Road User Charges (Light Electric RUC Vehicles) Amendment Bill

I move, That the Road User Charges (Light Electric RUC Vehicles) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

SPEAKER: I don’t want to interrupt; the member will start his time again. Could people, please, leave the House without the conversations on the way through.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Would you like me to move the bill again?

SPEAKER: Oh, look, I think we’ll take that as done.

Hon SIMEON BROWN: Take that as done—well, thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to bring the Road User Charges (Light Electric RUC Vehicles) Amendment Bill to the House. I just want to start by outlining the purpose and intention of this legislation, which is to ensure that all users of our roading network—whether you drive an electric vehicle, a diesel vehicle, a petrol vehicle, a hybrid vehicle, a plug-in hybrid vehicle—pay your fair share of, and contribution towards, building and maintaining our roading infrastructure here in New Zealand.

Of course, it was the last National Government which provided the exemption for light electric vehicles back in 2009. And that was when, I believe, there was around six or eight electric vehicles actually on the roads at that time. The intention was to have that exemption in place until the number of light electric vehicles—and I think it was possibly you, Mr Speaker, or one of your predecessors, who put that exemption in place as Minister of Transport. But the intention was that once the number of light electric vehicles reached around 2 percent of the vehicles on our roads, the exemption would stay in place. Of course, we now know that the number of light electric vehicles is above the 2 percent threshold and so, therefore, this exemption runs out and this legislation is needed.

And so, of course, the exemption runs out on Monday, 1 April and this piece of legislation helps to transition those vehicles into the road-user charges (RUC) system by ensuring that they are required to pay road-user charges and that, importantly, there is a lower rate for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, acknowledging the fact that those vehicles use both petrol and are plugged in and use electricity. There is a transition period of two months for people to be able to purchase their first RUC licence, whilst continuing to keep an exemption for very light electric vehicles which are less than 1,000 kilograms, which is still in place due to the very small number of those vehicles on our road.

Of course, this legislation is needed to ensure that that smooth transition takes place—firstly because, otherwise, plug-in hybrid vehicles would have to have paid the full RUC rate, which of course would have been unfair due to the fact that they also use petrol. It also allows for a two-month transition—and, of course, there’s over 100,000 vehicles which are going to have to come into the system from Monday, 1 April. So this provides a two-month transition period, which I think allows for the systems—for people to understand their obligations and to be able to enter the system, which is very important. And so this legislation helps to provide for that transition, which otherwise could have been quite clunky.

And, of course, the last Government didn’t do much, but I do acknowledge their support of this legislation thus far into the House. I do want to acknowledge that they have supported this legislation thus far, but if this legislation wasn’t put in place, owners of plug-in hybrid vehicles would have to pay a full RUC rate. They would then have to claim exemptions on any petrol that they did use. That would of course mean that the New Zealand Transport Agency would have to hire huge numbers of people to process that and, of course, there’d be opportunities for fraud throughout that, which of course is not ideal.

This system, I think, helps with that transition whilst ensuring that the plug-in hybrid rate is set at a fair rate. We sent the bill to select committee to consider that. The last Government consulted on a 20 percent rate reduction based upon what the manufacturers say the fuel efficiency of those vehicles is. In the legislation we brought to the House, we increased that to a 30 percent reduction, taking into account the actual variableness in terms of plug-in hybrid vehicles; of course, that has now been changed to 50 percent to ensure that is a fair transition.

What I would say is that this is a temporary transition period. This Government does intend to shortly make the next steps, which is to actually move all vehicles to a road-user charge system. This bill, whilst it deals with the immediate issue in front of us, which is ensuring that those light electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid vehicles are brought into the system, we do acknowledge that there are variances in the system. There are variances based on what type of fuel that you use. So this Government has made it very clear in our draft Government policy statement on transport and in bringing this legislation to the House that we need to make further reforms to how we pay to use our roads here in New Zealand.

That means ensuring that—it doesn’t matter what type of fuel your car has, whether it’s a petrol car, whether it’s a diesel car, whether it’s a hybrid, whether it’s a plug-in hybrid, whether it’s a full electric vehicle, whether it’s hydrogen—actually, we want to ensure that everyone pays the same based on the number of kilometres they drive on the road and the weight of their vehicle, rather than what type of fuel they use. So that is a significant piece of reform which we’re currently receiving advice on and which decisions will be made on shortly.

But I want to make that very clear that this is a transitionary period, that there are still variances in the system, and that this Government is committed to continuing with this reform, and we look forward to receiving support from across the House as part of that reform, to ensure the future sustainability of the National Land Transport Fund and to ensure that the revenue that is used and that is raised by road users is put back into maintaining and building our roads.

So this piece of legislation is an important piece of legislation. It is the first step in making those reforms. I do want to acknowledge all of the submitters who submitted as part of the select committee process. I do want to acknowledge the support of all of the parties of the House who supported this bill. I do particularly want to acknowledge our coalition partners and the ACT Party, who have, as part of the coalition agreement, made it clear that it is part of the agreement to move all vehicles to road-user charges. I do want to acknowledge their support in particular, and I want to commend this bill to the House.

Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to begin this debate on the bill. Look, I want to acknowledge the Minister for his approach to not only the committee stage but being flexible and adaptive in what has been generally a really good working process for working through what is a very detailed piece of legislation. He’s come to the House, he’s accepted the changes put by Opposition members in select committee, and I want to congratulate him on that and the way that he took on questions in the committee stage in a back and forth that really helped Opposition members engage with this work. Even though he cannot thank me for my contribution to his legislative programme, I can thank him.

This is a good bill and Labour will be supporting it. It began in 2022 when the Government of the time went out to consultation on an appropriate discount for electric vehicles (EVs) that were using the roading network, to take into account the cost of using the roading network as a whole. But that was alongside the Clean Car Discount and other policies which incentivised not only the uptake of EVs and plug-in hybrid vehicles but also the cost to Aotearoa, as a whole, of our transport fleet and the large proportion of emissions that transport represents in New Zealand’s total contribution to our emissions as a country.

So we then have this piece of legislation which did not consider as part of the policy rationale for setting a discount those things that go along with incentivising people to pick up cars that are more efficient in terms of emissions. And that is something that Opposition members grappled with in the committee stage and in the select committee room, and it’s something we would like to revisit with the Minister when he calls for support from across the House for the universal road-user charges regime. It’s important that we understand the policy considerations around pricing, what individuals pay when they use not only the roading network but New Zealand’s transport system as a whole when they are using a private vehicle.

I’m not going to drag this call out, because it is important to acknowledge that we support this bill and this is work that has been a long time coming. What I want to flag, though, is that these decisions are not just having an impact on future users of EVs and plug-in hybrid EVs; this was a set of decisions that also affects about 25,000 people who have plug-in hybrid vehicles now, and many more users who are using purely EVs.

And I want to make the point, and this has been made by a number of my colleagues at various different points in the House, about how we make law which affects people who already have made an investment. I hope that we get out of the habit of using urgency in those situations when people have either made a very significant investment in an expensive car for their household that they expect to last for the next 10 years based on the economics of having that car or for their business. Because this deeply affects taxi drivers, it affects Uber drivers, it affects the profitability of their business and, particularly for taxi drivers, the amount of time that they have to be working to make their fixed costs make sense if they have invested heavily in an EV like a Tesla.

