Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Amendment Bill (No 2)

Members, the House is in committee on the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Amendment Bill (No 2). We come first to Part 1. This is the debate on clauses 4 to 9, “Amendments to principal Act”. The question is that Part 1 stand part.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We’re now in the committee stage of the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Amendment Bill (No 2), and I’d just like to start by recapping some of the comments made by Minister Bishop during the second reading. I’ll just acknowledge the work of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, led by the very able Andy Foster, and all those who submitted, including individuals and industry. The vehicle industry made it clear, in its submissions to the select committee, that the current standard under market conditions is proving too stringent and will result in significant costs to consumers. We don’t want New Zealanders to be facing those burdens and those costs at a time like this, so we feel that some sensible changes need to be made.

The bill that we’re considering today is the first step in fixing that, and I think we all look forward to a constructive debate over the next 90 to 95 minutes. The bill itself has two parts. The first part amends the Land Transport Act 1998, and the second part makes consequential amendments to the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Standard) Regulations 2022. I thought I’d outline just the four key changes that the bill makes.

First, it gives the Minister of Transport the ability to recommend regulations that set uniform carbon dioxide targets for vehicles. This is going to be important for weight-adjusted vehicles which give heavier vehicles easier targets, at the point where they no longer feel justified. Secondly, it extends the life of the existing emissions credits from three years to four. This is a pretty sensible change, which gives importers more time to use those credits that they earn. This rewards good performance and helps further keep those costs down on everyday working New Zealanders. The third thing the bill does is it keeps the options open for importers to borrow credits from future years. That’s just a practical change that means if they fall short one year, they can make up for it in the next. That avoids charges that otherwise would be passed on to consumers—again, most likely those consumers who are in the part of the market where they are seeking more affordable vehicles and can’t afford a brand new shiny $80,000 hybrid or whatever it is that those at the top end of town may be able to afford. Finally, the bill allows credit trading between new and used vehicle importers. That helps importers who don’t have enough credits from their own vehicles to offset charges, making it cheaper for them to meet the standard.

Now, that’s what the key changes to the bill are. The Government has also indicated it will introduce an Amendment Paper, and I believe that it’s sitting on the Table right now. I’ll go through the Amendment Paper now just for the sake of clarity and time. The paper does two things, and it’s been well signalled in advance, I think, to the public and to the House. First, it temporarily reduces charges for 2026 and 2027. I will just outline those for the committee: for new vehicles, the top rate will drop from $67.50 to $15 per gram of carbon dioxide; for used vehicles, the top rate drops from $33.75 to $7.50 per gram of carbon dioxide. This maintains the current proportional rate for used vehicles, which is about half of the new vehicle rate.

What the lower charges will do in practice is they will substantially reduce the risk of unintended increases in vehicle prices caused by that combination of market conditions, coupled with the standard’s current settings. Those charges will return to current levels on 1 January 2028. What it does is it provides a little bit of breathing space and time for importers, for industry, and for purchasers of both new and used imports to limit the costs being placed on them at this time.

The second thing the Amendment Paper does is it extends the expiry dates for those credits that were earned in 2023. No credits will expire before 31 December 2028. This gives credit holders with credits from 2023 an extra year to use or sell them at a market rate. Basically, it’s a one-year extension. This is important because those lower charges mean lower prices for credits, because the charges effectively cap the price for which credits will be traded. Without this fix, credit holders would lose out. Officials have done some work, and they estimate that the temporary changes will reduce projected fuel savings by about $115 million. That is offset by avoiding an estimated $264 million in net charges that could be passed on to consumers in higher vehicle prices.

Projected emissions reductions will fall by 38 kilotons, but this won’t affect our ability to meet the second emissions budget or the sufficiency of the second emissions reduction plan, because, of course, the emissions trading scheme (ETS) is a contained cap system. When there are fewer emissions taking place in one area, they are, obviously, offset by the ability to reduce in other areas. When emissions reductions do take place in, say, the vehicle industry, that means there are fewer carbon credits available in other industries, so the capped nature of the ETS means that, on a net basis, emissions reductions won’t change.

I think this amendment is about striking a fairer balance, supporting New Zealanders upgrading to newer vehicles, which always cost less to run, supporting our climate goals while ensuring the clean vehicle standard remains practical, achievable, and equitable for both importers and consumers. It’s a practical step forward.

Now, I will take the opportunity in the four minutes for this call, before we move on to questions around Part 1, just to address some of the initial amendments lodged by Arena Williams. Quite a few of them are to do with Part 1. I thought I’d indicate that, at this stage, having had a good look through over the past hour or so, the Government doesn’t intend to support those amendments. I can take the committee through most of them to indicate why, just so that we don’t spend too much time litigating amendments that won’t be supported. For example, the very first amendment to Clause 7 is an amendment which proposes to replace “Clean Vehicle Standard” with “foregone revenue from the vehicle industry”. I’m not sure if that’s a serious attempt at an amendment, but we won’t be supporting it.

The second amendment on this one is an amendment to clause 7. It proposes to replace “standard” with “indefinite postponement”. We don’t think that’s a serious attempt to provide a valuable amendment to the bill. We won’t be supporting it. There are some other amendments which extend out some time frames. For example, there’s a further amendment to delete the entire clause 4(1). We don’t agree with that. We think those clauses are vital to the operations of the bill. There is a further amendment in and around, again, clause 4(1) to insert, before the full stop, and replace “with any measure relevant to Government policy to reduce emissions in relation to vehicle weights”. We don’t support that amendment, nor do we support the other amendments from Arena Williams around clauses 4(1) as well.

There are some amendments to do with the title and commencement clauses, which we’ll get to at that part of the debate, that don’t appear to be serious attempts and are mere criticisms of the bill. There is a further one, towards the end of the Table, that has quite technical adjustments that I think the member is, in good faith, trying to somewhat improve the bill, but we think the bill’s in a good space, and we won’t be supporting those amendments at this stage. With that, I will take my seat and take questions.

While that was an admirable attempt by the Minister to get his retaliation in first on these amendments, that won’t curtail a full discussion of those amendments.

Kia orana and good morning, Mr Chair. Thank you for that clarification. I know my colleague Arena Williams, on behalf of the Labour Party, has lodged a number of amendments, and I’m sure that she would appreciate the opportunity, along with colleagues, to sort of work through those.

I want to just make some brief sort of top-level comments. We do not support this bill, but we do see this as the opportunity, given that we’ve just come straight from the second reading into the committee of the whole House stage, to scrutinise the clauses in Part 1 and beyond, and to put to the Minister questions related to why some changes should perhaps be considered or not. While it’s disappointing that the Minister has indicated that the Government’s position at this stage is that they don’t support those amendments, that should not, in our view, curtail the opportunity for the Opposition to still explain why it is that we think that those amendments should be considered. It wouldn’t be the first time, of course, that Governments have changed their mind over the course of a committee of the whole House stage. The other thing of note is that the Minister’s Amendment Paper 444, in its form as presented to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, was not made available—I mean, Amendment Papers are not made available to the select committee, but the specifics of it were not something that was reflected in the select committee’s report, so we do want to take an opportunity to look at that.

