) Amendment Bill. We come to the Road User Charges (Light Electric RUC Vehicles) Amendment Bill, and we begin with the debate on Part 1.

Point of order, Mr Chair. I seek leave for all parts to be debated as one question.

Leave is sought for that purpose. Are there any objections? No objections. The question is that Parts 1 and 2, Schedules 1 and 2, and clauses 1 to 3 stand part.

I’m seeking to ask the Minister of Transport five questions. The first is: does the change to the plug-in hybrid electric vehicle rate, as presented by the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, make this better law?

Thank you, Mr Chair. While the Minister considers the very concise question by my colleague Arena Williams, I wanted to ask a question generally about the policy purpose of this bill. It seems that policy purpose is very limited. We have on the explanatory note that “The Road User Charges … Amendment Bill … provides for light electric RUC vehicles (light EVs) and plug-in hybrid electric RUC vehicles (PHEVs) to pay road user charges (RUCs) from 1 April 2024.” So my question to the Minister is: has he considered—or does he think that the bill should in fact include—other policy objectives? For instance, we all know that road-user charges are here to fund the roads and that we’ve had the electric vehicles (EVs) not paying them for a while, and that was to incentivise the uptake of those electric vehicles.

However, at the same time we had other policy initiatives such as the Clean Car Discount to encourage the uptake of those EVs. Of course, we know why we want the uptake of the EVs, and that is to decrease climate emissions. That would seem to be another good policy purpose. And also another policy to decrease emissions would be to encourage more use of public transport. Another policy initiative to decrease emissions would be to encourage and incentivise active transport—that is people walking or scootering or cycling. I noticed that in question time today, there was some discussion around this ability for the Government with its current policy settings to decrease emissions.

And the Prime Minister, in answer to questions, said the Government is going to meet its emissions budgets and it’s going to do that, in part, by doubling renewable energy. And he also, at the end of the question, mentioned the fast-track bill, and, of course, the fast-track bill has no environmental protections. The economic riders can override everything to do with the environment. And if it is this Government’s intention that that fast-track bill is used to decrease emissions, then can I suggest a consideration that that bill—I know I’m talking about a different bill here, but it relates to an increase that we could have on the policy for this bill—be restricted to projects that will decrease carbon emissions.

So, if the Government is saying that we need more renewable energy—I don’t disagree with that—then any fast-tracking provisions, things for renewable electricity, could be fast tracked. Things for public transport—maybe they could be fast tracked too. And that piece of legislation could be tied to emissions reductions, which of course it is not. So my question to the Minister is whether he has considered other policies, particularly in light of the earlier times that he sat in that seat when he’s been removing the Clean Car Discount.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. I have a number of Amendment Papers that I would like to speak to during the course of this debate. But I will start out asking the Minister a question, which is, did he consult extensively with the vehicle industry before proposing the rates that are proposed in the bill, in particular for electric vehicles (EVs)?

At the select committee we heard a very compelling submission from a joint industry group that included the Automobile Association, the Motor Trade Association, the Motor Industry Association, the Vehicle Importers Association, and a few other organisations—Drive Electric. And they made the very strong case that they fully supported all vehicles contributing to the road-user charges system and paying for some of the upkeep of the roads. And, at the same time, they argued very, very convincingly for a lower rate for plug-in hybrids and for EVs. The rate they proposed for electric vehicles was 60 instead of 78 per 1,000 kilometres, and the reason for this reduced rate is because we are very much in a period where if we don’t have some sort of support or financial incentive to electrify the fleet, it will slow down, and that has very serious consequences for meeting our greenhouse gas reduction targets later in the period.

I note that Government members seem to think about these things in a very, like, individualistic way and not consider that, actually, team New Zealand is in this as a whole. We all are working together to reduce our emissions. And what is important here are the actual outcomes. So having a policy that you consider fairer in theory means nothing if we’re all worse off as a result, because we’re not sufficiently reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, and, as a result, we’re going to be penalised under the likes of our EU fair-trade agreement, not to mention the fact that it’s just a lost opportunity all around, because it’s more greenhouse pollution but it’s also more air pollution, and it’s overall higher fuel bills as a nation, which affects our current account deficit.

So my question for the Minister is: did he consult extensively with the industry groups? Did he consider that we could put a price on road use from EVs and plug-in hybrids but at a lower rate than what was initially proposed in order to ensure that we’re not actively disincentivising EVs at a time when we need to be supporting that. In five years, we probably won’t need that financial support. But these next five years, we’re importing a bunch of vehicles that will be on the roads for over, you know, 20 years. So that will impact our carbon emissions 20 years from now, 25 years from now.

So my other question, actually, for the Minister is whether or not—I mean, this could sound tangential; I have heard the Government say that their plan for electrifying the vehicle fleet is doubling renewable electricity. However, we also heard at the select committee very clearly from people who are very involved in that industry, like Mercury, that having a national network of vehicle chargers is not going to make a difference for bringing in more electric vehicles. The barrier to bringing in electric vehicles right now is the lack of financial incentives and the lack of fuel economy standards that mean that vehicle importers are actively prioritising those cars.

So they made the point that the vast majority of charging is going to be done at home or at workplaces, not at public charging stations. So while it’s a nice to have—public charging stations and having more renewable electricity; of course we support that—that’s not the solution to the current barriers to bringing more EVs in. And here today, the Minister has the opportunity to listen to the industry. I have an Amendment Paper that would reduce the rate for EVs to the one recommended by the industry, which is 60 per 1,000 kilometres, and I invite the Minister to consider accepting that amendment as he has accepted our amendments to the bill in select committee where we reduced the rate for plug-in hybrids to 38 from 52.

Thank you, Mr Chair, for the opportunity to take a call on the Road User Charges (Light Electric RUC Vehicles) Amendment Bill.

As the committee will know, the purpose of this bill is about ensuring that vehicles which use our roads are contributing towards maintaining them. That includes electric vehicles, which up until 1 April have received an exemption. This bill deals with the issues that have arisen due to the fact that that exemption ends on 1 April, including ensuring there is a transition for those vehicles to move into the road-user charge (RUC) system, so those have two months to buy their road-user charge licence. It also creates a new definition and rate for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, rather than requiring them to purchase RUC at the full rate. It exempts light electric vehicles weighing one tonne or less from paying road-user charges. So this is a relatively narrow bill.

A couple of questions have come through so far from members. The bill is in a better position, and the Government has agreed that there should be a lower plug-in hybrid rate. That is why we sent it to select committee, to test that issue, and Cabinet agreed that the rate should be $38. That issue arises by the fact that plug-in hybrids use both petrol and electricity, and the need to ensure that it is a fair approach towards how much those vehicles should pay. Ultimately, lots of other questions have been raised around fuel economy: charging infrastructure, other issues—fuel economy standards. Those aren’t relevant to the bill.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d like to ask the question that I think most of my constituents would want to know the answer to: does it still make sense economically for people to buy an electric vehicle if they are in that setting, given the law that we’re going to pass?