So I hope that, in future, when we’re making decisions as a House about what sorts of bills we grant urgency to, we can give due consideration to those people who are affected by this and have told us in select committee, with only 24 hours to prepare a submission, that they would be hanging up the keys of their EVs because the discount didn’t make sense for them to continue to use it.

Grant McCallum: Had to be done by 1 April.

ARENA WILLIAMS: And I hear calls from the other side of the House. Mr Grant McCallum has said that it had to be done by 1 April. That’s true. This piece of legislation has been extended—I think it’s four times. I have it here. Yes, it’s been extended four times and that is generally accepted practice and something that Labour members would have supported in order to get this right.

The only reason why we would be sort of accepting a process like this this time is that we’ve heard that it is transitional. And we heard in the select committee—advisers from the Ministry of Transport and Waka Kotahi told the committee that they had been asked to prepare advice that would go to Cabinet in June about this issue. We expect the Government to continue on with that work in that kind of time frame so that this is genuinely transitional and so that the wider policy considerations can be taken into account.

That’s why I’m happy to commend this bill. I thank the Minister for his constructive work, and I look forward to working on it together.

Actions speak louder than words, and future generations will look back on people who had positions of power and the ability to make decisions, and judge us on whether we made the decisions that were going to result in a survivable climate or not. People here may not realise that right now. They may not be paying attention to the reality of what is happening out there with global sea-surface temperatures and global air temperatures and the impact on our ability to grow food, the impact on food prices. But, every year from now on, it’s going to become more and more evident, and it’s incumbent on us to make decisions for our kids and our grandkids. And those decisions need to be judged on whether or not they’re having the impact that we know they need to have. What are the outcomes of our decisions?

This Government has said they’re committed to our climate targets, and every action they take takes us in the opposite direction. Just like when they say they care about economic growth and productivity, every action they’re taking in the transport space will objectively not take us in the direction of economic productivity. So we have a Government who’s completely out of touch with reality, and the Green Party will stand here and continue to oppose legislation that is going to mean more emissions at a time when we know we cannot afford more emissions. It is that simple. We have to very rapidly reduce our use of fossil fuels to zero. That’s what we have to do.

These people have absolutely no clue how to do that, and it’s very clear in this legislation. We have the entire vehicle industry saying to us at select committee—and over 500 New Zealanders who had less than 36 hours to submit on this bill—that they opposed the bill. We had a joint submission from the industry—the Motor Industry Association, the AA, Drive Electric, the vehicle importers’ association, the Motor Trade Association, the Better NZ Trust—making a compelling case and showing the numbers on why the specific proposal for the rates on electric vehicles in this bill penalises electric vehicles (EVs) relative to fossil fuel vehicles. They weren’t saying that we should continue the exemption for ever, and the Green Party has not said that either. It is possible to ensure that electric vehicles are making a contribution towards the use of the roads without overcharging them, which the industry has clearly stated.

Supposedly, this Government cares about fairness, but clearly they don’t, because they’re saying to people who purchased electric vehicles, “We’re going to charge you twice what you would pay if you bought the hybrid equivalent, which is a conventional fossil fuel vehicle.” And the real outcome of that, as we’ve heard from the industry and as would be evident to anyone who understood anything about economics, is that, over the next five years, people will make different choices. They will import and purchase more brand-new fossil-fuel vehicles instead of electric vehicles, and that will emit more emissions on our roads for at least 20 years. So the practical consequence of this bill is more emissions, more pollution contributing to greenhouse gases. And this Government had the opportunity, if they listened to the industry, to make a different decision, to make a decision that would still have seen electric vehicles contributing to the cost of the roads, but at a rate that would have been fairer.

The Minister says that he’s committed to bringing in full road pricing, irrespective of what the fuel is. Well, I will take a bet with any member of this House that we will not see that system brought in before the end of this term, and over the next three to five years, that is the critical moment which would have made a consequential difference to the vehicles coming in. So it’s one small part. Obviously, there’s many, many, many other things that we can and must do in order to reduce emissions from our fleet. But this was one small thing that the Government could have done to import more electric vehicles into the country instead of more fossil fuel vehicles. And the reality is that we will be living with the consequences of this decision, and every other decision they’re making, for ever in the future. But, for at least the next 20 years, it will mean more emissions.

That’s why the Green Party cannot support this bill. Now, we would have been happy to support the bill if they had amended it in line with my proposed amendment, which was recommended by a joint submission from the industry. We hear time and time again that supposedly these people listen to business and listen and respect the industry, yet they don’t. They don’t. They haven’t. They’re completely ignoring what the industry is saying.

A simple change which would have said that electric vehicles pay a rate of $60 per 1,000 kilometres instead of the rate that is proposed here, which is significantly more and will mean that EV drivers are paying more than fossil fuel drivers in comparable cars for the exact same journey. How is that fair? Well, the point is, it’s not fair and it’s just very clear from every action this Government takes that they don’t believe in climate change, they don’t believe in taking action on climate change. All of their actions demonstrate they have not one single bit of commitment to taking action on climate change, even when there are economic benefits for New Zealand in doing so. And every step we take to reduce the reliance on fossil fuels in our transport system is not only good for the climate and absolutely essential for future life on this planet but it actually saves New Zealand money. It improves our current account deficit.

As if they cared. No, no. We know what this Minister cares about. He’s fighting those silly, tribal culture wars, as if it mattered. He wants to punish people who buy EVs. He wants to continue subsidising those who use fossil fuels. He wants to ensure that children cannot even walk to school safely by stopping the survivable speed limits around schools. He wants to stop every safe pedestrian crossing that is evidence-based in this country. Why? To save 15 seconds on the average car journey. That is a negligible amount that no one will notice. But he does it because he doesn’t understand the incredible opportunity. And I’m sorry for him, because here he could have been someone who not only delivered on his values of freedom, economic productivity, and a more beneficial, productive, lower-cost transport system for New Zealand; he could have done that in a way that also looked after the planet, the planet that his kids live on and my kids live on.

So, as is evident, the Green Party is not supporting the bill. We did contribute, with the Labour Party, to a constructive improvement on the bill in terms of reducing the rate for plug-in hybrids. And, luckily, the Government did make a mistake in the select committee which meant that that amendment got passed.

Grant McCallum: No, we supported it.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Yeah, yeah, yeah, that is true. Members say they supported it. Of course, the report says they didn’t support it, but that’s OK. Look, I’m glad they supported the lower rate for plug-in hybrids, but they should have listened to the industry and had a lower rate for electric vehicles.

There’s a lot of yelling from the other side of the House, and I know I’ve been very animated. Look, it’s because the decisions that we make matter. The outcomes of those decisions matter. And, if I went out there and asked any New Zealander if they think the Government should be making decisions that increase emissions and increase fossil fuel vehicles on our roads, they would say no, because most New Zealanders know about climate change. They want us to be pulling our weight, and many of them would like to be able to access electric vehicles. But the Government is currently adopting policies that make it harder, more expensive, more difficult to do the right thing by the climate. They’re going to make it harder to take public transport, more expensive to take public transport, more expensive to use EVs. They’re going to probably try to completely kill our rail system. And for what? For what? To own the libs. Congratulations!