Last night, I did indicate to the Minister that I had a question that I was going to raise in the committee of the whole House stage, and it is about the regulatory impact statement (RIS) that has been uplifted by members from the Table. It is clear to us that this RIS seems to be what was relied on when bill (No 1) made its way through the House. My first question to the Minister is: what is the reason as to why the regulatory impact statement that is currently on the Table—and I’ve just gone and had a look, and it still is the same one that we picked up last night—seems to relate to a bill that was being progressed previously through the Parliament? Surely members can rely on getting information that is more up to date, and, when looking at the bill that’s currently before us, what is the impact of this bill.

The reason as to why members would be familiar with the RIS previously is because we did have an opportunity to speak with the former Minister of Transport around what he relied on in terms of bringing bill (No 1) to the House. The RIS that’s currently on the Table identifies that, actually, only industry participants were consulted with. Now, we know that we had a select committee opportunity where we heard from more than just those individuals, but it does signal that, actually, this is a bill that perhaps hasn’t changed in terms of the Government’s focus around it being fairly blinkered. The question to the Minister is: can he just step us through the rationale for the RIS that’s currently on the Table and how that relates to the bill that’s currently before us right now? I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect that what is available actually takes note of the fact that there has been a passage of time. The reason why this bill is (No 2) is because the Parliament turned its mind to this issue last year, and the information that’s currently before us in terms of what is the impact of this step that’s being taken—and these are not insignificant steps that are being taken. They will have an impact.

My first question is a fairly basic one, really, and it’s around the regulatory impact statement, because, as members know, when it comes to an opportunity to examine things, often we rely on that. It’s not uncommon for regulatory impact statements to be made available throughout the whole range of a bill, but I do think it is a little bit unusual and perhaps rare that a regulatory impact statement for a bill that the Parliament has already considered and has already passed is seen as a justification as to looking at what the impacts in regulation are for this.

Arena Williams: Exactly. The rates are all different.

TANGI UTIKERE: The member is right—the proposed rates that are being proposed by the Government are different. They are lower rates; they have different impacts. I would suggest to the Minister that the Minister cannot simply say, “Well, no, it’s a similar sort of situation.” When people pay less, there are impacts; when people pay more, there are impacts. Even when people pay the same amount, given the passage of time, there might be impacts. That is the first question to the Minister.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m not sure which clause that question relates to, but I’m advised that the updated regulatory impact statement is on the ministry’s website and—

Tangi Utikere: Why is it not here?

Hon JAMES MEAGER: If the member wants to give me more than 3½ seconds to answer his question, I’ll give it a really good crack for him. I’m advised that the correct versions are currently being printed on paper with ink and are on their way down for the member to read with interest.

Thank you, Mr Chair. My colleague Tangi Utikere and I have a number of questions about the policy intentions of the Government, because that has not been made clear. I think the Minister is referring to a two-page document called the short-form supplementary departmental disclosure document, which the simple contributions from officials here are, “No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no”—end. I’m not sure whether that seeks to address the points my colleague has raised, but we hope that the Minister will engage with this in good faith or else it will be a very long day from here.

My first question about the Government’s policy intentions around this is: how much revenue is foregone by the Government because of this decision? Is it the full $264 million that would have otherwise been raised? Does he consider the $264 million to be a tax cut for car importers; and, if so, how did he consider the different revenue-raising options around this? There would have been some other options that he could have taken. Perhaps he considered the other options available to him, like better funding for rural roads. Rural communities around New Zealand would benefit from $264 million applied to the fixing of rural roads. That was something that the Government campaigned upon, particularly around the fixing of potholes. How many potholes could the Minister fix with $264 million raised from this policy, and why was it better to return that to car importers instead of fixing rural roads?

Did the Minister considering spending the $264 million foregone by this policy decision on public transport? How many young people would have benefited from a $264 million contribution to, say, subsidised public transport, which was the policy of the previous Government, when $264 million would be applied to, say, bus routes to children who have missed out on their school bus routes around the country, particularly in rural areas? How many children would have benefited from $264 million applied to those bus routes which they have now missed out on under this Government? What were the policy choices that the Government considered, other than giving a $264 million tax break to car importers?

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll remind the member Arena Williams what I literally just said in my answer before, which is that the updated version of the regulatory impact statement is on its way and is available online as well. I’ll get—

Tangi Utikere: On its way?

Hon JAMES MEAGER: Again, more than 3½ seconds, Mr Utikere, and I’ll try my best to answer your questions, but if you interject after every time I try and answer, it’s not going to get us very far.

In terms of the questions that are around revenue, I’ll get the officials to provide some clear advice on that.

Is it a tax cut for the industry? No, it’s not—that’s an easy one.

Do we need better funding for rural roads? Well, compared to, say, the funding in the period from 2017 to 2023, I think absolutely.

How much money could be spent on fixing potholes? Quite a lot. This Government has invested, I think, from the top of my mind, half a billion dollars in pothole maintenance and pothole prevention, and have fixed a heck of a lot more potholes in and around the rural roads of mid-Canterbury and South Canterbury then were done, say, over a period from 2017 to 2023.

How many young people could benefit from public transport? Well, in mid-Canterbury and South Canterbury, in parts of the world where rural people live, not many, because we live in far-flung destinations where we rely on, predominantly, a lot of second-hand vehicles. If you’re a farm kid and you’re looking to try and get to school or go to your after-school job, you rely quite heavily on second-hand vehicles, and you rely on the fact that those second-hand vehicles are affordable, because you already face very large barriers as being from an isolated rural community.

I think it’s important that everyone in Parliament should support whatever we can to reduce the costs on all rural young people so that they can have the best opportunity for success, and the best opportunity to access the resources and services that are available quite readily to people who live in high-density urban areas. But, unfortunately, because rural folk are out there doing the mahi, growing the grain, feeding the cattle, building our exports, and doing the hard slog at 4 a.m. in the morning in the dairy sheds, they have to do that out in the countryside. The best thing we can do to support young people out in the regions is to support this policy, reduce the cost of their vehicles, and give them the best chance at success.

Thank you, Mr Chair. This my first call in this part of the committee of the whole House stage debate. I just wanted to highlight that this bill did not go through the full select committee process that it could have, and that was because of a decision by Government members to respond to a Minister’s request to wrap up the bill early and bring it back to the House. Now, we’re considering an Amendment Paper that is a substantive policy change that was only tabled late last night, and now it’s going through in urgency—so I think this debate is one where the Opposition does have to be able to ask a reasonable amount of questions about the policy intent of the bill.

I’m going to start with asking the Minister which industry players did they consult with in the making of this bill; and, particularly, the Minister’s Amendment Paper 444, which inserts a new clause 5A. My specific question, because the Minister in the second reading speech referred to the Motor Industry Association (MIA) and the Imported Motor Vehicle Industry Association (VIA), who are broad representatives of the industry, but I’m wondering if the Ministry officials and the Government consulted some of the car companies, independently, that are bringing in zero-emissions vehicles, like BYD, Tesla, and I also was wondering if there was any specific consultation with Toyota.