I’d like to acknowledge that there was really good work done by the select committee over the issue of plug-in hybrids, and I’m not sure that a lot of people who are just ordinary people in the constituency would quite understand why that was important work. So I would ask the Minister to explain in his answers why there was, as I understand it, a double-whammy if we had not had that change, and how the balance has been struck in the work of the committee. My understanding is that the submitters were really concerned about that but also misunderstood that. So they hadn’t understood that there’d be a refund given to them if they had a plug-in hybrid for the proportion that was allocated to one form of use of fuel, which would have been petrol, where they were already paying tax. So it would be really nice if the Minister could explain that but also answer the plain question: is it still economically sensible to buy an electric vehicle? Is it still economically sensible to buy a hybrid vehicle?

It does really dovetail into the questions that I’ve heard from other people about what are the wider frameworks that this sits within in terms of making sure that that is still the best choice for people if they have a capacity to buy those vehicles. I know that’s an issue in my area and there are people making those decisions every day. And there’s been an issue with those cars, really. We’ve protected them from those charges because it has been a good incentive to do so. I understand that that policy one day had to change because everybody uses the roads. And I think, probably, most constituents would understand that that day would come, but I think that we still need to understand and really that is a basic way of grounding the question: what is the implication for people and how does this work within the rest of the framework? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. Look, I acknowledge that this piece of legislation is designed to address an anomaly which was emerging across our transport sector that electric vehicles (EVs) weren’t contributing. We’ve acknowledged that, and we did in the previous Government, and so we’re working towards the best way to do that. I acknowledge the work that was in the Transport and Infrastructure Committee.

There are a few questions, though, that I have to ask. Firstly, is the Government committed to a transition through to a low-carbon transport fleet? I think it is important that the Minister stand up and commit to that. On Monday, I heard an interesting article on Radio New Zealand—actually, it was the CEO of the Motor Trade Association, I think—pointing to the reality that with the changes in this piece of legislation, there is no incentive for people to move from combustion engines into e-vehicles, because at an average of 14,000 kilometres, it will be about $1,064 paid in road-user charges (RUC), which would be equivalent to diesel on the same road. So if the Government is committed to that transition, then can the Minister assure us—it’s not in this piece of legislation—that he will bring to the House other legislation to provide incentives to move to that lower-carbon fleet? The Motor Trade Association says there is no incentive.

If the philosophy of the Government is to offer tax cuts to drive better economic performance—that is, that incentives are going to be given to people at the top to perform better and to deliver better outcomes—then it’s the same philosophy of incentives for people to take up e-vehicles—which we had in Government, through the Clean Car Discount but these have now been removed. So why are people going to move to EVs or plug-in hybrid vehicles?

The other question that inevitably arises from this new regime is that people will have trouble buying RUC. If you run a trucking company or, you know, you’re used to doing it, yes you can go online, but there will be many people who are not computer savvy that will struggle. How will this be policed? How will this be policed and how many people are estimated to drive around without RUC? So that would be my question. How many people are not going to end up paying?

The other question is about user-pays. Sure, every vehicle that goes on the road should contribute. The relativity is something that I think is important, and we’re looking at adjustments that were made for plug-in hybrid vehicles versus electric vehicles. I have to say that the Government’s been praised for the adjustment, but, actually, the Government didn’t do it at all; it was the Opposition that brought it in, slipped it through the select committee, and now the Government’s trying to claim credit for the changes. So maybe the Minister could explain why he thought it should go from a 30 to 50 percent discount for plug-in hybrids. That would be a question that he could answer.

Can I come back to the question of relativity. If road-user charges are designed to not just be a tax but, actually, to contribute back into the roading system, then this piece of legislation could also have made adjustments across other areas of RUC that might have given us the money needed to fix the potholes. It’s been said over the other side there, about fixing roads and potholes. Can I just say that a heavy vehicle is 625 times greater impact on the road than a light vehicle—625. Can I ask why the Minister didn’t look at making the adjustments, given the dilapidation of the roads, because, in 2012, the National Government increased the weights and then decreased the funding for roading. If we’re trying to catch up, why did the Minister not bring in some adjustment so that the $785 million paid in RUC by heavy vehicles, compared to the $1.8 billion paid by light vehicles, isn’t completely out of sync with their impact on the road? If we are to talk about user pays, which is what this is about for electric vehicles—and we accept that—then you have to apply that principle across the board, so why didn’t the Minister look at making those adjustments or, indeed, is that part of the Budget that we’re going to face in May, presumably?

These are a number of questions. The other one is that we come back to the core question: is the Government committed to a decarbonisation of the transport fleet, and why has the Minister not made the other adjustments in the anomalies currently faced across the whole roading network, and for rural roads, in particular, where you’ve got a high percentage of heavy vehicles and a lot of degradation of the roading network? How do we know that this increase in income through RUC from EVs is going to go towards the rebuilding and the restoration of those roads?

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I will repeat my question, because the Minister still has not addressed it: did the Minister read the submission from the industry group—the joint submission to the select committee from the Automobile Association, the Motor Industry Association, the Vehicle Importers Association, the Motor Trade Association, Drive Electric, and others? Did he look at the calculations that they did that said the proposed road-user charge (RUC) rate would create a significant disparity between small vehicles paying fuel excise duty towards the roads and electric vehicles paying RUC?

There’s a huge anomaly that will be created by this, where someone using an electric vehicle, which is usually relatively small, to drive between Auckland and Wellington will pay twice as much as a comparable fossil fuel vehicle that is paying fuel excise duty. Therefore, the industry group has recommended a reduced rate for RUC for electric vehicles of $60 per 1,000 kilometres. Did the Minister consider that? Does the Minister think it’s important to try and have a comparable rate between fossil fuel vehicles paying fuel excise duty and electric vehicles paying for the use of the roads? Does he think it’s fair that electric vehicles that are helping to reduce New Zealand’s transport emissions are going to pay twice as much to use the roads as a comparable fossil fuel vehicle?

💬 Mark Cameron: They do more damage.

They do not do more damage. We’re talking about vehicles that are the same weight, and so therefore is it fair that they should pay twice as much when they’re the same weight as a fossil fuel vehicle paying fuel excise duty—that they pay twice as much to use the roads?

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Aren’t they heavier?

💬 Mark Cameron: Yes.

The vehicle industry themselves brought in the evidence to the select committee. Perhaps the Government members do not respect or acknowledge the expertise in the vehicle industry in New Zealand, and that’s why they’re saying things that are at odds with what the vehicle industry is saying.