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, it is a happy day, is it not? After so many years of certain members of the driving community having a free ride on the roads, we’re finally sorting it out, and it perfectly aligns with the ACT principles of user-pays.

Now, we all understand the history. There was an intention, a good intention in 2016, to incentivise people to get into the electric vehicle and plug-in electric vehicle market. But that market has developed. We have electric hybrid vehicles, we have plug-in, we have electric vehicles. But, you know, there has been a lot of, well, are we allowed to use the word “misinformation” in the community? I’ve heard a few people tell me they want to sell their hybrid petrol vehicle because they fear the road-user charge. Well, I can give those people assurance that we will not be charging a road-user charge while they are still paying a fuel excise duty, because that’s just not fair. We believe in user pays, not user-pays twice.

What we’re saying is that in this interim period, while we are working through, and this Government is working through, a road pricing regime which brings in electric vehicle road-user charges and other methods to fund our roads so that we can have the infrastructure that we need in a modern liberal democracy with property owning, to be able to get to work so you can work where you choose, for whomever you choose, and in industries that you enjoy. Because the roads are so important and the efficiency of the roads, the maintenance of these roads, they only come from one place and it’s other Kiwis paying their fair share.

SPEAKER: Sorry, don’t mean to interrupt. The member leaving the House—can we just remove the scarf from the back of the chair? Other parties have had to do that, it can’t be left there like that. Sorry to interrupt you; it won’t affect your time.

CAMERON LUXTON: Appreciate it Mr Speaker; no, fair call, we do need to keep the decorum in this House, and I appreciate you doing so.

So we heard “living with the consequences” and how this is going to impact on climate change. Well, this road-user charge regime is not in any way designed to address incentivising people into which and which car not to choose. It is merely there to pay for the renewal and maintenance and improvements of our roads. We have an emissions trading scheme (ETS) which deals with a user-pays mechanism to deal with carbon emissions and pricing carbon to make sure that people who are actually emitting carbon pay for that, not people who we do or don’t want to be seeing on the roads.

Tradies and farmers have been very disappointed in being singled out, I would say, in a lot of ways and over many years—you know, people who go and build and farm and create stuff with no choice. And myself, I have been both a farmer and a tradie and I tell you what: I’d keep an eye on these new catalogues that would come out with all these great choices of vans and utes, and I’d be waiting for one with an electric vehicle component to it. Well, they are still coming and when they do, I’m sure my fellow tradies and farmers will take the greatest advantage of those opportunities. But until that is in place, they have been left out to pay for the rest of the country.

We have a road-user charge coming in on all vehicles. It’s going to be made in a way in the future by this Government that will allow all vehicles to no longer have to deal with the fuel excise duty and have one method of payment, and I’m looking forward to that day. I commend this bill to the House.

SPEAKER: I call on Andy Foster.

Andy Foster: Mr Speaker, thank you.

SPEAKER: Sorry, just a moment. In the scheme of things, it’s Te Pāti Māori. Is there another—[Member signals to the Speaker] Well, in that case, stand up and take the call.

Scott Willis: Oh, are we—sorry.

SPEAKER: Good. Apologies. I call Scott Willis.

Andy Foster: Usually we’re number five.

SPEAKER: Well, your name is not Scott Willis.

Andy Foster: Well, usually we’re number five.

SPEAKER: Oh, yeah, I’ve got it completely wrong. It’s unbelievable, isn’t it? Even I’m shocked. It must be Thursday afternoon. So, stand by, Scott Willis; can we call Andy Foster.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. My name is not Scott Willis, but, look, I was privileged to chair the Transport and Infrastructure Committee that considered the submissions and considered this bill, and I just want to start by just saying thank you to all the people: all the members of the committee on both sides of the House for what was genuinely, generally, a collaborative process.

I also want to thank all the officials who worked very industriously with us, who gave us, I think, really, really good advice in a very, very short period of time—and also the submitters. Now, while we’ve heard that they had 36 or so hours—I think it might’ve been between 36 and 48 hours to make submissions—we got 518 submissions, and I think they were really good quality and we got some really good input from submitters. In the space of nine days, we did all the work that was required of us to notify submissions, to receive the submissions, hear submissions, to get officials’ advice, consider that advice, make changes to the bill, deliberate, and report back.

Now, why did we end up, because we did have minority—both minority reports said that, actually, they were concerned about the speed that we had to do this under, and, yes, there was some pressure there, but the reality is, as we’ve already heard from Arena Williams, that the then Labour Government actually started this conversation two years ago but didn’t advance it. Now, perhaps the incoming coalition might’ve advanced it earlier, but look how many things we’ve had to do in the first hundred-odd days of this Government. So I don’t think that anybody should point the finger. I don’t think that anybody on that side should point the finger at this side and say, “Well, you know, it was truncated in terms of its time frame.” We did hear from the public and we responded to the public, and we did the best that we possibly could.

This bill was expected. The application of road-user charges (RUC) was expected for electric vehicles (EVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs). This is not a new tax; it is something that was always expected. EVs and PHEVs have been exempted from this until we got to roughly 2 percent of the vehicle fleet, and we’ve got to that point and, therefore, Labour had started that work. The coalition Government now is continuing that work and completing that work to say, actually, we’re bringing EVs and PHEVs into the RUC system. If the bill were not passed, EVs and PHEVs will be required to pay RUC at full rate; there’ll be no discount. There is a discount which is going to apply to PHEVs; there would be no discount if this bill was not there in front of us and was not passed.

The second thing is that there would also be no two-month, if you like, grace period for those owners of EVs and PHEVs to actually get their RUC—1 April, so this weekend, people would have to have a RUC certificate, would’ve paid for their RUC, and if they weren’t, they would be able to be fined. Now, they’re going to be given two months of grace. The New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) is going to be able to reach out to those owners and try and make sure they know what is going on, they know what their responsibilities are, and they’ve got a little bit of time to do that. So this piece of legislation is really important for both those reasons. Now, we’ve heard a lot from the Hon Julie Anne Genter about climate change—

Hon Member: We’ve heard a lot.

ANDY FOSTER: —well, we have heard a lot; yeah, we have certainly heard a lot—but this is not about climate change; this is about access, as you heard from my colleague Cam Luxton. This is about access to the roading system. It is about EVs and PHEVs paying a fair price for access to the roading system. Largely, our submitters were from the industry or they were the owners of EVs and PHEVs. They weren’t petrol car owners, they weren’t diesel car owners or diesel vehicle owners; they were people who were actually going to have to pay this cost, and they said, almost entirely—in fact, it might’ve even been entirely—“This is fair that we pay towards the use, the operation, the maintenance, the resilience of the road network.” The only argument was around the rate and what is the fair rate.

So, two parts to this: first of all, PHEVs. The issue, of course, with PHEVs is they partly use petrol, they partly use battery, and therefore it’s a complicated arrangement because the petrol part is already paying through fuel excise duty. The battery part at the moment is not paying anything, but come 1 April they will be paying for some component of RUC, and the question was how much component of RUC, and what is the right level of discount? We discussed quite a number of different possible justifications for different levels of discount. We started off at 20 percent, which is where the initial consultation happened that the then Labour Government started two years ago.

