Brooking RachelHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you Madam Speaker. This is my first opportunity to speak in this 54th Parliament. I'm obviously disappointed that it is on such a regressive piece of legislation but I am delighted to congratulate you on becoming a presiding officer.Now we just heard the last speaker referring to the departmental disclosure statement and I would note there it does say under Regulatory impact statement" Cabinet has decided "to suspend the requirement for regulatory impact statements for decisions relating to 100-Day-Plan proposals (taken within the 100 days) [which] solely involve the repeal of legislation."We know in fact that the departments involved in this legislation had already prepared a draft regulatory impact statement (RIS) yet we have not seen it despite its existence. The Minister made a cynical interjection before and made cynical statements to the media that "Oh well the Opposition can OIA it." Of course the Opposition can OIA it but the point is and the point of why that comment is cynical is that we are doing in urgency all stages of the bill. All stages. That is very different from urgency of one stage sending a piece of legislation to select committee so that people can even in a shortened time make submissions on it. This is all stages. Soon we will be in the committee stage of the bill. All here on a Thursday morning when of course the date says the 12 December.James Meager: Do RMA reforms ring a bell?Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I'm hearing about Resource Management Act (RMA) reform. Well that's interesting. That is an interesting interjection because the RMA reform had a very full submission process. In fact when submissions were open over Christmas there was much debate from the Opposition about how it was so unfair to have a six-week submission process that was over the Christmas break. So of course that was extended time and time again to enable a very good process for some very fine legislation.Arena Williams: So it wasn't even truncated. It wasn't even a truncated process.Hon RACHEL BROOKING: It was not truncated. There were periods during that large process that were in urgency but they were stage by stage. That is totally different from this bill which is every single stage all at once. Of course there are arguments for doing all stages of a bill at once if perhaps there has been a natural disaster. But even then it is not good practice and we should always do things like having a short submission process at the very least—none of which we have here.But of course the irony is—and we had the last speaker Tom Rutherford read out that statement from the departmental disclosure statement—we don't even need to be here debating this legislation because the legislation sets up regulations and all that I've heard from the other side saying so far about "Oh this scheme it needs reviews. It's not working perfectly." that can all be done through the regulations. We will be asking the Minister questions about this in the committee stage.Going back to why that we had this piece of legislation in the first place—this very sensible Act—it is because as the Hon Dr Megan Woods said before we need to do things to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions. This is very specific to our carbon emissions and you will see all through the Act and the repeal legislation that we are talking about the pollution the pollution of the carbon dioxide from some cars and how we cost that pollution to incentivise behaviour so that people have low-emitting vehicles. We want that because we have signed up to international agreements. We have trade agreements.If farmers are worried about the future of farming they need to be worried about their carbon pollution and to reduce it as much as possible—and for the whole country to reduce our carbon pollution as much as possible. One of the ways of doing that—it is no means the only way—but one of the ways of doing that is to electrify our fleet and to have these electric vehicles (EVs). And we know that because of this scheme we have many more EVs on the road than we would have had without this scheme. And that is progress and it's about to be taken away. Shame."