I reiterate one more time so that maybe the Minister will answer. Did the Minister read the joint submission and consider the aspect of fairness between small vehicles paying fuel excise duty and electric vehicles paying RUC, and would he consider reducing the RUC rate for electric vehicles to $60 per 1,000 kilometres? And, if so, will he support my Amendment Paper No. 25, which is doing exactly what was recommended by the industry, with significant calculations to support that proposed rate?

Thank you, Mr Chair, for those questions. A number of questions have been posed by members. The Hon Damien O’Connor was asking around enforcement. All the provisions of the road-user charges (RUC), in terms of enforcement for those who use road-user charges, will apply here. How will people become aware, how to pay? Obviously, that’s why we’ve got a two-month transition period.

The New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) is doing a significant education campaign, writing to all of those vehicle owners to ensure that they understand their obligations. There’s a two-month transition period for them to buy their first RUC licence as well. So it’s important that that happens, but the reality is, as the member knows, hundreds of thousands of people have diesel vehicles, and the reality is it is not an unknown system. So, yes, it will take time for people to enter it, but the reality is the NZTA is working very hard to ensure people understand their obligations. There are also enforcement provisions which are available if people don’t purchase a RUC licence.

In terms of the conversation we’ve been having here around the road-user charge rate, I would point members to the departmental report—I think it’s page 22—which discussed how the light RUC rate is set. The light RUC rate is made up of $61 of shared costs which are spread equally across all vehicle types and doesn’t depend on the weight of the vehicle. So those are things like maintaining the road for weather-related damage, investments in public transport, non - weight related costs for building new roads, and installation of road signage; $10 to account for the space the vehicle takes up, $4 to account for the vehicle weight costs—and, of course, being a light vehicle, that weight cost is a relatively small portion of the overall RUC cost—and $1 to account for weight-based road wear.

So this bill doesn’t attempt to change the road-user charge rate, but it attempts to, obviously, provide a new rate for plug-in hybrids, and the reason for that is because they have two fuel sources, which means that if they didn’t have this lower rate, they would be required to pay the full rate and then they’d have to go and apply for their excise back, and that would cause an enormous administrative and cumbersome process. So the balanced approach through that is to have a lower rate. As I’ve said, this is a temporary measure. The Government’s policy is to move all vehicles to a road-user charge distance weight-based system where people pay fairly for the use of the road based on the weight of their vehicle, how many kilometres they travel, and the—

💬 Hon Damien O’Connor: Use of or impact on?

Well, all of those elements that I have just outlined to the member there: $61 of shared costs, so that’s the use of; $10 to account for space, so that’s use of; $4 for weight; $1 for road wear. So there’s a range of elements which are caused by using the road. There’s a number of impacts that vehicles have, and the RUC rate is set to account for those things. So, as I’ve said, it is our policy to move all vehicles to a road-user charge system where people pay the same amount based on the weight and kilometres rather than what type of fuel they use.

I understand that the members are raising a range of questions around the fuel usage and the impact, and there is a range of variances within the system which need to be addressed. Hence why we have made that commitment to move all vehicles to a road-user charge system so that it is fair. Then, those who choose to purchase an electric vehicle or a hybrid or a plug-in hybrid, or if they require a diesel, they pay the energy costs based on that choice, but, ultimately, the money that’s required to build and maintain the road is not dependent on the type of fuel that they use. So we’re separating those two issues out over time. That’s the intention; we’ve started work on doing that. This bill, in the meantime, brings those light vehicles and those plug-in hybrid vehicles into the systems. We’ve always acknowledged there are variances, we need to sort the variances out, and that is why we will be progressing at pace to move all vehicles to road-user charges.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a few questions for the Minister this afternoon. After working with the Minister when he was in Opposition, he did have some very good ideas and signalled prior to the election his direction of travel for the transport portfolio. Since coming into Government, I think that he’s been quite narrow in his approach and his focus areas, particularly when he talks about getting Aucklanders, as an example, around faster and safer. The actions that he’s taken in his portfolio during the past few months actually isn’t going to achieve those particular things. So, while this is quite a technical bill, and in some senses I support the sense of having a fairer system to fund our roading network, our transport network—which we know actually does have some challenges in it; I accept that—potentially, the way the Minister is going around his decisions isn’t in line with the direction of travel that I believe our transport network in Auckland and in Aotearoa New Zealand needs to go.

One of my questions is around the modelling that the Minister has done on the financial implications to Aucklanders. A number of his actions since he’s become Minister are quite different to the way that the National Party campaigned with their election promises of no new taxes to New Zealanders and the repeal of the regional fuel tax. What we’ve seen, actually, in the Minister’s decisions is additional taxes going on Aucklanders. So the cost savings here is $1.85 to the average family in Tāmaki-makau-rau, Auckland, from the repeal of the regional fuel tax—$1.85. Since then, we’ve seen the Minister add on a $50 registration fee for people to register their cars. We’ve seen additional cost to fuel excise, albeit in two years’ time. And then here we see additional costs going on for EVs, again, to pay their fair share, I guess.

But the question for the Minister that I have is, where does it end? You did promise, Minister, that there would be no new taxes. I accept that we need to fund our transport network and the need for infrastructure. At the same time, you’ve taken away $500 million from the public transport network in Auckland, and we do have a significant number of Aucklanders that use our public transport system. That creates an additional cost to them: double the cost for children that did have a free ride on our buses; half price for under 24s—those things have gone. So that’s another cost to the cost of living for families in Auckland.

So I guess I’m just trying to understand from the Minister what modelling he has done around the financial implications on Auckland families with these additional costs, one after the other, that he is imposing. And then the next question, of course, will be about his intent to put tolls on new infrastructure; that might be in Auckland.

💬 Andy Foster: Point of order, Mr Chair. I don’t think the member has gone anywhere near the bill, at least not for several minutes. All of these things are about other issues which are not related to this bill, which is a simple bill around road-user charges.

CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): The bill is being taken as a whole part, and I will make the call whether he’s starting to veer off the path. I do take the member’s point, and I think we all heard that, so I encourage the members to stick to it.

Sure; thank you, Mr Chair. I disagree with the member’s point of order that he has taken, because if one did care about the cost of living, actually, and the implications of cost on New Zealanders, that’s actually my discussion point, which comes back to this particular bill. This Government piles on costs in its transport portfolio and that is the question that I’m asking the Minister: what modelling has the Minister done to understand the financial implications of this bill on families, particularly in Auckland, alongside the other additional costs that he has loaded up on them when he campaigned, actually, on no new taxes and on ensuring that the cost of living is a priority for Aucklanders?