The Ministry of Transport (MOT) had given advice that, actually, because there was a range of different vehicles within the PHEV fleet—and let’s bear in mind that it’s only 30,000-something vehicles; it’s not a huge number of vehicles, but there’s still a range of different ages, vehicles that are used in the urban environment, vehicles that are used in the rural environment, and every single one of those will be unique. So, the MOT suggested that 30 percent was the right discount. We had some advice that they also provided to us that came from Europe, which said they’d looked at 9,000 PHEVs in Europe, which suggested that maybe a 50 percent discount was the right number.

You could actually make an argument for anything probably between 20, maybe 30, and 50 percent, and we’ve ended up, by hook or by crook—and, actually, I’m not at all upset by that—at 50 percent. You know, that was one of the things that the Minister of Transport actually asked us to do specifically in the terms of reference: we were asked specifically to look at what was the right rate of discount for PHEVs. We’ve ended up with 50 percent, and I think, right across the board, right around the House and in the community, 50 percent is seen as actually pretty good. We’re pretty happy with that. So, I think ka pai, well done, for all of us there.

There was a question that was asked in the end of the committee stage, if I might say, which didn’t actually get answered because the closure motion actually was unopposed at that point in time. It didn’t get answered, but there was a question asked in committee about what the average saving would be—and we’re always talking averages in these things, because every vehicle is different, every vehicle circumstance is different. What was the average saving going to be? Now, if you used 11,000 kilometres, the MOT’s advice was that the average saving across a year will be $165. So it’s a reasonable number, but it’s not massively significant. And that total cost across the fleet, which was the other part of the question which was asked, was somewhere between $4.2 million and $5.7 million. So the numbers we’re talking about are not huge, but I think we’ve ended in a good place for the PHEV fleet.

In respect of EVs, there was an industry submission, which you’ve already heard about, which argued for a slight reduction. The reason for that reduction is because petrol vehicles have become more efficient. Originally, petrol vehicles, or less-efficient petrol vehicles, would’ve been paying the same level of RUC as the diesel fleet, but now, because petrol vehicles—and that’s good news—have become more efficient, they’re actually going to be paying slightly less on average than an EV or a diesel vehicle. So there is a little bit of an argument there, but I would make the point that when the opportunity was there during the select committee process to say, “Does anybody want to have a crack at reducing the rate for EVs?”, nobody did. No party wanted to move that.

I also note that during the committee stage of the House yesterday, when it came to the final vote, it was unanimous—it was unanimous. So I’m disappointed to hear the speech from the Hon Julie Anne Genter to say that the Green Party won’t support this. I think, look, the amount we’re talking about here is not a huge difference, between the full RUC and the $60 rate that was being suggested there. But the reality is, going through that process, there were opportunities to tackle this; they were not taken, and I think people should reflect on that.

Just to finish off with a couple of other things, I do want to just touch on the minority views that were there in front of us. The first one, from the Labour Party, the concerns were about pace—I’ve already answered that issue—and the PHEV rate. The reality is we’ve actually ended up with a PHEV rate that the Labour Party supported, so I’m hoping they’re going, “Hey, that’s great.” With respect to the Green Party, the same issues were raised with the EV rate, and again, I’ve already addressed that issue. They had the opportunity to tackle that; they didn’t take that opportunity, and I think they should reflect on that.

Look, finally, the point I’d like to make is that regardless of what the rate is at this point in time, there are attractions to having EV vehicles, because they are cheaper to run; they certainly don’t have to pay the emissions trading scheme rate. The biggest issue with EVs, which we heard from the industry as well, is they’re actually more expensive at the moment to buy, and the New Zealand market is not going to overcome that. What’s going to happen is that if the market internationally makes it more attractive, it brings the price down of construction of those EV vehicles and more people will buy them over time. But, regardless, the aim here is to move towards RUC right across the board. One of the other comments that the select committee made is that NZTA needs to be much more efficient in its RUC administration process, and we believe that it could do that.

The last thing I did want to say is that the issue of funding our transport system has been an issue that’s been exercising the minds of officials. I know that because I was involved in that, if you like, from the local government side of things. I know that officials were thinking about that very deeply over quite some number of years, and Governments of both colours over quite some number of years. We know that as petrol vehicles have become more efficient, as EVs start to become a greater proportion of the vehicle fleet, our transport system needs money. It needs money to be able to build, to maintain, to operate roads and public transport systems and so on, and so we are going to need a new way of funding our roading system. That will be RUC, and that is where we need to move as quickly as possible. I commend this bill to the House.

I’m going to call Scott Willis, but before I do, I just want to note that this is normally a split call, but I’ve been advised that Te Pāti Māori have given their call to the Green Party, so it will be a full call. Thank you.

Kia ora. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you for the questions and the responses from the other side. One thing I’m very proud about is my sons. I have two sons who both live in Wellington at the moment, and when my youngest son moved to Wellington, he and his partner at the time bought an electric vehicle (EV). They bought a second-hand EV, and it cost them $5,000—a Leaf that they have driven around and used for transport around the city. I think that illustrates the importance of incentives to decarbonise, because my sons are, like many youth, really concerned about their future. They are concerned about climate chaos that will ensue if we do not reduce emissions at pace, and so they want to do the right thing. What they did was purchase an EV—

Simon Court: What has this got to do with collecting money to pay for roads?

SCOTT WILLIS: If you will listen, you will hear, but—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Not the “you”. Don’t bring the Speaker into the debate. Please refrain from using the word “you”. You can interject, but—

SCOTT WILLIS: Thank you. So I have heard that the road-user charge (RUC) is going to be applied right across the board, and that’s great. It is such a pity that we weren’t waiting until something could be done properly, rather than rushing something through.

I’ve heard that there was an exemption in place until 2 percent of the fleet was zero emission, and that’s been reached, and so legislation was needed at that point. But 2 percent of the fleet at zero emission is ridiculous. It is minimal. Norway survived different flavours of Government to achieve substantial decarbonisation of land transport, and the main signal all Norway’s Governments have given is that it should always be economically beneficial to choose zero-emission or low-emission cars, so their ambition is to make sure that all new cars are zero-emission by 2025.

Now, this is an ambitious goal that is, obviously, working up the Government, because I know that the Government is keen to work up the fossil fuel sector. We know that. We’ve heard that from the Minister for Resources, but the Climate Change Commission has made clear that the Government should continue with incentives to meet our climate goals. The Climate Change Commission has been really clear on this, and that’s really the key problem with this bill, because it is sloppy work. It’s sloppy, it’s chaotic, it’s destructive. That’s what we’ve come to expect from this Government—rushed through under urgency without careful thought.

But at least it has the good value of uniting Aotearoa. Māori have never been more united. Rainbow have never been more united. Youth have never been more united, and I am really looking forward to the school strike for climate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can I please ask if these groups are united on the RUC charge? That’s what the bill is about.

SCOTT WILLIS: And the motor industry has almost universally contested this bill. So what this bill shows is that the Government is not listening to business. It’s not caring about progressive business. It’s not listening to the Climate Change Commission. It’s not listening to progressive amendments that were put forward that could have helped and that could have made a difference. It is not paying attention. Is it simply because this Government is so full of climate change deniers that they do not want to work on solutions?

