Smith StuartSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Mr Speaker. Well the member that just sat down Jamie Strange made an interesting point about electricity and power generation because that actually goes to one of the key points that is missing from this bill and that is actually that at the moment for every extra megawatt of energy that's used it is going to call on probably more coal being burnt in Huntly to keep the lights on. So the natural place that you would go first to lower emissions in New Zealand would be to sort out the coal thermal production in electricity that peaks and keeps the lights on in New Zealand. The other night Mr Speaker in the weekend—I'm sure you'll be interested in this—the 840 megawatts of hydroelectricity that was going across being generated pushed across the strait into the North Island and yet we were still burning coal and we were burning coal because the wind wasn't blowing. So we have a significant issue with our electricity sector and that is where we should be focusing our efforts before we go off down in bringing in legislation actually that's not going to have much effect at all.In fact I think one of the things that's been forgotten in this—there's been a lot of talk about this and about cost and I've asked throughout the debate What are the emissions that are going to be saved by this policy?" No one has told me. No one has said what it is but I'm going to tell you Mr Speaker. From 2022 to 2050 the emissions will be reduced by this policy by 0.9 percent. Less than 1 percent of our overall emissions will be lowered by this piece of legislation.It really just shows the lack of work that's gone into this. I'm surprised. Julie Anne Genter who spoke earlier on this she loves this policy and she got the credit from the Minister when he spoke earlier on behalf of the other Minister for being the genesis of this bill and good on her. She's very passionate about it. However she should know that. She should have known how little effect this would have. It's all there. Treasury came out very strongly against this policy because it's a very very expensive way to lower emissions.We have an emissions trading scheme (ETS) an emissions trading scheme that is—actually thanks to James Shaw—capped. Good on him. That's a fantastic thing to do. That means that we can set emissions budgets which the Climate Change Commission have come out with the first three budgets showing us how we're going to lower our emissions out to 2035. But we're going to go on from there right to 2050 and we can limit our emissions by limiting the number of credit units that are available to offset which will have to be surrendered when people omit. So we can control what our emissions are with the ETS. The commission have said that we will get to net zero by 2050 with the emissions trading scheme on its own.Now that admittedly does come with some issues around planting trees as a means of offset. I think the good Simon Upton the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment made a very good point in his report some years ago which pointed out that actually the best way we could avoid that problem would be to only allow forestry sequestration for farmers to offset their methane emissions because they have a similar life cycle to the life cycle of the pine tree in terms of emissions.So this bill though comes in and seeks to actually put a cost on cars coming in so that they'll lower their emissions and their fuel efficiency etc. However it misses the biggest opportunity. The biggest opportunity to lower emissions in our light-vehicle fleet is to deal with the old clunkers that are going around—we've all followed them up the motorway puffing smoke out the back. Most of that smoke's unburnt fuel. They're poorly tuned. We don't do anything through our warrant of fitness system to test those vehicles; overseas they do.I've talked to the motor trade industry and it was very interesting. They told me well before this got to this stage that this wouldn't work. They came out with some suggestions. The big suggestion from them was to ensure that we tested vehicles for their emissions at source every year when they go through their warrant of fitness and ensure that those vehicles meet those standards. They also mentioned cash for clunkers. I'm not sure I agree with that one. But however those are at the other end of the market than where the Labour Party is focused on.I know Angela Roberts has all of a sudden had a road to Damascus experience. She's now a fan of trickle-down economics. So she's effectively advocating for trickle-down economics because you buy the new electric vehicles (EVs) and they'll trickle down through the economy. That's how we're going to deal with it.Hon David Bennett: Trouble is there are no EV utes.STUART SMITH: I don't know if you've ever heard Mr Bennett the Labour Party advocating for trickle-down economics; I certainly haven't.Hon David Bennett: I've never heard of an EV ute either.STUART SMITH: No I don't think I've heard that. But it's fantastic. I think good on her for coming along.SPEAKER: Order! Order! Come on let's get a bit of focus back on the bill.STUART SMITH: Certainly. I'm just about there. What we have worked out: this is a $1 billion tax grab. Trickle-down economics doesn't quite work that way usually but anyway it's a $1 billion tax grab instead of actually assisting people in the right way.Now I note some months ago that the chief executive of Toyota Neeraj Lala came out pointing out that the vehicles that the EVs and hybrids that the Government think we are going to be able to get massively into New Zealand and replace our fleet simply aren't available. In fact the Prime Minister made a statement about a Toyota ute coming out into the market and he had to come in and correct her and say that actually that's not the case. Now who do you think would know the Prime Minister or the head of Toyota? I think the head of Toyota might know a bit more about that.There are definitely issues here with shortages of supply. The fact is: car manufacturers are not falling over themselves to sell cars to New Zealand. We're a very small market. We're right-hand drive. We have our own needs in this country. That is why the Motor Trade Association came out against this particular bill. It was quite a surprise actually. I would have thought the Minister would have done a lot more homework with that association to try and get them on board. To have them come out strongly against what is one of their best policies I think in climate change that they thought—well they view it as one of their best policies in climate change. To have the main industry peak body come out against it quite strongly and well argued in their view I think was very very telling.I think Mr Speaker if you'll indulge me for a moment they talked also about—SPEAKER: I've been doing it for the last eight minutes so we might as well continue!STUART SMITH: I'll try not to leave it too long then. They pointed out that cars were going to use the Worldwide Harmonised Light Vehicle Test Procedure WLTP protocol and if that's not available the American Environmental Protection EPA test. And that what they further pointed out is actually the vehicles—it was quite a mistake made by the officials in their paper saying that our vehicles come from Europe and for European standards; actually they come from Japan made to Australian standards. We don't even recognise those standards that are noted in this bill. It's unbelievable and it's sloppy. For something that's actually a $1 billion tax bill I think it's unbelievable that they'd be so slack in this. It's really important that you get these things right.Look I have an EV but I think there's some reality here. I didn't get a discount either. Lou Sanson when he was the chief executive of the Department of Conservation he took his EV for a ride round the North Island and he had to call into two separate farmhouses to charge it up because he ran out of electricity. That's the reality in rural New Zealand. I think that while there are a number of charging stations around New Zealand as EVs go up there'll have to be a heck of a lot more. The coverage isn't there yet. It's a great technology but it is limited. It's a car with a very small fuel tank that takes a long time to fill. It's something that we have to all remember when we purchase them. They suit a lot of uses but they're limited in others. And to have a one-size-fits-all piece of legislation like this one which I think is actually pretty shoddy is not doing a good service for New Zealand and it doesn't reflect well on those people that promote it. So I do not support this bill.SPEAKER: Members it's kai time. The House stands suspended until 7 o'clock tonight.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m."