I thank the member for his questions. There’s a range of questions around a range of topics which aren’t in the bill and so aren’t relevant to the bill. But the one question was around the financial implications of the road-user charge. So, ultimately, what this is doing is it’s ensuring that people who drive an electric vehicle who are currently not paying to use the road will start paying a road-user charge for the use of the roads. So, ultimately, for those people who have those vehicles, they’ve had an exemption now since 2009, since the last National Government put an exemption in place, and it was said that that would run out once we reached 2 percent. Ultimately, that exemption ran out on 1 April. That decision was made by the previous Government. The exemption runs out on 1 April, and so that decision had already been made. What we’re doing here is responding to that to ensure that there’s a fair approach, particularly around plug-in hybrid vehicles.

Plus, the decision around the exemption running out and the time frame was decided by the previous Government. The problem that the last Government left us with is that (1) they consulted on a 20 percent reduction in the plug-in hybrid electric vehicle rate; that’s what they consulted on. We’re doing 50 percent. So we’ve actually made a really positive difference for people with plug-in hybrids.

The other point here is we’re ensuring that people who use the roads pay the fair share of their use of the roads. And so, ultimately, we’re also providing a two-month transition to support those vehicles in. So this I think is a very appropriate piece of legislation. In fact, I remember hearing the former Minister of Transport David Parker saying they weren’t going to extend the exemption. So here we are. We are ensuring that there is a transition for these vehicles and we are providing a 50 percent reduction for those people who have plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.

Thank you, Mr Chair. This Government has clearly been getting dizzy by sniffing fossil fuels. It is simply impossible to get to the rapture driving an SUV, but we will see the earth turned into hell in trying to do just that. Yet I do see a little bit of hope, because, already, the Government has shown the ability to walk back bad policy by voting in select committee to reduce the road-user charge (RUC) for hybrids. So that was a great innovation; thank you, our colleagues in Labour.

But could it be that the effects of sniffing fumes have worn off a little, or maybe they were just too befuddled at that point and had no idea and were a bit too embarrassed to change it. We certainly need clear heads now, because as reported in the New Zealand Herald, electric vehicle (EV) sales drove off a cliff in January, with the Clean Car Discount gone. Petrol and diesel vehicles, less than half the market during most months of 2023, accounted for 96 of new vehicle registrations in January 2024, according to the Motor Industry Association. Each new internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle locks in emissions and dependence on oil from the Middle East. Each single decision to purchase an ICE vehicle and an SUV raises emissions. This is fast track, all right. We’re going backwards on a fast track.

But it doesn’t have to be this way. It really doesn’t have to be this way. Whether by carelessness or through urgency or through befuddlement through the fumes, the Road User Charges (Light Electric RUC Vehicles) Amendment Bill will clearly not help lower transport costs or lower emissions as it stands. Luckily, my colleague the Hon Julie Anne Genter has prepared some really useful amendments. In Amendment Paper 24, there’s a clause added there to prevent the charging of RUC for EVs and plug-in hybrids until the Government has completed its work to move all vehicles to the RUC system.

This is, effectively, to highlight the unfortunate and sloppy lawmaking on a complex revenue system that has led to really unfair charges on electric vehicles. The intention is to stop the work until the Government moves all vehicles to road-user charges; to do it once, to do it properly, to do it cleanly, and to retain a minor incentive to choose new low-emission vehicles.

We know this Government is keen on roads. We’ve heard a lot about the roads. So my invitation, really, to the Government, is to chart a new road. Why don’t we get on the road to Damascus, and discover the joy of climate action? Because it is time to get back on track towards zero carbon—it is time to get back on track towards zero carbon, not back on baccy for the taxes for the wealthy. It is time to get back on track, and make some changes that will make a difference, and help our rural communities as well as our urban communities, decarbonise their transport systems, to help those people that want to invest and are disincentivised by sloppy lawmaking. There’s so much opportunity here to take good advice from across the aisle to make a change, not just a mess; to make a change that improves law, improves legislation, and makes a difference for our communities.

So I just request that the members opposite, and the Minister, pay attention to Amendment Paper 24. It’s a really simple one. It just improves the legislation. It just makes things a little bit better, and it is easy to implement. Kia ora.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Just a couple of other questions I have. And I know that the Government—and we share their celebration—has announced, of course, the implementation and ratification of the New Zealand-EU free-trade agreement. There are some obligations in that, actually, that we both—that is the EU, 450 million people, and New Zealand, 5 to 6 million or whatever it’ll be—commit to the Paris commitments to reduce our emissions.

So the question I have—and the Minister didn’t answer it before—is about whether the Government still has a clear commitment to decarbonise our transport fleet, because it’s the biggest area, arguably. Agriculture is a block of emissions; it’s a biological challenge. This is an area where people have options, and we hope that the Government is committed to targets towards 2030, because if we don’t meet those targets and, indeed, if the EU think that we are backing away from them by reducing incentives to move to electric vehicles (EVs), then we can be challenged. I’m not sure that a massive shutdown of trade opportunities is likely, but it is an ongoing discussion. So those obligations we have are important, and I want to know from the Minister whether there’s a clear commitment to decarbonise, and, if so, what’s the track towards 2030?

And the other one is a question I have to raise because it’s, again, in the same vein. I have a huge amount of respect for the Hon Simon Bridges, who’s just been appointed to be chairman of Waka Kotahi. But he’s also been an advocate for the trucking industry. And I know how essential trucking is around our country, but the costs, of course—we’re all trying to reduce them. And the question I had for the Minister before was around the disproportionate impact on the roads. And I know that road-user charges (RUC) are made up of a balance of these things, but I’m wanting to make sure that the new chair is going to ensure a fair approach to this in terms of the small vehicles, which I would argue have been paying a greater portion of the RUC, so that the balance is right as we go forward. We hear from the Minister and his colleagues that we’re a kind of market-led economy and we’re open and balanced and we’ve got to have everything fair. Well, fair impact, fair cost, fair imposition of expenses on the roading network should be paid for by those sections of the transport industry that do the damage. So it’s a question I have.

Can the Minister, perhaps, pop up and answer those to reassure us, firstly about the targets, and, secondly, that there’s no potential impacts of reducing incentives for EVs, which the Motor Trade Association has clearly stated is the outcome of this. Will that impact on our trade obligations, and, secondly, is the Minister committed to assessing and rebalancing where necessary the user-pays approach to road damage?