What we know—what we know—is that there will be many, many billion dollars that will have to be spent because of this Government’s inaction on climate. We know that this is going to cost us heavily. We know that this is kicking a can—a big can—way down the road, because the Climate Change Commission suggests that this is going to cost us a fortune. The Climate Change Commission has talked about—let’s see—how the inaction on climate is going to cost us somewhere between a minuscule $3.3 billion to maybe $23.7 billion—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr Willis, we are halfway through the 10-minute call. I want this to be brought directly back to the RUC bill, please. Thank you.

SCOTT WILLIS: Thank you. In relation to the cost and the disincentivisation of EVs, this is going to cost us in missing our climate targets, and that cost will come to us when we have to buy offshore credits.

I have friends who are tradies driving EVs. I have colleagues who are tradies, whose businesses depend on driving EVs—

Helen White: Point of order, Madam Speaker.

SCOTT WILLIS: —and this is an incredible—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have a point of order from Helen White.

Helen White: I am actually sincerely trying to hear the debate, and I can’t hear the member speak because of the noise.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. We’ll just note that interjections are fine, but not overly loud ones. Thank you.

SCOTT WILLIS: Thank you. My friends and tradies I know who work with EVs are now reconsidering because of this unfair cost that we could have addressed through amendments to this bill. My colleague the Hon Julie Anne Genter proposed very sensible amendments, for example, to have a fairer rate of road-user charges of $60 per 1,000 kilometres, and that aligned with the industry request. This is a lot simpler, to ensure that we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

We, of course, recognise that we need to have some roads, but we also recognise that we need to have rail and we need to have ferries that’ll connect the two islands, and those have been kicked to touch as well, haven’t they? Simply because we seem to have a Government of climate change deniers.

But the thing that unites the Greens with the motor industry on this is that there is sloppy legislation that could have been fixed and could work better, and it is going to take the 2026 election to ensure we can get back on track to climate action. Because, quite simply, this country and the globe can’t support the type of head-in-the-sand climate inaction and backward-looking proposals that this Government keeps on throwing at us. We need to ensure that we have land transport that is fully decarbonised, and that is going to mean low-emission vehicles, zero-emission transport, with their fair contribution to road-user charges, but let’s ensure that rural communities are not paying more because they drive on poor roads. Let’s ensure that we divvy it up to ensure that those people who are who are driving in heavier vehicles—SUVs and utes—pay their fair share of road-user charges.

So let’s wait until we have a whole-system approach, rather than just rushing through things. This is the problem with this Government: it is unable to do legislation well. It would rather rush things through and do it in a sloppy and chaotic way. It does not care about the future we are leaving for our children and for our grandchildren, and that is the real issue we have here.

We want to do good by business, to progressive business who want to help decarbonise, and we are stymied by a Government that has stuck its head in the sand while the sea was rising. This is the issue we have to deal with, and, quite frankly, I’m sick of hearing from the Government that they want to do something on climate and yet demonstrate in every single action that they are climate deniers. This is the shocking, shocking thing we have to confront every day in this House, and I would love this Government to propose something that showed that they were working for the country, rather than against our future.

There is so much we could do here, and so, so much that we’ve missed, simply by an ideological position and a willingness to reject any compromise and any discussion with this side of the House. That’s the sad, sad fact—that this Government is ideologically driven to do the worst they could do to take us on a great leap backwards. Back to the future, back to baccy—backwards, backwards, backwards. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Well, we are here to debate the final reading of the Road User Charges (Light Electric RUC Vehicles) Amendment Bill. Unlike the previous speaker, Scott Willis, I think I have worked that much out.

Right, I think I’ll start off by, firstly, giving a little bit of history to the electric vehicle (EV) situation in New Zealand. Under that great former Minister of Transport the Hon Steven Joyce, in 2009, we brought in the—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: Jobs for your mates!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: 2009 was the reference.

GRANT McCALLUM: That’s correct; did you hear that? We brought in the encouragement for people to purchase EVs by exempting them from having to pay road-user charges (RUC), which has been a great thing. But we also said at the time, when it gets to about 2 percent—when the number in the fleet gets to about 2 percent—we would then bring them into the system so they could help pay their way, right?

Tom Rutherford: It’s only fair.

GRANT McCALLUM: Yes, well said. And this is all about the fairness, so that everyone is seen to be contributing to the roads, using the roads of New Zealand.

And, actually, why is that important? I’ll tell you why that’s important: because we need to fix our roads, and we need everyone to contribute to that, everybody who’s using it to contribute to that, so that we can fix the Brynderwyns, which have now been struggling for the last while—which are open. By the way, have I mentioned already that you can actually go there this Easter on holiday? But that’s what you require the money for, right? That is why we are doing this: so that everyone pays their fair share for the roads, OK? It’s really, really important, because it’s all part of that, so we can help fund the roads of national significance, which are a great idea, so that we can actually create productivity and jobs in this country. We can create business opportunities, particularly in the Far North, where we need to be able to create jobs.

Hon Willow-Jean Prime: Is this about the RUCs?

GRANT McCALLUM: Yes, it is. It’s about creating opportunities. It’s about creating opportunities so that we can pay for the roads—pay for the roads.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yeah, Mr McCallum is about to explain how the RUCs will fix the roads in Northland.

GRANT McCALLUM: That’s exactly right. Well said, Madam Speaker. That is well said. Well, moving on, it’s very important that we fix those roads so we unlock potential around the country. But it has to be paid for, right?

We worked through this very carefully as a select committee, listened carefully to the submissions, and we came to the conclusion that we had to make some changes, after the last Government delayed and delayed and didn’t act on this bill—the challenges that were faced through the road-user charges that were going to be coming automatically on 1 April this year. We had to act quickly. We’ve been challenged about this—saying it was acting too quickly. We had no choice, unless we were going to leave the electric vehicle fleet having to pay the full RUC of $76 per 1,000 kilometres, which would have been unfair for the whole lot of them. So we went through the system, and particularly the plug-in hybrids, and we reached the point which the previous Government had set at 20 percent; we took it to 30 percent. After consultation, we went to 50 percent. And that’s where it sits. So we’ve reached that situation.

But, ultimately, for it to become completely fair, we need to have everybody paying road-user charges, because that is how it will be a fair system, and that will take time. We’ve got a transition period set in for that, so we can actually work that through, so that, ultimately, if you use the roads, the amount of road-user charges you pay will be based on the distance you travel and the weight of the vehicle, not on what powers your vehicle. That will be a fairer system for everybody, and I’m sure that New Zealanders will really appreciate that. So we’ve got to be able to do that moving forward. And, as we worked through this as a select committee, we heard some great submissions, and, ironically, virtually everybody said, “Yes, we have to all pay our fair share.” We had some debate about the fair share, but the Government is focused, and that’s why it is so important that we move through the transition as quickly as possible so that we get to the overall RUC situation.

And I’d finally like to say that this is a good bill, a good compromise. I thank the support from the members of the Opposition, from the Labour Party, on their bill, for their work in the select committee. It’s just a shame that the member for the Green Party has left, because I would have liked to have pointed out to her—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We can’t talk about members not being in the House.

GRANT McCALLUM: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m sorry. But, anyway, we have had good support generally across the House, so I thank them for that, and I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Tēnā tātou e te Whare. Happy Easter, Madam Speaker, and to all of the members across the House and those at home, I hope you all have a safe trip on our roads in Aotearoa New Zealand, wherever you are going. To acknowledge the last speaker, I encourage people to head to Northland and support that member and the roads up there and the local economy of Northland.