The reason I ask this question is because MIA has to represent a broad range of players in the vehicle industry, and there will be some players that are particularly advantaged by this policy change and others that, we could say, are disadvantaged. The ones that are disadvantaged are the ones that are bringing in zero-emissions vehicles or who have done a lot of work, like Toyota, to actually be able to meet the targets. I’m just interested to know if the consultation was limited to broad representatives of the industry or whether they took into account the impacts on those companies that are actually doing the important work of bringing in the zero-emissions vehicles and the low-emissions vehicles, and what impact that would have on them.

One other question, because there’s been a recent development this year of BYD bringing in fully electric vehicles under $30,000 in New Zealand. I wonder if—you’re hearing from the Minister and the Government, and certainly the Transport and Infrastructure Committee is hearing from certain players in the industry claiming that cars are going to be less affordable, but, of course, they’re not considering the fact that that’s only the polluting cars and we are getting more and more affordable options on the low emissions. Is this change really necessary?

Finally, the Minister and Government MPs, during the debate, have referred to alignment with other countries, particularly Australia, and I’m wondering if the Minister can tell us what the equivalent penalties are or would be in Australia, and how that compares to the fees that are laid out on Amendment Paper 444 in new clause 5A, subsections 2(b)(i) and (ii). It’s from 1 January 2026 to 1 January 2028—the fees that are proposed in that section, and the ones in new clause 8A, also on the Amendment Paper; same issue, it’s subsections 2(b)(i) and (ii): how will this align us with Australia? What will the difference be between the penalties faced by importers who are bringing in higher emissions vehicles above the target in Australia, and how will that compare to New Zealand’s should this Amendment Paper 444 be passed today?

A couple of questions in that one. Who in the industry was consulted? I think as Minister Bishop outlined in his second reading speech, yes, the Motor Industry Association (MIA) and the Imported Motor Vehicle Industry Association were both consulted. Of course, MIA represent BYD and Toyota. Every industry player also had the opportunity to submit during the select committee process and have their views heard and incorporated into the departmental report. I’m advised that no individual car companies were consulted, as that could be seen to confer specific market advantage during consultation so it wouldn’t have been appropriate.

As to the question around why the proposal has been brought back now, it is because the changes are required to be in place by 1 January 2026, and due to the mechanisms or the process of legislation in the House, we have to have this done by Christmas, effectively, so that’s why it’s back in the time that it’s back.

I’ll get some advice on the penalties from the officials. The previous speaker, Julie Anne Genter, asked some questions around—I think she read out a bit of paper and then she said the word “No” about 12 times—I think she’s having flashbacks. I think the issue is that she was reading the departmental disclosure statement and not the regulatory impact statement.

In terms of the question around how much revenue is foregone by the Crown, well, the way the system works is that the charges are placed—well, they’re not placed into the National Land Transport Fund; they’re held in accounts to offset the credits. That’s the answer to that question there. Oh, and I’ve actually had a last-minute run of advice provided to me. I’m advised, in terms of the question around penalties, the equivalent Australian penalty is AUD$50. Ours will be NZD$15. Apparently, it’s $50 imposed by the regulatory and $100 imposed by the courts for Australia. That’s the answer to that one there.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Look, I thank the Associate Minister of Transport for his answers, but there is not a lot of clarity that’s been given around the information that’s currently available before the committee. Members, particularly when we’re in urgency, rely on what is on the Table to inform the contributions that are to be made in terms of the passage of the legislation. My colleague Arena Williams has referenced papers that are on the Table, because that’s all that’s there. The Minister talks about this regulatory impact statement (RIS), but where is it? The only—oh, he holds it up. Well, is that the RIS that’s dated finalised 25 June 2024? That’s the first question for the Minister, because if it is, then that is the RIS that is being used for bill No. 2. The Minister is handing it to—is it the one that’s 25 June 2024? I mean, that would be the interesting thing because that’s the one that we’ve got there. If not, which one is he referring to? His has got a watermark stamped all over it—not something that we’ve got this morning. Those are real issues around what’s available to the committee as we’ve started this process.

Dr Tracey McLellan: Shoddy.

TANGI UTIKERE: It is shoddy indeed.

The question around the policy intent and objectives—and the Minister has talked about potholes, he’s talked about rural buses, he’s talked about public transport, he hasn’t talked about road cones, but probably that’s something the Government don’t want to talk about at the moment. But this policy intent is really, really important, because he’s talked about rural bus routes. The $264 million could be utilised in other areas. Why is it that the Government are choosing not to do that?

I see that the Minister of Education, Erica Stanford, is here in the Chamber right now. Perhaps she would like to take a call around whether she thinks that the $264 million not being spent on the rural bus routes, that she cancelled in places like Ashurst and also Rongotea and other places, could be better utilised. I hazard a guess to suggest that she won’t because she’s remained silent in that space. But this is about prioritisation: the revenue that’s been generated, the $264 million, could be spent in other areas. So, Minister Stanford, are you prepared to take a call and indicate whether you think that, actually, this is good money spent or saved, and that maybe it could be used to save school bus routes that you cancelled?

Now, these are real considerations, and I think, in terms of bringing this back to the policy objectives and intent of this bill, members of this—it is not unreasonable to expect that when this committee stage commences and the Associate Minister of Transport refers to a regulatory impact statement, that we have it.

Arena Williams: Oh, he thinks he’s got a new one; he doesn’t.

TANGI UTIKERE: I think the Minister has a new one. Now, prior to commencing—[Member is handed a document by Chamber staff]. Oh look, we’ve suddenly got one—thank you, sir, for this. Now, this in itself creates a little bit of an issue because we now have a regulatory impact statement that has a date of 4 November 2025. Why was this not put on the Table?

Steve Abel: What’s the date today?

TANGI UTIKERE: Well, the date today according to the clock is 18 November—well, actually, most people in New Zealand think it’s the 20th—because we’re in urgency, one of the quirks of this place.

But my question to the Minister is: when this particular bill came into committee, why was the RIS that we think the Minister is relying on, dated 4 November 2025—why was that not included for members to be able to collect? Now, we accept that in urgency there are some things that have to be rushed through. We also expect that when a Minister stands up to talk about his overall objectives and what he wants to achieve in progressing this on behalf of the Government, the information available to members to scrutinise, to question, to hold the Government to account, and to come up with some other possible changes—that the information to be relied upon is also there. That is the first question for the Minister.

Well, I think the member needs to go back and do his history, because when the Labour Party introduced this policy—whenever it was, back in the last Government—they were quite clear that it was not intended to raise revenue, and it’s not designed to raise revenue. I don’t know where Mr Utikere’s magicking up his $264 million from, but it’s not from this policy, because that’s not how the policy works. If he wants to go and campaign on borrowing another $264 million, he’s welcome to do that.