Thank you, Mr Chair. I am finally taking another call in this debate. I’ve had 30 seconds as it goes, because I was relying—for the benefit of the members of the committee—on Speaker’s ruling 79/4, which encourages the Minister in the chair to engage in a back-and-forth debate. Speaker Tolley ruled that if you can keep your contributions focused, five minutes is not a target. I made the most focused contribution when I asked the Minister “Did the change that happened at select committee make this a better law?” And the Minister couldn’t even say my name when he answered the question. It’s almost like he’s mad at me. Is that because he rocked into Cabinet, and Cabinet told him, “Oh well, she foxed ya. Sorry. Wear it.” Is that what happened to the Minister? Is that why he’s annoyed and can’t say my name? I’ll give the Minister a go at saying my name.

Now back to the questions for the Minister that we have in front of us. Following on from that question, I would like the Minister to explain to the committee: was it fair that plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) would pay both fuel excise tax and road-user charges (RUCs) and, essentially, be double taxed under the rate for PHEVs that he initially introduced to the House? That question is in the context of the fact that he’s taken on board the change of the hard-working Opposition members who made sure that not only was a slip drafted by the Parliamentary Counsel Office, that we had done the work on that the committee had had a good, robust, and cross-partisan discussion about the appropriate rate—and good on the Minister for taking that on board. But since he did take that on board, is it then unfair what he initially introduced to the House?

And my second question is: what policy objectives did he consider when he introduced that first rate to the House? Was he concerned with all road users making a contribution in a way that represented the total cost to not only the roads but also to the transport fleet as a whole in New Zealand? Because in the points that my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking raised, which have not yet been addressed by the Minister, there is a greater cost to New Zealand of fuel vehicles and vehicle emissions than just the cost to the roads. There is also the cost of emissions and the cost of New Zealand not meeting its targets under the climate change legislation.

My next question is about whether the Minister was concerned, when he set that rate, with fairness at all. Can the Minister comment on his considerations about fairness within the system when he set that original rate?

I’d like to ask two different kinds of sets of questions as well, given that I’m not going to rely again on that Speaker’s ruling about two to tango. I want to understand this idea of choice in the context of 25,000 users of PHEVs in the in the system already. So we’ve heard some contributions by heckling from the Government members that this is about user choice and that users will continue to buy PHEVs even under these settings. Whether or not you think that is true, there are still thousands of users right now who already have these PHEVs. So this is essentially a change which would affect people who have already made decisions about what they can afford as a household for their household vehicle or what they can afford as a business in using the sorts of vehicles that use both electricity and fuel. These are people like ordinary taxi drivers and Uber drivers in South Auckland who have made the calculations about whether they can run a successful business on the time that they have and on the vehicle that they have. And my question to the Minister is: how does the change in rate affect them, given that they already have these vehicles? And what will the change of the rate save PHEV owners per year?

The next line of questions that I have for the Minister is: can he confirm that he has already asked Waka Kotahi and the Ministry of Transport to provide advice on the transition to universal RUC in June to him, and when will Cabinet consider that advice on universal RUC this year? I ask that because I have made a number of amendments that I do wish to speak to around the purpose of this bill. This is something that Labour does support at this stage, but what I need from the Minister is some assurance that work on universalising RUC is occurring now and that this is a transitional measure, because it is important to recognise that in the context of universalising RUC for everyone, this is a measure which extends it to EVs and PHEVS now but will be something that we get a second bite at. If this process, which only gave submitters about 24 hours to submit to the committee, is to be done again, then that’s a good thing, and that is a baked-in reason for us to consider it again.

And the need for that baked-in reconsideration of the rules around universalising RUC is something that my colleague the Hon Damien O’Connor has already asked the Minister and it has not been addressed. The importance of universalising RUC in our system is that all road users should pay their way to using roads. It should depend on the kind of damage that the cars are doing to the roads, or indeed heavy vehicles. And so, once this applies to everyone, once there is a sort of baseline of the kind of damage that we do to our roads being something that is a user-pays system, then we need other incentives to provide for cars which then don’t emit the same amount into the atmosphere, because if we’re just pricing the damage to roads, we’re not pricing the damage to our environment, and that is something which our transport plan already takes account of. This is already a policy consideration which Governments regularly use to decide the type of vehicles that are imported into the country and the type of incentives that we create around not only buyers for personal use but buyers for commercial use. And so we need to know that there is another bite at this and that Cabinet will reconsider these policy settings. And we haven’t heard an answer from the Minister about that yet.

I also want to speak to my amendments, and I hope the Minister will consider some of these amendments. Speaking to those that I’ve proposed for Part 1, the reason that I’ve proposed some changes to clause 5(1 )—and I’ll take the Minister to those changes; it’s on page three, about halfway down—is that the words here around “light electric RUC vehicle” and “very light electric RUC vehicle” may very well change That’s why I’ve asked for some confirmation from the Minister of what was presented by officials, very helpfully to the select committee, that this work was ongoing. So we need to know whether these words around “light” and “very light” are still fit for purpose. Do we mean, in fact, that it’s actually a plug-in hybrid electric RUC vehicle that is a RUC vehicle but that is also light so that we can come back and change that if it is required to be changed later? And we need to understand whether the definition of “very light vehicle” will still be relevant when these things are considered by Cabinet soon.

So the other amendments that I’ve proposed in Part 1 include some amendments to clause 7. These are my questions that have not yet been answered but we would like some answers on before we get to the vote on this amendment, which is about the types of considerations that are baked into the primary legislation about why you would set a RUC rate or a discounted RUC rate with a discount at all, because it would be available to the Government to charge the full RUC rate, but we recognise that there is some unfairness in doing that, because there is a double taxation element. So the discount is appropriate.

And then, clause 7 inserts new subsection (2A), that clarifies why you would give a discount. But what is not included in the rationale for giving a discount is the other policy considerations that Governments already take into account when formulating a land transport plan, and those are policy objectives around the kind of vehicle fleet that we want at all in New Zealand, the kind of incentives that we create for vehicle owners to choose vehicles that do not emit the same level of emissions as previous vehicle fleets, as old vehicles, as old petrol-using vehicles, and old diesel-using vehicles.

So if we can be assured that Cabinet is going to look at this again, maybe it doesn’t need a change. But if they’re not, then it really does. It needs to include those policy objectives that this Government will be faced with as soon as it turns its mind and attention to its climate change commitments, because the transport fleet is still one of New Zealand’s largest contributors to our emissions and it will need to reduce its emissions somehow. So it will need to be clear in the primary legislation that those considerations are something relevant to take into account when setting a discounted RUC rate.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I won’t talk too long on this legislation at this stage, but just thought I’d give some reassurance that indeed the primary purpose here is to recognise the fact that, I think, most New Zealanders understand that people who drive on the roads should contribute to the cost of the maintenance and building of those roads. For a long period of time, we’ve had electric vehicles not paying directly, as a means to encourage people into buying those electric cars. But there obviously would come a point, and there has come a point, where a significant number of New Zealanders were in that category, and if we continued to exempt electric cars, then the flow of money to maintain the roads would dwindle over time. So I don’t think anybody expected the exemption of electric vehicles to continue for ever, and so that’s what the Government is doing through this legislation to ensure that all the owners of vehicles on the road contribute to it.