This is a debate about the road-user charges, and I acknowledge those from the past that have carved the path—including Steven Joyce—for people, actually, who have taken action to reduce emissions in this country, because only by taking action, putting in new tools to change behaviour, will we see the outcome in this country that we want to see.

There is a lot of excitement in the House this afternoon, and it is Easter, of course. We’ve got a four-day weekend ahead of us. What this bill is not, though, is utu. It’s not paybacks; it’s not justice, because something was done right. The incentives scheme that was put in place to allow electric vehicle (EV) drivers not to have to pay these particular fees was in fact that. It was an incentive to encourage people to change their mode of transport, to choose an electric option in order to reduce our emissions. We have, in many respects, achieved what we set out to do, and I acknowledge that across consecutive Governments. But, again, I go back to the point that now is an opportunity to set the way forward. But the next question is: what is the next set of actions for this House to reduce emissions in this country, and we are yet to see that particular piece of work from this Government?

The road-user charges provide for light EVs and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles to pay road-user charges from 1 April in 2024. It’s actually a win for plug-in hybrids that we’ve seen, and we saw the member Andy Foster talk about the progression of what percentage might people or users pay in this sense. It started at 20 percent, it then got up to 30 percent, and then, thanks to our Labour team—acknowledging Tangi Utikere and Arena Williams for the work that they did with the Transport and Infrastructure Committee—it got up to 50 percent. After spending a couple of sessions with this term’s Transport and Infrastructure Committee, I just want to acknowledge the listening that took place and collective decision-making that caused a win for plug-in hybrid owners when they pay their road-user charges.

Something I spoke openly about is my concerns when it comes to the cost of living. This Government campaigned on cost of living relief for New Zealanders. Where I live in Tāmaki-makau-rau Auckland, our largest city in this country, we have a high uptake of EVs—more so than any other part of Aotearoa New Zealand—so we’re well represented in this particular group. When it comes to the cost of living, though, what we’ve seen from the Minister of Transport, Simeon Brown, is only a pile-on of costs when it comes to achieving our transport outcomes. And don’t get me wrong, because I agree—and that’s why we’re supporting this particular bill—that people have to pay their fair share, that we do have to invest in things like road maintenance, and that we do need to have good infrastructure.

But my question to the Minister during the committee stage yesterday was: to what extent? When we look at this, this is adding on additional costs to people that use the roads. What we’ve seen in Auckland, under the Government policy statement and under the repeal of the regional fuel tax, is actually the Minister forcing more people to take their car as opposed to taking public transport. Auckland has just experienced, in this Government policy statement, a cut of $500 million from their public transport network. What that means is that the cost will be offset to people that use public transport in Auckland, and their fees—as advised by Auckland Council’s submission yesterday—are likely to increase by 126 percent. That’s another cost that is being piled on to Aucklanders alongside these road-user charges for those that are using electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids.

On top of that, we’ve seen the additional $50 on our registration fees for cars, an anticipated fuel-excise tax that will start in two years’ time. The Minister’s proposed an additional cost in toll roads to pay for infrastructure that we need, and the inclusion and plan to introduce congestion charging in our largest city, Tāmaki-makau-rau Auckland.

So when we start to look at the actual costs and the promise made by this Government for cost of living relief in this election, there’s got to be a point where we agree that we are investing in critical infrastructure and paying in the areas that we need to. But when we start to see the public transport costs, the rego fees, the fuel excise, the toll roads, and the congestion charging, where does it end for Aucklanders? So while we’re supporting this particular bill, I do encourage that people keep their eye on the work that this Minister is doing. Our Transport and Infrastructure Committee have also got to have good, solid debates, generous debates, and to listen to each other to ensure that what we do in achieving our transport outcomes—which is to reduce congestion and to get people, as the Minister said, faster and more safely to the places that they need to go—is also affordable for families in Aotearoa and in Auckland. So—

Grant McCallum: That’s why we have tax cuts.

SHANAN HALBERT: Just to respond to the member from Northland, actually, this is my point. There are no savings for Aucklanders, even if you include a tax cut in that, when you’re piling on these costs just in transport alone. Add on to that 23 percent in water rates additionally for Aucklanders. There are no savings in that, so let’s not hoodwink Aucklanders and make them think that they’re getting a tax cut and then they’re going to have more money in their back pocket. That is not the case.

Let’s focus on actually what we need to achieve in our transport network, which is good investment in our infrastructure and a good discussion and debate on how we pay for that collectively, to achieve the outcomes that we need to reduce congestion and reduce emissions into our climate. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Happy Easter e te Whānau.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’ve really enjoyed being a part of this debate from the first stage, through the select committee process, the second reading, and now the third and final reading. But after listening to a couple of contributions, particularly from the Greens, I say to my colleagues, what the RUC—what the RUC are they talking about? They are so out of touch and unaware of the process that this bill has actually focused on. The previous speaker, Shanan Halbert, spent almost his entire 10-minute call talking about climate change and this Government being climate change deniers. He didn’t once talk about road-user charges (RUC) and actually talk about what we’re here to talk about. Why didn’t he talk about it? Because he’s got no idea what the bill actually is intended to do and to deliver on. So I say to that member, what the RUC—what the RUC?

Now, members opposite have also been talking about how rushed they believe this process has been—how it went through the select committee process and was rushed. I say to members opposite: they consulted on this in 2022 at a reduced plug-in hybrid rate of 20 percent, but, following consultation at that time, did nothing about it. They consulted with the public of a reduced rate for plug-in hybrids at 20 percent and then did nothing. So let’s take that walk down memory lane. They’re now complaining that this process has been rushed, yet they sat on their hands for nearly two years and did nothing to reduce the rate of plug-in hybrids in the road-user charges. I will not take lectures from the previous Government when they consulted and then did not deliver. They regularly state that—and I quote—“words matter”. Well, I’ll tell you something: delivery matters—delivery matters. Words can only go so far, but actually delivering on what you consulted on is what this side of the Government is focused on.

The Road User Charges (Light Electric RUC Vehicles) Amendment Bill is all about equity. It’s all about user-pays and everybody contributing their fair share to the upkeep and maintenance of our roading network. The electorate I am fortunate to represent in the Bay of Plenty—beautiful electorate—wraps around the city of Tauranga. We have two vital State highway networks which are in dire need of an upgrade, and it is only fair that the people using those roads pay the fair contribution to its upkeep and its maintenance. And that starts with electric vehicle owners, and that starts with plug-in hybrid owners. If I think about State Highway 29 over the Kaimai Ranges, that piece of infrastructure and roading will unlock 20,000 new homes which our community so desperately needs, and it is only fair that if you’re an electric vehicle driver or you own a plug-in hybrid, you pay your fair share to the upkeep and the maintenance of that road so that it can be delivered for our local Bay of Plenty community.

The second road is the Takitimu North Link through Te Puna and Ōmokoroa. Stage one is under way, but our Government is committed to delivering stage two of that project all the way through to Ōmokoroa—an extra 7 kilometres. It’s only fair that if you’re an electric vehicle or plug-in hybrid owner and you want to use that road, you have made your fair contribution to its upkeep and its maintenance. It’s not fair that you drive on those roads—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Don’t overuse the word “you”, please.