Of course, they didn’t do too much in the way of supporting rural New Zealand and rural schools under the previous Government. If he wants to talk about school bus routes, I suggest he has a sit down with Chris Hipkins, who can take him through the process that Mr Hipkins undertook as Minister of Education with school bus route reviews. He might find quite an uncomfortable conversation with Mr Hipkins. In the previous Government, when a few reviews were under way, then, all of a sudden, an election came around and, oh, what happens? We might just softly, softly put that on hold until it kicks off under way. Maybe Mr Utikere can get his questions from a previous Minister of Education rather than the one that’s in the Chamber, who’s not responsible for anything under this bill—because, under this bill, we’re talking about the clean vehicle standard, which is quite a long way away from issues like rural bus routes and road cones. If the member wants to get into a conversation around road cones, he should go for a trip up to Auckland and have a chat to Mayor Wayne Brown, who is a strong advocate for eliminating most of those.

In terms of the regulatory impact statement (RIS), I’m glad Mr Utikere didn’t even need to stretch his legs and had the RIS hand-delivered to him. He is very welcome to peruse that. Of course, the RIS has been available online for quite a while now. I’m sure he’s a very busy man, and he’s very diligent, and maybe accessing it online wasn’t a high priority—but he’s got it now. It’s on the Table. He can have a great look through it. Of course, the RIS isn’t part of the bill. When you’re scrutinising legislation in the committee of the whole House stage, we are supposed to talk about what’s actually in the bill, so I’m looking forward to that.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Just before I take the next call—again, both parties are certainly broadening the scope of this discussion, and it won’t continue to widen. We just need to now bring it back to something resembling what’s in front of us here.

Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you, Minister Meager, for what can only be described as a somewhat lacklustre response to some questions around policy intent. I understand the position that the Minister’s in and can feel somewhat sympathetic that, you know, when one inherits the role of trying to sell something without all the relevant information provided to the Opposition, there’s not a lot to go on. But I don’t think that we’ve received sufficient clarity about the policy intent and those policy objectives that sort of underpin this bill, hence the fact that the responses to date have been somewhat flat, for lack of a better word.

The Minister in his previous response, in an attempt to perhaps draw on some local knowledge and paint this bill in so far as how it might affect rural communities, raised a couple of points that I just do think are worth going back to, because I do sympathise with the concept of affordability. Certainly on this side of the Chamber, that is our number one concern at the moment, the pressures that people are facing and that households are facing in terms of household bills, and fuel costs are certainly one of those that are driving the cost of living crisis, the real cost of living pinch points that many families are feeling at the moment.

Whilst the Minister talked about having affordable cars in rural areas—and, again, forgive me Minister; I haven’t had a chance to have a look through this regulatory impact statement properly. One can only have a quick skim read whilst listening to other people talking; it’s a little bit distracting, but the policy intent that the Minister has laid out in his response to the first three or four questions this morning hasn’t really elucidated on what the thinking was behind or what the analysis was behind futureproofing some of those affordability considerations. It’s one thing to be able to afford a second-hand car in today’s market, but we also have a responsibility to ensure that that second-hand market updates and becomes cleaner but also more cost-efficient and cheaper to purchase those cars. We really run the risk of being the dumping ground for an old, expensive fleet of cars if these types of measures continue.

I’m sure—absolutely positive—that the Minister would have considered those considerations or made those considerations whilst working out what the policy objective here is. On the surface, without that information, if the Minister’s not going to provide a little bit of oomph with regard to that policy intent, we can only assume, and we’re left to assume, that it’s just a quick and cheap, cheap and cheerful, cheap and dirty method by which to keep importers happy in the short term and leave this looming question for someone else to resolve. I would appreciate if the Minister could just provide a little bit more background as a starting point for us to have a much clearer understanding of what the policy intent is.

Thanks, Madam Chair. I’ll just round-off the regulatory impact statement (RIS) questions. Of course, if members had looked at the Amendment Paper that has been on the Table for quite a while, on the back of the Amendment Paper is a little URL, and with the URL is a link to the RIS. I’m sure that may have skipped members’ attentions because there’s a lot of paper to read, but if members pick up the papers and read them thoroughly, they will find everything that they need. Of course, there is no requirement under the Standing Orders to table a RIS, and I look forward to that suggestion being made to the Standing Orders Committee by the Labour Party in a supplementary submission—

Hon Rachel Brooking: This is an all-stages change. It hasn’t been to a select committee. No need to be so rude.

Hon JAMES MEAGER: Because it probably is quite good practice. The member interjects that this is an all-stages change—

Hon Rachel Brooking: I apologise. It’s a significant change at this stage.

Hon JAMES MEAGER: It’s actually not. We’ve just come from a select committee and had the second reading. The member also interjects and says, “It’s a significant amendment.” Well, that’s correct—but the whole point of the committee of the whole House stage is to be able to provide a chance for the committee of the whole House to make amendments to the bill. I’m not sure how long this practice has been in place, but we’re about hundreds of years under the Westminster system. Again, if the member is not happy with that programme and that system, she can make a submission to the very receptive and, I thought, polite Standing Orders Committee, who are actively considering how the House runs at the moment.

Anyway, on to Tracey McLellan’s very, very good, I thought, question around the policy intent—although she was quite disparaging of my attempts to answer in the first instance. I thought that was quite unfair. Her question around the policy intent—what is the intent of the policy? Well, without wanting to expand the scope of the debate too far and, paraphrasing in my own limited mental capacity at this time of the morning, the intent of the policy is to reduce the costs of vehicles imposed by the previous Government on everyday working Kiwis. That’s the intent of the policy, and I think, once we pass it in the next 45 minutes, it will be implemented well and truly.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I presume, Madam Chair, that you may have been watching from outside the Chamber, but I wanted to draw your attention to the fact that the regulatory impact statement (RIS) has just been introduced to the Chamber.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes, it’s just been introduced to the Chamber, but I understand it’s been in a link and it’s been available for a period of time.

STEVE ABEL: We’re in urgency, obviously, dealing with a huge volume of legislation and there is, rightly, an expectation that something like this RIS would be available to us in physical form in the Chamber.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): My understanding is that it has been available. It hasn’t been on the Table but we also have had a response to this issue, so I feel like it has been covered off. It may not be ideal from some of the members’ perspectives, but we can’t carry on debating that issue all morning because it’s been covered off by the Minister.

STEVE ABEL: Can I just—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): You can talk to the RIS—

STEVE ABEL: OK, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): —but how it got here and why it’s here has been explained.

STEVE ABEL: Actually, you’ve just clarified what I really was wanting to ask. Given that our ability to talk to the RIS would be useful—

CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes, you can talk to the RIS.

STEVE ABEL: —and the Minister made a point of the RIS being the significant part of the case for the Government’s policy position. I’m just wanting to clarify specifically in terms of the policy objectives: given the essential purpose of the legislation and that its original intent was to assist in the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions, how did the Government evaluate the impact that this policy would have on targets for reducing carbon dioxide emissions, which is covered in section 175, which is being repealed? I note that in the RIS, on page 7, one of the more striking graphs shows the average carbon dioxide performance of all new vehicle types in a blue line and the target in a red line, and at the point where the Clean Car Discount was cancelled, those lines crossover and the emissions profile of the vehicles falls below the targets. How did the Government take into account, with this new amendment, the impact on our overall targets around carbon dioxide emissions?