Now, in terms of the plug-in electric vehicles, there was a change made. Of course, I think, as everybody recognises, there are a wide variety of experiences on the plug-in hybrids as to how much they are operating under electric conditions as opposed to the petrol side of the car. And if you’re in a very modern plug-in hybrid and just doing short trips, you might end up spending virtually all your time on electric propulsion; if you’re in an old one in a rural environment, you might spend almost all of your time on petrol. And so it is a judgment to be made as to what would be the appropriate discount, and the Government has, on reflection, decided to make changes. And of course we don’t regard these as matters of minor political winning or losing; it’s a matter of what’s best for the country. So I acknowledge the work across the House on that issue.

I would also reassure members who have asked the question about whether it’s still the Government’s intention to carry on with a wider review of the road-user charges—extending that to all vehicles. As the Minister has indicated, he’s expecting advice on that by the middle of the year and has made it clear to officials that he expects to be moving at pace on that issue as quickly as possible. Of course, there are lots of challenges in the design of such a system. At the moment, when people pay their petrol taxes, they do it at the pump when they actually pay the petrol, and it’s very hard to avoid that. With road-user charges, it’s more complicated, and so you’ve got to have a system that is robust. And so we’re working at pace to look at that broader issue so that we can achieve, as best we can, equity across the fleet in terms of ensuring that cars that do damage to the road—and there’s a variation, of course, between light vehicles and heavy vehicles and they pay a different rate, and that is a good system that is a good way to operate. So I hope that answers some of the questions that have been raised.

Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. One of the questions I’d like to ask the Minister is: does he think that the added bureaucracy of road-user charge (RUC) versus excise is added bureaucracy and added costs for average Kiwis? I would suggest it is, and I think the Government has to front up to that.

Can I ask a couple of questions about very light electric vehicles—that’s under a tonne, or 1,000 kilograms—and they will be exempt. We don’t see so many of them here, but innovative inventions offshore, mainly around Asia, where speeds on the roads are lower and we see a lot of creative vehicles. My question would be: are we, through this bill, incentivising the importation or the utilisation of those vehicles? And does that add some safety challenges or dilemmas for us on open roads? Or are we going to restrict where they may or may not be?

We’ve just seen moves on scooters—you know, on or off the footpath? Are they safe or not? Helmets or not? And so we’re very creative and people will work on ways of utilising laws to incentivise commercial opportunities—I’m sure the Government will do that. Does that mean that they will allow the importation of vehicles under a tonne, electric vehicles that will be able to be used across the wider roading network, creating, I would suggest, because they probably run at lower speeds—we’ve seen, you know, even with internal combustion engines, we’ve seen a lot more people in smaller cars out in the open road. Look, I try to be considerate, but they are usually travelling at about 80 kilometres an hour or slower speeds; they do create some congestion and some danger. If we end up with e-vehicles in a similar manner, we may add to that safety concern.

So it’s a genuine question for the Minister, whether it’s been considered, what is the likelihood of those under-1,000 kilogram electric vehicles coming into New Zealand and being used, and how will we manage that? And then differentiating between, you know, are they 980 kilograms or are they 1,200 kilograms? Such things will be relevant to the police officers who will be out on the roads trying to police this new RUC system.

Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you to the Minister for informing us about the approach taken by the Government. It is, I guess, one way to do things, to ensure that down the track, legislation can be improved. But wouldn’t it be simpler to improve what we’ve got here right now when we have such a valuable discussion and amendments that are on the Table, or will be on the Table, to be discussed? I think there’s an opportunity here to fix up something that was clearly rushed through, poorly thought-out, and simply there to tick some boxes off through urgency. I think we can forgive or overlook that box-ticking was mostly rejecting solutions when we’ve got an opportunity to do something a bit better. And here I think we do have an opportunity to make things better relatively simply.

As my Labour colleague pointed out just now, electric vehicles (EVs) are lighter and have less impact on roads than utes and sport utility vehicles (SUVs). Utes and SUVs are usually over three tonnes on the roads; EVs are usually under two tonnes. We could have thresholds that would provide a fairer rate, and that’s in my colleague Julie Anne Genter’s proposed Amendment Paper No. 23, which creates new thresholds for all vehicles for road-user charge (RUC) charges. This includes vehicles which are between zero and two tonnes—$70 per 1,000 kilometres—and vehicles above two tonnes but not heavier than 3.5 tonnes: $78 per 1,000 kilometres. The current road-user charge rate is $76 per 1,000 kilometres for vehicles between zero and 3.5 tonnes. So the intention with that amendment is to have fairer road-user charge rates, recognising that EVs are less impactful on our roads than heavier vehicles. This is simply an evidence-based amendment. It makes sense.

And more to that, there are other issues here with our current rate, where we’re charging every vehicle, or every vehicle that has a road-user charge, no matter where they’re driven. And we know that our rural roads are not good roads. Our rural roads are in a poor quality, typically, but the money that people who drive on those roads pay does not go to fixing up those rural roads. It tends to go to overbridges, to making more urban roads, to fixing up our urban highways, to fixing up roads of somebody’s significance. And this is where the unfairness and the idiocy in this approach demonstrates itself. We can do so much better by thinking about what is a fair way and ensuring we have clarity about who’s paying for what with the road-user charges.

The amendments that my colleague Julie Anne Genter has put forward are something that I would urge the Minister to consider seriously. We are here to make good legislation, not to push through an agenda to tick boxes to prove that something can be done within 100 days. We should be here in a serious place, to make a difference for our communities, to make a difference for our rural communities as well as our urban communities, to make sure that people can have transport options that are fair and equitable rather than building overbridges in Auckland—not that I’ve got anything against Auckland, but I’d quite like some support for the deep South as well. And I’d like some support for our rural communities in the deep South—Otago, Southland—where there are people who want to decarbonise and are being put off by this sloppy bit of legislation.

So we’ve got an opportunity here to fix it up, to improve it, not down the track, not somewhere later, but here and now. This is something that we could do if we’re willing to listen and pay attention and to make good legislation together. So I just urge the Minister to consider what’s on the Table, to think about what’s on offer, to think about working collectively, working in Parliament to do better legislation than we’ve got right now, and that can make a difference for our communities, though there’s nothing to lose here. Well, I don’t think there’s anything to lose here. And I’d hope the Minister would see this as an offer that’s coming from our side.

Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s a pleasure to be able to take a call, my first call in this particular committee stage. I just thought that given we have the Minister here and we also have here the chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee and a number of the committee members, it’ll be an excellent opportunity just to talk to the Minister a wee bit about this slightly unprecedented change that’s happened as a result of the select committee process, and the change from the proposed 30 percent discount to the 50 percent discount. I think people deserve to know, Minister, what exactly went through your head when you were deciding that, and the logic and reasoning for continuing with that change within the bill. I think that’s a really important thing to go over before we move into the subsequent reading of this bill.

I wanted to also mention a few of the amendments in the name of my colleague Arena Williams. So this particular part that we’re referring to is Subpart 2, in clause 15, which amends Schedule 1. There’s been a change there. It was originally drafted to be 53 and the change from 30 percent to 50 percent has changed that to 38. Now, my colleague Arena Williams has suggested a number of further reductions in this area, changing 38 with 37, 38 to 36, basically providing a number of other options for the Minister to consider. And as there has been a lot of openness in this particular process to consider different rates of discount that would apply to hybrid electric road-user charges for those vehicles, I would be really interested to know whether the Minister has considered those.

Also, I’d be interested to know the conversations that the Minister has had with the chair of the select committee, with his advisers, around accepting this particular reduction in the rate; if the Minister in the future is going to be so welcoming of changes at the select committee process. And why, in fact, if the Minister was sure that his proposal was correct when he initially presented this bill to the House, has he not presented an Amendment Paper following the change at the select committee process? And as my colleague Arena Williams touched on earlier, does that mean that the initial proposal was deficient in some way, or has the reasoning or the fundamental thinking behind the imposition of this particular piece of legislation changed?

I think it is important to allow the Minister time to answer those questions and to just go through with the committee the relatively significant change from first reading to select committee and now unchanged in the committee stage.

I also would just like to give the Minister the opportunity to put on the record once and for all how much of an impact did the timing of this legislation, and the work required to put an amendment through, influence his decision to accept the particular proposal from the select committee.

So some important questions for the Minister on a relatively unusual process that has been taken in relation to this particular bill—not one that I oppose necessarily—and I’d be interested to hear the Minister’s view on that, but I think it’s important that the Minister clarifies how we ended up here and why.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to take a call. And I want to thank members for the questions. There’s been a number of questions. Arena Williams asked about the plug-in hybrid electric vehicle rate and where it was initially set. The intention was to aim for parity with the road-user charges (RUC) rate, based on average fuel efficiency plus some consideration for the actual real-life experience of these engines and their efficiency, which is often not the same as what the manufacturers state.

However, as has been outlined in my earlier replies, and also my second reading speech on this bill and my first reading speech, we sent it to select committee to test the logic and the evidence on that particular issue. And whilst the 30 percent reduction rate, of course, was based on the average fuel efficiency of these vehicles, there is a range of fuel efficiency, particularly with some of the older plug-in hybrids, and a fairer approach would be to further reduce that to a 50 percent reduction, which is what Cabinet agreed to. So we’re a Government which listens. As I said, we sent it to select committee to test that. That was one of the key issues that we wanted to test.

In terms of the questions in relation to Camilla Belich around the process. Ultimately, Cabinet made the decision—I think it was last Monday—in relation to that particular issue. In terms of the pace at which we’re moving, that is because the exemption ran out on 1 April, so this legislation needs to be put in place prior to 1 April. As I’ve mentioned earlier, if we weren’t making this change, and as the last Government left things, those plug-in vehicles would be having to pay a full RUC rate on 1 April.

💬 Tom Rutherford: They only consulted on 20 percent as well.

As member Tom Rutherford mentions, they only consulted when they were in Government on a 20 percent RUC reduction, and they didn’t do anything following that. So we’re fixing lots of problems with this legislation. Thank you very much.

Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I did want to have the opportunity to both ask some questions and speak to my further two Amendment Papers that I haven’t yet spoken to.

I still haven’t heard the Minister reply. Maybe he did at a time that I missed, but I haven’t heard the Minister reply to my original question about what consultation he undertook with the industry and whether he has considered a reduced road-user charge—RUC—rate for electric vehicles to ensure that we’re not actively disincentivising purchasing new electric vehicles at a time when it’s really important to meet our climate commitments. As the industry’s proposed, a $60 per 1,000 kilometres rate would mean that electric vehicles are still contributing towards the roads and the upkeep of the roads, but it would mean that it was slightly more in line with fuel excise duty; however, not totally.

The other Amendment Paper that I have besides that one is No. 24, which would address precisely what the Minister has said, which is that they have a plan; they want to move to full road pricing for all vehicles based on the use of the road, not fuel. And it would make sense to either delay this until we have done that work or to have a reduced rate for electric vehicles (EVs) in the interim, because until we have that better system that the Minister was talking about, we are going to be actively disincentivising EVs relative to petrol cars, which doesn’t make sense when the Government says it wants to achieve our carbon reduction targets and a key way of achieving that is by getting more electric and zero-emissions vehicles into the fleet.

Now, very occasionally I do use taxis—it’s very practical—and when I do, I’m always happy to find a taxi that’s an electric vehicle.

💬 Grant McCallum: But you bike?

I do. I bike a lot of the time. Sometimes I take public transport. Sometimes I use a car. Sometimes I use a car-share. And when I do use a car, whether it’s a taxi or a car-share—

💬 Tom Rutherford: What about planes?

And, yes, and sometimes we have to use planes because we don’t have passenger trains to the extent that we would like in this country. But that’s why we advocate for investing in passenger trains.

However, when using a taxi, it’s always great to be able to find one that is a pure EV. And I know that a number of the taxi drivers that I use have EVs, but we are hearing stories about heaps of taxi drivers now trying to sell their EVs because of the rate of RUC that is now proposed for them. And that is absolutely the opposite of what we want. EVs make sense for taxis because they’re used more of the day, you know. They’re used for more kilometres. They’re used for more trips than your average vehicle, and if we have EV taxis, that is a good thing for New Zealand’s carbon emissions.

So will the Minister consider either my Amendment Paper 24 or my Amendment Paper 25. Amendment Paper 25 implements the recommendation from the joint submission from the vehicle industry, which recommended $60 per 1,000 kilometres, which is not a massive reduction in what the Minister is proposing. However, it would help take the edge off because we don’t want to actively disincentivise EVs. The other option, of course, is if we are going to have a much better, more accurate road-pricing system, then wait until you’re ready to implement that, rather than creating this disparity between EVs and fossil fuel vehicles at this time.

💬 Hon Member: We need to pay for the roads somehow.

We do need to pay for the roads somehow, and it would make sense to, none the less, retain some sort of neutral playing field so that we’re getting more EVs in, because if we don’t have EVs, this Government literally has not a single plan to reduce emissions from transport and they should be more transparent about that, because they keep saying they’re committed to reducing carbon emissions, yet every action they take is going in the opposite direction. And that’s what we heard from the industry at the select committee. We heard from the industry that this is going to actively penalise electric vehicles, which is the opposite of what we need to do if we want to get more electric vehicles into the fleet in this critical period in the next five years.