TOM RUTHERFORD: My apologies, Madam Speaker. It’s not fair that if you are an electric vehicle or plug-in hybrid owner, that you haven’t made a contribution to the road—

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: “You”—you did it again.

TOM RUTHERFORD: —that they are travelling on. Stopped myself—caught myself there. Thank you, Mr Webb. So this bill is about equity. It’s about ensuring the maintenance and upkeep of our roads in our community.

Now, let’s just look at the process that was undertaken from the start to where we are now. Initially, the previous Government consulted on 20 percent. When we then took it to select committee by our Government, we were proposing a reduced rate of 30 percent for plug-in hybrids, and we listened to the feedback that was received in the Transport and Infrastructure Committee. Overwhelmingly, those submitters who both submitted in hardcopy and made email and online submissions and those who presented and gave oral submissions to the select committee said, “I’m an EV owner, I’m a plug-in hybrid owner, and it’s only fair that I make my own contribution to the upkeep and maintenance of the roads.”

The debating point was “What should that rate be set at?”, and many plug-in hybrid owners told us, “The 30 percent option that you’re consulting on probably doesn’t go far enough.” So what we did as a select committee is we went, “Fair enough. We need to relook at what has to take place in that area.” That’s why we came to the final decision of reducing it from our proposed $53 per 1,000 kilometres to a very pragmatic, reasonable, consensus-driven proposal of $38 per 1,000 kilometres, because that’s equitable, that’s fair. Now, the member opposite—Julie Anne Genter—raises her hands in disgust. She’s not supporting this bill, and I simply say to her: what the RUC—what the RUC? Why don’t you support this bill and get in behind it, because it’s all about equity and it’s all about everybody paying their fair share.

Now, there’s so much to talk about in this space, but my 10-minute contribution is going to be coming up soon so I’m going to capitalise on my last few minutes. When this proposal was introduced by the previous National Government in 2009, it always had an asterisk next to it saying, “This is only in place until the vehicle fleet in New Zealand of electric vehicles reaches 2 percent.” Standing here today, we have reached that target. So now we’re just simply closing the loop on what was introduced in 2009 and saying, “We’ve reached what we said we would do, and now we’re delivering on what we said we would do at that time.” Transitioning EVs and plug-in hybrids is the first step in the National and ACT Party coalition agreement to bring all vehicles into the RUC system.

The Minister of Transport has outlined his intention to outline how that will happen moving forward. I look forward to seeing that detail of work, and I have no doubt that that will come through the hard-working and very diligent Transport and Infrastructure Committee as well. This transition is about fairness and equity: ensuring that all road users are contributing to the upkeep and maintenance of our roads, irrespective of the type of vehicle they choose to drive. Hybrid vehicles do remain exempt from paying RUC, as these vehicles are not powered by externally supplied electricity. Due to the small market share of very light EVs such as electric motorbikes and electric mopeds, these vehicles will also remain exempt from paying RUC.

I simply say to the House that this bill is about restoring equity. It is about user-pays and everybody contributing their fair share to the maintenance and upkeep or our roads, and I commend this bill to the House.

This call is a split call.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I didn’t know it was a split call, but I’ll keep to the five minutes. I want to talk a little bit about what I’ve seen in this House today on this bill. Because, as you know, the Labour Party is supporting this bill because it was agreed that the time had come to put back on electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids some of the cost of roads. The reason that the exemption was made was it is a very serious issue that we face, that we are still dependent on petrol and diesel vehicles to the extent we are.

I have noticed the behaviour in the House today, particularly the reaction to the Greens’ speakers, and I’m not impressed because what we have there is a constant reaction of suggesting things like that—there is a sort of insinuation that people who have had the benefit of the different regime have somehow not been paying their fair share. So I want to talk a little bit about what that means, because what has been happening here from the Labour Party is we’ve tried to seek balance in the response we’ve had. We’ve supported this bill, but I don’t want anyone to not think that there’s an issue with regard to having a petrol vehicle rather than an electric one.

One of the things that I think goes under the radar a little bit is the pollution issue. There was a report out last year—so well after the signal and the commitment was made to look at the vehicles to 2 percent and then revise this charge that we bring in today—that went to Cabinet from the Ministry of Transport, and it talked about the cost to New Zealand society of that kind of pollution that comes from vehicles that are petrol and diesel. I think that, hopefully, many of us are familiar with the kinds of particulate matter that comes out of those vehicles, and what that causes. So that particulate matter is causing cancers and it’s causing respiratory issues.

Then there is your carbon monoxide. Now, carbon monoxide—95 percent of the emissions from New Zealand come from our cars and that causes things like heart issues and brain issues. So it is very, very serious for people. Then there’s the nitrogen oxide, which causes respiratory issues. So, again, those are very serious. Now that is estimated by the Ministry of Transport to mean that there are 9,200 hospital admissions as a result of that, and the cost in childhood asthma is 13,200 childhood asthma cases and the social cost is $10.5 billion.

These are costs that when we talk about fair share, we don’t really have any capacity to estimate. So when I hear words like “You’ve got to pay your fair share if you’re an electric vehicle owner”, I think it’s really important that we honour electric vehicle owners for the fact that they’re not putting those things into the atmosphere so that they are not responsible for the childhood asthma that I would see as a real issue in the inner city of Auckland, including in my electorate of Mt Albert.

It’s a very serious issue. So when I hear the gaffawing on the other side of the House with regard to some of these things, and the self-congratulatory tone, I get worried that those issues are being pushed underground. I hope that I am not right.

Hon Shane Jones: Relevance! Relevance! Come back to the bill.

HELEN WHITE: It’s absolutely relevant, Minister. It’s absolutely relevant because what I’m talking about is a very difficult balance that we have to strike here. We have, in the Labour Party, recognised as an issue the need to pay for roads in this country—and I note the Brynderwyns are open this weekend, and they’re vital places—but, at the same time, I seek a more mature response from the other side. So rather than be self-congratulatory, it would be nice if there’s a recognition—

Hon Members: Aw! Aw!

HELEN WHITE: And arrogant. It would be nice if there was a recognition of the issues that underline this, and an attempt to actually work with others on what is a fundamental issue in New Zealand. And it is very, very important that we work as a Parliament on that, and that we do not divide on something that is so important. I mentioned childhood asthma, I mentioned cancer. There is a myriad of environmental issues that could be mentioned as well. I commend this bill to the House,

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I promise I won’t mention the Brynderwyns once in this call.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That’s once.

MIKE BUTTERICK: This bill is quite simply about fairness and equity. It supports a system where, irrespective of the type of vehicle you drive, you should be contributing to the maintenance and improvements on our roads, just as every other vehicle is required to do so. This is simply about road-user charges (RUC), and if I use the Oxford Dictionary meaning for each of these words, I might simplify it for those on the other side of the House that are feeling confused or aggrieved or feel that they shouldn’t have to contribute for whatever reason they might believe exempts them.

A “road” is “a wide way leading from one place to another, especially one with a specially prepared surface which vehicles can use.”, and while it might be argued that some of our roads might not be that wide, I think that’s a pretty fair definition.

Tom Rutherford: What’s “user” mean?