My second question is: in terms of our balance of payments and the cost to New Zealanders, if the Minister and the Government are concerned about the cost of vehicular transport to New Zealanders, to what extent did the Minister evaluate the impact of our dependency as a nation on the whole on petroleum imports? To clarify this, looking at the latest economic fact sheet for the week ending 14 November, currently our three largest goods imports in the year to September 2025 are mechanical machinery at $11.6 billion, followed closely by petroleum end products at $9.6 billion, followed by vehicles at $8.7 billion. Of our three biggest goods imports, two of them are petroleum and vehicles.

Did the Minister or the Government take into account the extent to which we are subject to the vicissitudes of the overseas price of oil and petroleum products? We have never produced domestic oil that has been consumed by vehicles in this country. Did he consider the extent to which he is locking New Zealanders into an ongoing dependence on that expensive imported petroleum, instead of moving our fleet to electric vehicles that are fuelled by domestically produced electricity, which is 85 percent—or even 95 percent on a good day—from renewable sources, not from fossil fuel sources?

To what extent has he evaluated the opportunity that is lost in decarbonising our transport system and the real cost-savings that that means for New Zealanders at a personal level, a household level, but also for us as a whole country, because if more of our transport fleet is electrified, then more of the fuel by which our nation is powered is domestically generated renewable energy.

The other question I have is how much of this new fleet and second-hand fleet are actually the practical vehicles that Grant McCallum refers to—the utes that people drive up through the Brynderwyns to Northland—and are actually impacted versus what I colloquially call the sort of urban wanker-mobile fleet, which is a big problem we have in Tāmaki-makau-rau Auckland? We have these monstrous Raptor/Rhino vehicles that are more dangerous, because if they hit somebody it’s fatal, and they are also obnoxious in terms of the space they take up on the road visibly. They impact on people driving normal vehicles. What sort of vehicles does this benefit in terms of those classes of cars that are actually a necessity to have in rural areas? But I can assure you, having gone to the High Country in the South Island last year, that farmers are not driving those Raptors and Rhinos; they’re driving the practical Toyota Hilux and the like. How much of the impacted fleet is those overpriced, oversized urban wanker-mobiles versus the actual tradie, farmer, practical vehicles that no one contests that people need and use? Thank you.

I’m not sure if the Greens are opening up an Eastern Front against urban bankers or whatever it was that Mr Abel said—I didn’t quite hear them properly from back there—coupled with their other front against the rural part of the economy. I’m sure there’s probably someone left for them to not have a war with, in the coming future.

I’ll backtrack in terms of the reverse order of questions. If Mr Abel doesn’t like the Rhinos or whatever it is he called them rolling around Auckland, some good news is on the way. One is that he doesn’t have to buy them. Two is that, with the new time-of-use congestion charging legislation coming into place, individuals will be able to make better decisions about whether or not they do take those vehicles in and around parts of Auckland that Mr Abel doesn’t want to see them in. Thirdly, on that, with the shift from road-user charges to all vehicles—and I’m assuming that some of these obnoxious gas-guzzling monstrosities that Mr Abel doesn’t like will be both diesel- and petrol-fuelled—they will be paying more for the impact on the roads that they do have. All of those initiatives by the current Government are actually favourable to Mr Abel’s point and, hopefully, will be supported by him.

If we then go to the issue around what was looked at in terms of the impact on the balance of payments: I’m advised that it was looked at generally in terms of the impact of lost fuel savings, and as I outlined at the start, this is approximately $115 million, but that is more than offset by the $264 million in charges that will not be passed on to hard-working everyday New Zealanders who get up every morning, get into their vehicle, clean our offices, stack our supermarket shelves, work in our pack-houses, and generally just want to get on with life in their second-hand, low-cost vehicle—because if you come from a part of the world where, like some of us, we didn’t have a car until we were seven or eight, you’re very grateful just to have any vehicle. To avoid lumping on an additional $5,000 or $6,000 cost on those vehicles, I think it’s a good thing to support working New Zealanders. This is something that everyone in the Chamber should be supporting.

Now, Mr Abel talked about reliance on fuel and gas. Well, then, I look forward to him supporting our efforts to maintain our domestic fuel and energy security in terms of repealing the oil and gas ban: investing in liquified natural gas; making sure that we have greater fuel security and storage requirements at our airports and in our fuel facilities; making sure that we have good import controls for our fuel import terminals, including the one down in PrimePort Timaru, which is a great source of opportunity and employment for the people of South Canterbury. Of course, I look forward to the support of the fast-track legislation and Resource Management Act (RMA) reform, which will fundamentally revolutionise how we can create, produce, invest in renewable energy all across the country, whether that is data centres fuelled by solar power down in Southland, or whether that is the many, many offerings of solar farms in and around the Mackenzie Country, which take a discreet, packaged-away parcel of land and produce solar energy that could generate power for tens of thousands of homes if it weren’t for the prohibitive framework of the current RMA.

I very much look forward to the Greens supporting all efforts to increase the amount of renewable energy up and down New Zealand, whether that is solar, whether it is hydro, whether it is tidal or whether that is offshore wind, whether that is bioenergy, geothermal—whatever it takes, I look forward to that support over the coming years.

Now, there are a couple of other questions that were outstanding that I’ve just had put in front of me. A question from a while back: was the analysis behind this futureproof? Of course it was, because these measures aren’t temporary. The current charges return on 1 January 2028 and, in the meantime, the Ministry of Transport is undertaking a full review of the scheme, with a report to Cabinet due in 2026.

What is the impact on the targets? Well, we all know, and we’ve had this traversed many, many times in this House: vehicle emissions are contained within the emissions trading scheme (ETS). The ETS is a closed-cap system; it has a sinking lid on emissions over time. Where emissions drop in one sector, they are offset by emissions in the other sector. Because there are caps, if industries decide to exceed their emissions, they either have to pay for them through New Zealand Units or they have to pay a very significant fine. It is unlawful to breach the emissions caps, so in terms of emissions reductions, whether you reduce them in the vehicle industry sector—whether you reduce them in waste energy, whether you reduce them in heat energy processes—it is a cap system, so when you push down here, it pushes up here. But overall, on a net basis, it won’t make a difference.

I’m going to call Arena Williams. I’m looking for specific clauses and specific questions now please, rather than speeches. That’s not a reflection on this member. It’s just that we’re getting—it’s less than two pages, this particular part of the bill, and I’d just like to see people referring to the clauses and having questions around the clauses.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and welcome to the chair. You can tell that people are exercised about this. We’re also into, I think, the twentieth hour of urgency, so there is a little bit of tetchiness in the Chamber—but let’s change that. Let’s get enthusiastic about this bill.