Finally, we have considered, and I’ve proposed an Amendment Paper—we’re glad that the Minister picked up the change that we proposed at the select committee that the Government members accidentally voted for, which reduces the rate for plug-in hybrids. However, even the plug-in hybrids that have very short battery ranges, we’re proposing an amendment that would just exempt owners of plug-in hybrids from paying RUC if their vehicle has 30 kilometre or less in battery range. Because the reality is that those vehicles in their use of the roads are far more akin to petrol vehicles. They’re going to be paying petrol tax on the fuel they use on that plug-in hybrid and so it would just make sense—and reduce paperwork, really—to exempt them.

The member’s time has expired.

Look, thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the member for her question in regards to the joint submission, which was from the industry. The joint submission was provided to me prior to the select committee process. I invited them to contribute to the select committee, and I thank the committee for reporting back with its views on the submissions. So I think that answers that question.

On the question in relation to the cost of running vehicles, page 4 of the departmental report has a very good analysis around the average running costs of different vehicles based on what type of fuels. Electric vehicles are very much at the bottom of the range because their operating costs are so much lower. And the reality is, what this does is it shows that the operating costs are a lot lower than driving a petrol or diesel vehicle whilst also meaning they’re paying a fair amount to use the roads, which is the intent. As members can see, based on page 4 of the departmental report, there is variance and that’s why we need to move all vehicles to pay a road-user charge based on distance and weight rather than based on the type of fuel that they use. And we’ve already started work on that.

There’s been a number of tabled amendments. The member the Hon Julie Anne Genter proposed to establish a power to set a reduced rate for EVs—sets the rate at $60. That’s inconsistent with the purpose of the Act. The legislation doesn’t propose to change the road-user charge rate.

Another one by the Hon Julie Anne Genter proposes an exemption for plug-in hybrids with a battery range of less than 30 kilometres. Implementing this would require the New Zealand Transport Agency to determine how to measure a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle’s battery life, and, so, would you base that on what the battery life is when they purchase the vehicle? Would you measure that based on the actual life? If it’s an older battery, it may not—actually, it may be sold as saying 40 kilometres but now it only operates at 20, 25. Ultimately, that’s why we’ve reduced the plug-in hybrid rate, because there is a variance in that issue.

There’s a proposal by Arena Williams in relation to a whole range of changes of definitions and words and titles, ultimately, and commencements, ultimately. It’s this Government’s intention that the exemption ends on 1 April. That was the last Government’s intention and we’re making the required changes to ensure that that happens as smoothly as possible.

The Hon Julie Anne Genter proposed a new commencement that delays the bill until all vehicles pay RUC. This would mean there is no transition period. Ultimately, what we’re proposing to do here is to transition those vehicles into the system, have a temporary RUC rate for plug-in hybrids to acknowledge the fact they use electricity and petrol, whilst work is done to move all vehicles into a road-user charge system, which will take more time. But, in the meantime, we believe it’s fair that all vehicles using the road help contribute towards use of the road.

I’m going to take a call from Arena Williams, but I think we’ve just had a very comprehensive answer from the Minister around the Amendment Papers. So I’d like it to be something new, please.

Yes. Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to ask the Minister of Transport two further questions that relate to the Amendment Papers, and, look, just to thank the Minister for his engagement in this committee stage in a back and forth that was also the mood of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee room. It was a robust discussion about some of these issues, particularly plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVS), and I’m glad that we could continue that on in the committee tonight.

The two remaining questions that the committee needs to know before voting on these Amendment Papers—and, you know, this is in the context of Labour members having tentative support for the Minister’s proposal now and intending to vote for the bill, so it is important for us to appreciate, you know, whether anything will be amended about it. The two questions are: what will the change in the rate of PHEVS save owners of PHEVS per annum on average? I appreciate that the Minister might not have an exact figure for different types of PHEVS and there is some variance in that, but I’m seeking to understand what an ordinary PHEV user can expect to save because of that. And, then, conversely, what does the change of rate from the $53 per 1,000 kilometres proposed in the original bill to the $38 per 1,000 kilometres in this current bill cost the land transport budget?

Once we understand those answers, I’m sure that we can agree to some level of support for this bill. We’ve made some changes here which will be long-lasting for people until—you know, we don’t have an answer on when Cabinet will consider the universal road-user charge for all vehicles, but we look forward to debating that with the Minister then in the same spirit that he has engaged in this committee stage.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

Motion agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendments to Part 1 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s amendments set out on Amendment Paper 26 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s amendments set out on Amendment Paper 25 be agreed to.

I’m just going to take some votes on Arena Williams’ tabled amendments, and my advice that I’ve received is that we don’t need to put every number for each amendment up to the vote. We are able to take a representative sample, so you will notice that we are going to move through the numbers, not putting every amendment up. Standing Order 315(4): “Where amendments are proposed that, in the opinion of the chairperson, are the same in substance, the chairperson may select amendments on which to put a question, in order to test the will of the committee.”

Point of order, Madam Chair. Thank you. I appreciate that it is absolutely within your discretion to do that, but providing for the committee some extra context around that original ruling, the purpose of that was to avoid a situation where members were putting forward amendments that were all essentially the same and did not fit within the intent of the Minister or the Government or with anyone else in the Chamber. The issue here is that this is the first time in a committee stage that we have been dealing with a change that a Minister has actually taken on board from Opposition members, and so I would suggest to you that this is an opportunity for you to test the will of the committee on each one of those amendments, given that the select committee has decided on a change.

Thank you for the point of order, but I think we’ll get an answer by testing a selection of those amendments, rather than having to go through each one.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 15(2) replacing “38” with “37” be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 15(2) replacing “38” with “25” be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 15(2) replacing “38” with “15” be agreed to.

The committee has voted on a representative selection of amendments to clause 15(2). The will of the committee having been tested, Arena Williams’ remaining tabled amendments to clause 15 are ruled out of order.

The Hon Julie Anne Genter’s amendments to Part 2, set out on Amendment Paper 23, are out of order as being inconsistent with the objects and principles of the bill.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 1 inserting “and Discount for Plug-in Hybrids” be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 1 inserting “Extension of Exemption Period for” be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 1 inserting “Transitional Period before Universal RUC Scheme for” be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 1 deleting “Light” be agreed to.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 1 to replace “RUC” with “Road-user Charges” is ruled out of order as not offering a serious alternative form of words.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 2 replacing “1 April 2024” with “8 May 2025” be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s amendment set out on Amendment Paper 24 be agreed to.