MIKE BUTTERICK: Next is “user”—thank you. It’s “A person who uses or operates something”—pretty self-explanatory—and “charges” is a price asked for goods or services. So, in simple terms, this bill is about ensuring those who use our roads help to pay for them, regardless of what their vehicle model, make, or type is. It doesn’t matter if your car is red—I prefer blue ones myself—or if it goes faster, or it’s a people-mover used by parents to taxi their children from place to place or it’s a commercial van or truck delivering our much-needed goods and services that earn our export income. Everyone using the road should contribute to the maintenance and upkeep, and not be that person who’s happy to use something without paying, at the expense of someone else.

There’s a myriad of reasons why people don’t own electric or plug-in hybrid vehicles. Maybe they just simply can’t afford them, or they can’t afford to upgrade or replace their vehicle. Maybe they’re not able to source a vehicle to do the job required of it, especially in a commercial sense, such as those tradies and farmers, who need utes to do their job—and who, by the way, are now not forced to pay thousands of dollars extra because we got rid of the ute tax. Maybe it’s because they live somewhere that prevents them from being able to plug in—the last time I looked, there weren’t any chargers at the bottom of a tree or in the middle of nowhere, let alone on our country roads—or perhaps there’s no parking on the property, or their power source isn’t able to go.

This Government sent a very clear signal that we have a priority to build and maintain our roading network and that we will reverse the blanket approach to speed limits and make sure there’s a common-sense approach to how we get things done. There’s plenty of common sense on this side of the House. I commend this bill to the House and would finish with three final words: up the RUC.

Well, there is a lot of things I could say in response to that last speech, but I do want to note that red cars go faster, obviously! Now, I appreciate the work that the Transport and Infrastructure Committee did on the Road User Charges (Light Electric RUC Vehicles) Amendment Bill, in a very tight time frame, and obviously the important changes that my colleagues Tangi Utikere and Arena Williams made—good work, them. Of course, it’s always good if a select committee can be longer and the full six-month process, but it wasn’t in this case.

I also note that, in the report we’ve got with this bill, it says, “While the vast majority of submitters recognised that EV owners should still contribute to the land transport network, they considered the RUC rate for EVs to be unreasonable.”—and this is in relation to those light electric vehicles (EVs). I do just want to expand on that point for a moment, and that is that whilst, yes, we’ve heard about user-pays, we’ve also heard the good points raised by my colleague Helen White about the fact that internal combustion engine vehicles have a whole lot of negative health effects that are not necessarily being considered in the economics of this type of legislation. But also, when the exemption happened for the EVs some years ago, that was to increase the uptake of EVs. And it was always a time-limited policy idea.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we just lower the chatter a little bit, please. Thank you.

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: What we’ve seen is that all those other policy initiatives to increase EV uptake have gone by the wayside, in particular the Clean Car Discount.

And I want to just touch here on my hometown of Dunedin, because we have heard from other members about how many EVs you find in Auckland. But, of course, if you come and visit the beautiful Dunedin, which I, of course, suggest that you should—I saw you there recently in fact—there are a lot of Nissan LEAFs. This is a specific type of car that, of course, was there well before the Clean Car Discount. And it is because many Dunedinites are truly passionate about reducing their climate emissions, and where they can afford to—and I, of course, note that this does involve capital investment—when they can do that, they have done that, and I congratulate all the LEAF drivers of Dunedin. But we also noticed that, with that Clean Car Discount, many more EVs were coming into the market. And, of course, there have been fleet EVs, and we will soon be seeing that secondary market of those new-to-New Zealand cars, unlike the Nissan LEAFs.

So I am disappointed that we’re not seeing the policies to decarbonise New Zealand, which is so important, particularly when we know that such a high percentage of our carbon emissions comes from our transport fleet and our light transport fleet is there.

Hon Shane Jones: Adaptation—adaptation. No more alarmism!

Hon RACHEL BROOKING: And I hear one of the Ministers talking about adaptation, and I hope that he appreciates how expensive it is to adapt when almost all of our cities in New Zealand, including, of course, the beautiful Dunedin—it has a lovely harbour and coastline—will be impacted by climate change. This is very serious. We have signed up to international agreements, and we need to do more than adaptation. Adaptation is very important as well—we need to think about our vulnerable communities there—but we also need to reduce emissions. We’ve signed up to the Paris Agreement, and I just keep seeing all the good work that the previous Government did be undone and nothing to replace it. And it is shameful and very depressing. But I’m going to end on a positive note, and that is to thank all those people in Dunedin who are doing their best to reduce their emissions. Well done, them.

I’m very pleased to take the final call on the third reading of this bill. I am very, very pleased. But, hey, what I just want to say very briefly, because it’s going to be a short call, is this is all about user-pays. This is all about fairness. And the fact is that when you’re thinking about user-pays, this is a commonly used term, but this is based on the principle that all asset users should pay for the long-run marginal costs of the assets in question. Now, when we’re talking about road-user charges (RUCs) itself, there’s been a lot of discussion here about the amounts that each different type of vehicle pays. Now, I’ve got a bit of a confession. I have purchased a plug-in hybrid vehicle.

Hon Member: Oh, well done!

DAVID MacLEOD: Yes, I have, and I also know that other people that I know closely in my electorate have also made choices around electric vehicles (EVs) and plug-in hybrid vehicles as well. And there are a lot of reasons and a lot of thinking that goes into the type of vehicle one buys. And I do question the comments that have been made—particularly from the other side of the House—that this here is going to absolutely sway people away from buying such vehicles. I actually don’t believe in that; I actually believe that people have all sorts of other reasons that they take into account, and I don’t think we’re going to have the demise that the so-called speakers on the other side actually talked to.

I just want to talk briefly about the roads in Taranaki. First of all, the users of Taranaki roads: there are significant RUCs, or road-user charges, that come from the Taranaki region. We have a lot of trade that moves in and out of that region. We’ve got some very, very big trucking firms and there’s lots of money that’s collected from that there. But we in Taranaki feel that our roads, perhaps, don’t get the investment that we feel apt for it itself. Now, why I bring that up is that the revenue that the ministry collects, to be able to afford the upkeep of these roads, is so important. This here just goes some way towards it. The fact is we want to make sure that those that have the biggest impact or use the roads are actually contributing every way.

And finally, after some time—we talk about the fact that about 2 percent of the vehicles are now EVs—it’s finally reached that threshold where we believe that it’s now time to bring them into that programme itself. So this will also go some way towards allowing regions, like Taranaki, to potentially have the opportunity to have increased investment in some of the roads they have. Recently I’ve had the opportunity to go up to Northland to the wonderful celebrations at Waitangi. Unfortunately, I didn’t go over the Brynderwyns, but I am sure the next time I go over there I’ll be very happy to look at the progress that’s been made there. But I did happen to have a trip while I was up in the north to travel some of the local roads, including up one Waimate North Road. I went to a little shindig up there, and I tell you what—

Grant McCallum: Little?

DAVID MacLEOD: OK. It was rather a little bit more than little, but it was a very well-prepared and well-conditioned road, and it made me think that someone of influence actually lived up that road somewhere, but I’m not too sure about that. But the fact is that we do have roads around the place that do need investment.

This bill here is about making sure that all users are contributing. This is based on kilometres and weights. So, in other words, it’s making sure that the contribution of the vehicle is appropriate to the wear and tear that it has of the actual assets. I could speak on a lot more, but, I’m happy to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.