I want to speak to the Minister’s Amendment Paper 444 now. This is the guts of the policy here. This is the clause that enables the $264 million tax cut to car dealers. I want to ask him about his choices around how big that cut would be. The options that I understand he’s considered are the status quo, which would leave it at $67; halving that to $33 as the top charge; halving that again to $15, which is the option he’s gone for here; or zeroing it. The options that I’m really asking about are $30, $15, and zero, because, as I understand it, the Government’s policy intention could have landed on any of those and, really, what I’m asking here is about the trade-offs between those options.

If the top charge were double what it is now, I want to understand how the industry would have been impacted by that and the kind of vehicle mix that we would have seen being imported. Given that there is a lower consumer demand at the moment for electric vehicles (EVs), did that play into the choice between $15 and $30 being the top charge and the expectation of economic conditions either improving or stabilising? That’s not information that was made available to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, because the committee didn’t consider the difference between say $30 as the top charge and $15 as the top charge.

The reason I raise this is because we saw a very open-minded and collegial discussion of the different road-user charges that applied to plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) in that committee when the Government was considering a bill very similar to this a year and a half ago. The committee actually arrived at a different rate that would be set there—at, essentially, halving what was the original rate but doubling what the Government’s suggestion would have been. A committee of like-minded and reasonable MPs in that room came to a different view of the appropriate rate there, so I wonder whether the committee would consider a movement up to that rate of $30 that, in my view, trying to think through this reasonably, would also reach the Government’s policy intention.

A particular part of the Government’s policy intention that I want to draw the committee’s attention to is in the regulatory impact statement, on page 3. It says that the best way to address that demand issue created by economic conditions at the moment, and by the demand for EVs being low, is to make the settings more flexible—that’s the one-year extension. We will return to the one-year extension, but that’s not in Amendment Paper 444. It also says, “to adjust the targets to levels that are achievable and do not result in high levels of net charge.” That $30 top rate would do that. It would also mean that there was a greater level of stability within the system.

Stability is a stated goal of the Government in this policy. It would have been in line with the expectations of the industry, and that stability goal is really important here—particularly for the relative market share of some small importers as opposed to some larger importers. The Minister will note that I have made a number of amendments that are particularly designed to protect the interests of those smaller importers. What I think we would all agree around the Chamber is that we don’t want to have the unintended impact, by setting the rate where it is currently, of disadvantaging smaller importers over the larger ones.

You would have heard, Madam Chair, in an answer the Minister gave to my colleague Steve Abel, that the Minister didn’t consult with particular importers. Any given importer had the chance, he said, to be able to present to the Transport and Infrastructure Committee, but they didn’t make that information available to the select committee, because it is sensitive to them. As I understand it, the Minister will well know that smaller importers are at the sharp end of this change; there will be some market impacts for them that make it harder for them to be profitable relative to their larger counterparts. I want to test with him whether that $30 top rate charge is an appropriate charge, and whether he also considered a zero rate and what that would have meant for the relative market share of larger and smaller importers.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I was just checking whether my colleague Tom Rutherford had an insightful contribution to make, and I thought I’d give him a crack. Just in terms of a couple of prior questions I just wanted to tick off, there was a question previously around carbon dioxide emissions, and I just wanted to—for completeness, because I did sit down before and didn’t quite get to finish that off. An emissions trading scheme (ETS) is always a difficult system, but it’s a closed system. There are a certain number of carbon credits available, so, for example, I’m advised that this policy may well result in 83 kilotons of emissions additional into this particular industry. Now, of course that is the equivalent—if my maths is right—to 83,000 New Zealand Units (NZUs). Those are, therefore, NZUs available for other emitters to purchase.

It’s a closed system. You’ve got a capped number of emissions that you can emit over a five-year period, the carbon budgets. If Governments want to go harder and faster on that, they can. They can change those caps. If they want to reduce emissions more quickly by reducing the number of emissions in the system, they can do that. They can buy credits; they can shred them. That all has trade-offs and balances because that drives up the cost of carbon credits. They are the trade-offs that we’re all talking about here.

This goes to the member’s point around what the options were and what the top charge could be. Well, if you double the top charge, you’re just doubling what the importers have to pay and pass on to their customers. It’s all a trade-off in terms of how you make the system continue to work as best it can in a difficult and, we think, relatively unworkable system. You’ve still got to make the system work by having some sort of credit and penalty, but, at the same time, if you leave it up to where it was, you’re going to be hitting consumers with an incredibly high cost—people who, generally, are not in a position to pay that cost. In terms of a system that’s supposed to be supporting working New Zealanders and the people who are out there actually generating the income that we need to pay for our nurses and our doctors and our schools and our hospitals—we should be supporting them, and we shouldn’t be putting these costs on them, particularly in a situation where the ETS does most of the heavy lifting.

That’s, essentially, the answer as to why the rate is set as it is. Look, there are arguments both ways—whether it should be higher or whether it should be lower—depending on what your value set is and what your priorities are, but the Government has set them at the rate suggested in the Amendment Paper. We think $15 provides meaningful relief for importers and consumers while still incentivising compliance with the standard. I’m also advised that the Motor Industry Association were the ones that proposed $15 as a balance to balance the interest of their members who held excess credits against those who face net charges. It’s a relatively good middle point that we think hits the right spot. If members are interested, there is more analysis in the regulatory impact statement on pages 13 to 14.

We’re getting very close. I’m going to take a call from Tangi Utikere; I see he’s been writing furiously during the course of this last little section. But I will indicate that we are getting very close.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to ask the Minister some questions in relation to clause 4. This is the clause that, basically, removes the ability for regulations to be targeted, around the vehicle weights being adjusted. The proposal from the Government is to basically cancel it so there would not be any criteria in that particular space.

My first question for the Minister is: given that heavier vehicles emit more carbon dioxide, why is it that there hasn’t been, really, any thought around a gradual approach to weight adjustment—i.e., not just a blanket ruling-out but maybe some sort of a transitional phase dependent on weights? Now, that might be, perhaps, more difficult if it’s in the lighter fleet, as opposed to not, but given that the focus of this is around taking our climate change responsibility seriously, what consideration, if any, was given to having some sort of gradual approach to that? The other part of that, of course, is what modelling supports the change and whether any specific advice around that was sought.

There is a tabled amendment in my colleague Arena Williams’ name that has not been referred to in the committee this morning. I actually think one of the interesting things, if the Government is open to actually looking at it, is what the impact of these changes is going to be. Whilst the Minister and the Government have said that there will be a review opportunity—that that might be at some stage in the future—there is really no scope defined around what that looks like. What Ms Williams’ tabled amendment very clearly does is seek to insert a new clause 4A, which she suggests is titled “Annual impact assessment of clean vehicle standard”. Now, this would be a new clause that would, effectively, require the Minister—and there is no time frame, but there kind of is; I mean, it’s about practicality, right? It’s around “as soon as practicable” after the end of a financial year, which does make sense in terms of aligning that with Budgets. It would require the Minister to turn their mind to preparing and publishing a report that would be required to contain a number of different aspects.

