Wood Michael; Kuriger BarbaraSecond ReadingHon MICHAEL WOOD (Minister of Transport): I move That the Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time. Thursdays at Parliament are well-known by all members as being Doughnut Day" the day on which doughnuts are available for all to enjoy at Copperfields. I am very very pleased to hear that the spirit of "Doughnut Day" has spread to the House as expressed by members of the Opposition in their new-found support for the Clean Car Standard. I do commend members for that and for the clarity that they have provided in that respect given the utter lack of clarity we experienced last week when the Leader of the Opposition got into the position of having to speak about the National Party's policies in respect of the clean car package. We heard that they supported the Clean Car Discount and then we heard that they didn't. We heard that they supported the Clean Car Standard and then we heard they might have supported a clean car standard. So it is somewhat useful I think for the House to get clarity from the National Party today that they do in fact support this piece of legislation and the Clean Car Standard coming into effect. It is an important piece of legislation because this is a House which has declared a climate emergency. This is a House which has voted for the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act. This is a House which has established the independent Climate Change Commission and said that we need to get to net zero by 2050. Having done all of those things it behoves this House and it behoves members of this House to actually do something to get us to that point of substantially reducing our carbon emissions. No member of this House can stand with credibility and say that they support a net zero New Zealand and say that they support emissions abatements without actually having policies to do anything about it. The thing about the Clean Car Standard is that it is one of the most impactful policies that has ever been brought to this House to reduce emissions in a substantial way. I encourage all members who do take the time to speak on this bill in the debate to go back and read the regulatory impact statement which was prepared at the time of the primary legislation and confirms that this policy will reduce over 1 megatonne—that is over 1.07 million tonnes—of carbon dioxide emissions in New Zealand by 2050. And what's more—and this is an important point given the crocodile tears and pearl clutching that we've heard from the other side of the House in respect of their new-found care for the low-income people of New Zealand—this is a policy which according to the regulatory impact statement has its biggest impact on vehicle consumers because it lowers the cost for Kiwis of running their vehicles. What's more it confirms that the distributional impact—that is the impact on the lowest-income New Zealanders—is a positive one and I'll read directly from the regulatory impact statement for the benefit of those members who clearly haven't and for the benefit of the record in the House. This isn't the Government speaking; this is a regulatory impact statement from officials: "As we consider the risk of vehicle price rises to be low we also consider that it will have little negative distributional impact. In fact long-term evidence from the United States over the period of 1984 to 2014 suggests that the households that benefit the most from carbon dioxide standards vehicle fuel-efficiency standards are low-income households. This is because as a percentage of incomes savings from improved fuel efficiency are highest for households with lower incomes." This is not only a policy which is good for our environment and that will lead to a significant abatement in emissions and a real impact on climate change; it is a policy that gives Kiwi consumers more choice more access to clean vehicles and more access to clean vehicles at a low price.I must comment on the most recent speech from the Opposition that we heard at the end of the first reading from the Hon David Bennett. It was once said in this House that "His brains could revolve inside a peanut shell for a thousand years without touching the sides." Well the Hon David Bennett did an insult to a peanut in the speech that he gave at the end of his comments and here is the point: I encourage the members opposite before they speak on this bill and this policy to actually understand how it works. That member devoted nearly all of his speech as other members have opposite to an obsession with electric vehicles (EVs). Do they not understand that the Clean Car Standard does not just apply to EVs and that the Clean Car Discount does not just apply to EVs that both policies pivot around a carbon dioxide emissions standard that in fact the Clean Car Standard—in respect of the ability for importers to claim credits not to have necessarily rebates—applies to hybrids and that in fact the top-selling vehicles under the Clean Car Discount are used Japanese imported vehicles? The member David Bennett stood up in this House and didn't seem to be aware of that. He pivoted his entire speech and entire critique of this policy around the fact that supposedly it didn't take account of the fact that most imported vehicles in New Zealand come from Japan where hybrids are the pathway they've chosen rather than EVs. The policy does. Both the Clean Car Standard and the Clean Car Discount provide rebates for importers who bring in hybrids and the biggest-selling vehicles under the discount policy have been Japanese hybrids. So once again I ask members opposite who are in a state of flux given the flip-flops that we have seen on this policy over the last week to actually understand the policies that they are talking about and that they are debating. Having said that I do welcome the most recent change the most recent doughnut and the support from the National Party for this policy. Ultimately it is common sense and it is a good thing if we can move towards greater support for policies that have a definable impact on emissions reductions in New Zealand. This bill is a pragmatic one. It is important to note that it actually does nothing to delay the outcomes of the Clean Car Standard. The standard applies from 1 January and rebates and charges apply from 1 January. There is simply for category 2 importers who probably import a minority of the vehicles into the country a delayed implementation of when the charges will apply from and when rebates can be traded from 1 June. So for the benefit of the House there is therefore no reduction in the abatement benefits that we get from this policy and no reduction in terms of the choice benefits that consumers will get. In fact one of the things that importers tell me is that even though this policy doesn't come into effect from the beginning of this year it is already doing what it was intended to do which is giving New Zealand importers more ability to go to their head offices and get the stock of cleaner vehicles that Kiwi consumers actually want. Before this policy came into effect New Zealand was one of only three countries in the world without a carbon dioxide emissions standard—the other two being Australia and Russia. And I'd say "Watch out" because I think Australia's likely to move in this direction in the coming years as well. And because of that we were becoming a dumping ground for the world's dirtiest vehicles. Other countries had a standard in place which meant that their importers could go to their head offices in Japan Korea or Europe and require the stock of clean vehicles that they needed for their market. In New Zealand because there was no standard we were getting dirtier vehicles than other countries were getting. Importers tell me now that having the standard in place as they put in their forward orders for 2023 and 2024 means that they can negotiate more effectively with their head offices to be able to get that supply of clean vehicles which is good for our environment gives Kiwi consumers choices and will actually lower costs of vehicle ownership to Kiwi consumers as well. So it is good news all round.As I've said our Government has brought forward this piece of legislation to make sure that the legislation can be implemented as smoothly as possible. The Opposition seems to think on one hand that Governments should listen to sectors that they work with and on the other hand is critical of a Government that does actually listen and does work pragmatically to bring in significant policy. The real reason in the end that the Opposition and the spokesperson who might get to his feet in a moment wants to focus on that is that they want to do anything possible not to actually debate how we reduce emissions in the transport sector because they are opposed to virtually everything that we do in that area—they are the new form of climate deniers; they mouth the words about wanting to reduce emissions and then oppose virtually every policy that will actually do anything—and secondly they want cover the tracks of the past couple of weeks when they have flip-flopped three or four times on this policy and have had total chaos within their ranks. This is a practical bill that will support emissions reductions and will support better choices for Kiwi consumers and the vehicles that they buy. It will support the smooth implementation of that policy and I commend it to the House.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Barbara Kuriger): The question is that the motion be agreed to."