Now, we haven’t actually touched on this yet today, and they are things like, “Well, what is the actual capture of volume of used vehicles that are actually being imported into New Zealand?” This is a bill that does provide some differential between new imports and used imports. It might be all well and good to say, “Well, all that information is contained elsewhere”, but what we’re talking about here is having a centralised opportunity for the Minister, as the Government’s appointee, to present to the Parliament a form of accountability on an annual basis to cover off a few things—not just actually the volume of used vehicles.

That’s really important, because, if we’re looking at trying to shift the dial on having households move into lower-emitting vehicles, one of the key incentives for that is ensuring that the used vehicle fleet is accessible and that there are a larger number of low-emitting vehicles that form part of that fleet. Having an opportunity to annually account to the Parliament—and that paints a picture—we think is actually a good move. Alongside that, consideration around the changes in not just how old these vehicles are but the average age, worked out across the entire fleet, and specific to the light fleet.

The other two points that Ms Williams’, in her Amendment Paper, touches on is this issue of retail affordability. This is a real concern, and this is what has been driving a lot of the submissions that the select committee heard as well from importers. It’s their view that the uptake is actually, post the Government’s decision to get rid of the Clean Car Discount, actually not serving as an incentive for people to be able to access the market. If that is the case, what metrics are there to ensure that retail affordability is something—it’s not something that we’ve actually talked about. The Minister might not think that’s a good idea. OK, that’s fine, but it would be helpful to hear from him none the less.

Of course, the final bit there is around the impact or effect that that would have specifically on Māori and Pacific communities. Why? We know that they are generally parts of our communities—and members across the Chamber will know this themselves—that find it very difficult to be able to make sure they are a positive stat when it comes to low-emitting vehicles, because of the accessibility and the equity issues. The question to the Minister is: how does he see that ability to capture all that information in one place and to provide that through a vehicle to be accountable to the Parliament?

I couldn’t quite discern many questions from that, but I’ll address the one at the top around clause 4. I think the member misunderstands how the clause works. It actually allows the Minister to set a weight-adjusted rate or a uniform rate. Currently, if you just set a strict uniform weight, that would be harder for heavy vehicles to meet, and I think that was the intention of the previous Government’s policy. Clause 4 actually gives the Minister the flexibility to do one or the other, and so I think that’s what he actually wants and that’s what the clause achieves.

In terms of an amendment to require a Minister to review or report—well, as I’ve mentioned before, there is already a report due in 2026 and, as I thumb my way through many of Arena Williams’ amendments, I note that with regard to the amendment lodged at 10:50:07, the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) currently already publish monthly reporting on the volume of charges and credits, and the Ministry of Transport publishes information on the volume of new registrations. If we go to 10:50:11, the Ministry of Transport publishes vehicle registrations, including both fuel types. If we go to—I’m just skipping along because the rest of them aren’t actually consistent with Government policy, so they would be rejected outright. If we go to the one at 10:50:21, all of the information sought in that quarterly publication is published monthly by the NZTA. If we go—and we’re still going; they’re not consistent with Government policy for the rest of these ones—to 10:50:25, again, that information is already published by the NZTA. Then, for the one at 10:50:28—no, that’s on the title. I thought that there was one more.

Essentially, the essence of what I’m getting to is that much of what the member has suggested or wants in her amendments is already published by various agencies, and, of course, Ministers of any stripe, any kind, any colour, or of any age or vintage can issue a report or do a review on any piece of legislation they want at any time. If they want to spend their time running through working groups and reports and reviews and things like that, then they can do that, but what we’ll do is we’ll change the legislation to make it easier for working New Zealanders to buy a car, get to work, do the job, live their life, and have a happy future.

I’m just going to take a question from the Hon Julie Anne Genter, the transport spokesperson for the Greens—and it will be related to a clause and a question.

Yes—thank you very much, Madam Chair. We put forward a range of tabled amendments this morning, so I just want to clarify that most of those are proposed amendments to Amendment Paper 444, which is the Minister of Transport’s Amendment Paper, which, as I understand it—and maybe I’ll just clarify with the Minister in the chair, James Meager—was tabled yesterday in the evening. That’s my understanding. The chair of the Transport and Infrastructure Committee was saying that it had been around longer than that, so I’m just wondering: did the chair of the select committee get earlier access to the Amendment Paper, because we only got it last night.

Anyway, so it’s specifically new clauses 5A and 8A, and we’ve proposed a range of changes to the fees, and so that’s particularly from 1 January 2026. My question—my main question, aside from when was the Amendment Paper tabled and when did the chair get access to it—is: the Minister has repeatedly, in this debate, referred to this policy improving affordability of cars for low-income New Zealanders. I just wondered if the Minister had done any distributional analysis of who these changes were most likely to affect, because by my calculations, the changes in the new clause 5A in Amendment Paper 444, new subsection 2(b)(i) and (ii), what they show is that with the change in the fees, the benefit to the new vehicle industry who are bringing in polluting vehicles above the target is twice that of the used vehicle sector imports. That means that, actually, there’s a disproportionate benefit to new vehicle importers. Low-income or even medium-income New Zealanders are not buying brand new vehicles, so if the policy intent of the bill is to help those on low or medium income, I want to know: why is the change proposed in the Amendment Paper giving double the benefit, or tax break, really—penalty break—to brand new vehicle imports as opposed to second-hand vehicle imports?

Throughout the debate and throughout the regulatory impact statement, the problem that’s been laid out has been focused on access to the second-hand vehicle market. We have a lot of brand new vehicles now available at affordable price points that are low-emissions or zero-emissions, therefore below the target, but there’s a disproportionate benefit given to new vehicles. I just want to make this point in this debate—maybe the Minister could listen and understand the point and respond to the question—if we want to increase the supply of second-hand, low-emissions vehicles or zero-emissions vehicles—electric vehicles (EVs)—then we’re not going to do it by importing second-hand vehicles directly from Japan; we’re going to do it by importing more brand new EVs here and those being sold on second-hand in the market. That’s how we address that issue. The way we get more second-hand, affordable EVs is by importing more brand new EVs, and this policy, this Amendment Paper, is working against that aim by encouraging and rewarding the polluting brand new vehicles industry and encouraging them to keep importing higher-emissions, brand new vehicles which will be on the road longer and mean that we’re not getting those second-hand EVs in the market.

That’s my question, and would the Minister consider some of our tabled amendments to Amendment Paper 444, which we put on the Table. There’s a whole range of them, in my name and in my colleague Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s name, that would go some way to ensuring that the brand new vehicle importers who are bringing in high-emissions vehicles pay the price of that.

Oh, sorry, there’s one more question—I did mean to ask this earlier in the debate and I didn’t get to it, which was: has the Minister got any evidence, do they have any guarantee based on these changes, that savings will be passed on to consumers? How do we know they won’t just be banked by the industry so that they can make more money as opposed to bringing in lower-emissions vehicles that New Zealand desperately needs?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have checked with the officials, and I’m advised that the Amendment Paper was released at approximately 3.48 p.m. yesterday, and that includes the reference to the regulatory impact statement. Then I’m also—well, I’m not even advised of this, I can remember this. The substance or the content of the Amendment Paper was indicated by the Minister after Cabinet made their decisions on Monday, and that was, I think, reported on relatively widely at that point.

In terms of the member’s point about the best way to get more EVs—yep, you could take money from freezing workers and farmers and tradies and give it to lawyers and doctors to run around the town in their brand new Teslas. Or what you could do is you could drastically reform things like the Resource Management Act, improve our education system, improve our exports, grow our economy, lift incomes, and make sure that people have the wealth and prosperity that they need to be able to make choices in their lives so that they can afford to choose the vehicle that best suits them. So long as we are pouring costs on working New Zealanders, they are going to be the ones that are priced out of any electric vehicle market, whether that be used or new. It will be a luxury, which is the domain only of the rich and wealthy and probably of the 123 people that sit in this Chamber. In terms of making it easier to buy electric vehicles, the best thing you can do is make sure that you have a country which has the opportunity and growth and prosperity for all New Zealanders to have the incomes that they deserve so that they can make the choices for themselves.

Finally, in terms of the amendments that the member’s put forward, I’ve had a quick thumb through. Many of them don’t seem to be consistent with the aims of the Government policy, so we won’t be supporting them at this stage.

Then, finally, “Can the Minister provide any guarantee that those savings are passed on?” Well, they’re not savings, they are the avoidance of cost that would be passed on. While I can’t guarantee what any individual vehicle importer or operator will or won’t do with the price of vehicles in their market, what I can guarantee is that the ongoing situation where there are basically no second-hand vehicles available, even under existing standards in the likes of the Japanese second-hand market means that the cost of second-hand trucks and vehicles and work vehicles has gone through the roof—to the point of $10,000, $15,000, $20,000 for some people who are just trying to buy a flatbed truck so that they can chuck your heat pump or your washing machine on and deliver it to your house so you can live a comfortable, luxurious, perfectly nice, comfortable life while they drag their butts around town every day, every week, making our lives easier. I think that we should be proud of the work that they do.

I move, That debate on this question now close.

The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s tabled amendment to the Minister’s amendment inserting new clause 5A, new section 177(2), set out on Amendment Paper 444, to amend the 2026 charges to $37.50 and $75 be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to the Minister’s amendment inserting new clause 5A, new section 177(2), set out on Amendment Paper 444, to amend the 2026 charges to $30 and $60 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s tabled amendment to the Minister’s amendment to clause 6 set out on Amendment Paper 444 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s tabled amendment to the Minister’s amendment inserting new clause 8A, new section 182(2), set out on Amendment Paper 444, to amend the 2026 charges to $30 and $60 be agreed to be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to the Minister’s amendment inserting new clause 8A, new section 182(2), set out on Amendment Paper 444, to amend the 2026 charges to $24 and $48 be agreed to.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Amendment Paper 444 be agreed to be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment deleting clause 4(1) be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4(1) replacing “(ii)” with “(iv)” be agreed to.

Arena Williams’ three remaining tabled amendments amending clause 4(1) are out of order as not being in the correct form of legislation.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4(2) deleting clause 4(2) be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 4(2) relating to targets adjusted for vehicle make and model be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 4(2) inserting the words “including vehicle weight and class adjusted targets” be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to insert clause 4(3) relating to data integrity and quality be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to insert a new clause 4A to require an annual impact assessment of the standard be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to insert a new clause 4B to require monitoring and reporting on compliance and market impacts be agreed to.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to insert a new clause 4C to implement an equity review of the standard is out of order as being outside the scope of the bill.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to insert a new clause 4D to require an annual review of clean vehicle system outcomes be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to insert a new clause 4E to require monitoring and reporting on importer participation in the system be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to insert a new clause 4F to require an access review relating to clean vehicle availability be agreed to.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 5 relating to determining weight-adjusted targets by Order in Council is out of order as being not in the correct form of legislation.

I’m just going to read out the next vote, and then I’m going to swap chairs while the Clerk is taking the vote—just so you know what’s going on.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 5 relating to a quarterly summary of clean vehicle activity be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 5 relating to reporting on light vehicle fleet changes be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 5 relating to reporting on affordability and availability of light vehicles be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 5 relating to transparency reporting on the clean vehicle credit system be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 5 relating to reporting on fleet transition and vehicle market trends be agreed to.

Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 5 relating to equity and affordability reporting is out of order as being outside the scope of the bill.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to insert new clause 7A relating to establishing a class of small-volume importers be agreed to.

Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 6, replacing “4 years” with “3.5 years” is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The Hon Julie Anne Genter’s tabled amendment to clause 6, replacing “4 years” with “2 years” is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to insert new clause 7A relating to regulations to support small-volume importers be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to insert new clause 7A relating to regulations to support low-volume importers be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to insert new clause 7A relating to regulations to support occasional importers be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to insert new clause 7A relating to regulations to support smaller importers be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to insert new clause 7A relating to transitional arrangements for low-volume importers be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 8(1) to delete “or a light vehicle importer who imports used vehicles” be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s tabled amendment to insert new subclause (1A) in clause 8 be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s tabled amendment to insert new subclause (2A) in clause 8 be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 8(3), new section 180(3), to insert “the transferor must satisfy themselves that the transfer will not disincentivise the transferee to import clean and efficient cars and” be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 8(3), new section 180(3), to insert “the transferor must be satisfied that the transfer is enabling the importation of efficient, clean light vehicles and does not have an impact on the emissions of the transferee’s vehicle fleet, and” be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 8(3), new section 180(3), to replace the words after “must be” with “made on conditions set by Order in Council after 1 January 2027” be agreed to.

The question is that the Hon Julie Anne Genter’s tabled amendment to clause 8(3), replacing “2 credits” with “1.5 credits” in each instance be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to insert new subclause (1A) in clause 9 be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to insert new subclause (2A) in clause 9 be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 9(3), new section 184(3), to insert “the transferor must satisfy themselves that the transfer will not disincentivise the transferee to import clean and efficient cars and” be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to clause 9(3), new section 184(3), to replace the words after “must be” with “made on conditions set by Order in Council after 1 January 2027” be agreed to.

The question is that Dr Lawrence Xu-Nan’s tabled amendment to clause 9(3), replacing “2 credits” with “1.5 credits” in each instance be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to insert new clause 10 relating to the annual publication of credit system ratings be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to insert new clause 10 relating to an annual statement on the clean vehicle system be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to insert new clause 10 relating to the publication of future settings for the clean vehicle system be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to insert new clause 10 relating to an annual outline of clean vehicle system changes be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to insert new clause 11 relating to the quarterly publication of total charges be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to insert new clause 11 relating to the quarterly publication of clean vehicle activity totals be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to insert new clause 12 relating to a minimum notice period for changes to credit system settings be agreed to.

The question is that Arena Williams’ tabled amendment to insert new clause 12 relating to a required notice period for operational changes be agreed to.