Utikere TangiTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana Mr Speaker. Well that was a concession speech if ever I heard one—that was a concession speech if ever I heard one. In my first contribution on this bill I talked about the leadership aspirations of the Minister of Transport. They are well and truly down the road gone because that was just a pathetic attempt from the Hon Simeon Brown to justify this Government's attempt to move in this particular direction.We had heard that this is about going back to the future. It is back to the future. This is a Government whether it be a three-headed monster or something else that loves to use the word back"—backwards-focused; back whatever. This is something that clearly is back to the future. Again let's also remind ourselves that it comes at a time when the House again is sitting in urgency to progress legislation that this new Government thinks—Grant McCallum: Important legislation.TANGI UTIKERE: Point of order. Mr Speaker I note that Mr McCallum was objecting whilst he was on his feet. I appreciate that the member may not have been here for some time but it's a well-established convention that members need to be in place.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): I didn't see that. If that is the case you'll stand withdraw and apologise.Grant McCallum: I stand withdraw and apologise.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): And just a reminder Mr Utikere is dead right. You cannot improve your position to improve your voice contribution and you certainly cannot walk around like you're in a pub on a Friday night yelling. So thank you. Mr Utikere you can—did you stop the clock for that?TANGI UTIKERE: Thank you Mr Speaker. The House is in urgency to progress legislation that this new Government clearly thinks is a priority because it sits within their 100-day plan. But it's very clear that this piece of legislation is a roll-back on climate. It is an absolute roll-back on climate. Now the House is under urgency. That's one thing. But the other is that this bill has not had the normal process of going through a select committee and the Minister of Transport should hang his head in shame that members of the community the hard-working folk around this country organisations and other groups within and outside of the sector have not had an opportunity to submit on this particular bill. The select committee process is often set aside for things that are extremely rare and actually I will point out that there is not even a truncated select committee process. Members will know that in terms of the history of the House there have been opportunities to have—even if it's a one-day select committee process it still provides the opportunity for organisations and individuals even if it was selected individuals or organisations that would be asked to submit. So the Minister of Transport has clearly indicated that he is not interested in listening to the hard-working folk of this country; he is not interested in listening to the various organisations that exist within the sector; that he knows best. And I think Kiwis around the country will judge for themselves whether they think the Minister of Transport who is new in the role is on to a good thing. If that is how he intends to go about engaging with communities of interest in his portfolio it is an absolute shambles and a shame that that is the approach that he has chosen to take.It's also interesting that this clearly is a Government that is very prepared to simply pull up the ladder from under them after households like the Prime Minister's household have benefited from this very scheme that has been put in place. I also think that many would think about whether or not it is appropriate for that to be the case; perhaps there are some members who have a conflict of interest in relation to this within the Government. You know it's a sad day when this House has to set aside other time to spend focusing on removing the very rebate that the Prime Minister's household himself has benefited from.We hear from members opposite that it's about actually not benefiting the rich. It's not about that at all; it's about making sure that it's a fair process. So members opposite I think will be interested to see that when we move into committee stage it's the intention of this side of the House to put forward some amendments that might provide an opportunity for members to reflect on indeed.Since we haven't had an opportunity to have this bill go to select committee I think it's important that the House whether it's in committee or not is aware of some of the concerns and some of the feedback that certainly I have been made aware of since this announcement was made to progress this piece of legislation. I'm sure that other members will do the same. You know we've heard from a number already including my colleague the Hon Damien O'Connor who simply said that this has been when we reflect on this particular scheme a very good investment in reducing our emissions. And it's very clear that the Government doesn't have alternative plans. I look forward actually to putting questions to the Minister around exactly that: what are the alternative plans that they seek to put in place to effectively meet the needs of climate change to reduce our emissions as we are required to do in terms of our global responsibilities? I think that is something not just as a global citizen that many people around Aotearoa New Zealand would expect that the Government turns its mind to. So I look forward to hearing from the Minister around that.It's also very clear that this is a scheme that clearly has encouraged people to reflect I guess on their personal responsibility but also those in corporate sectors to think about what change they can take what change they can make and this is clearly a scheme for many that has been a positive opportunity.Yesterday alongside others I'm sure I received some information from a number of organisations. One I just want to start with and that's from Drive Electric which is a not-for-profit organisation—I'm sure this was circulated to other members as well. But they start out by indicating that there is a compelling case for electric vehicle (EV) incentives and just at the very start of what they'd sent through "New research shows that the new Government's policy to remove the Clean Car Discount and weaken the Clean Car Standard could mean between 100000 and 350000 fewer electric cars on New Zealand roads by 2030"—fewer cars by 2030—"and increasing emissions by between 900 and 3000 kilotonnes." But also that it will "also increase costs to the economy by between $900 million and $3.5 billion"—that's right; between $900 million and $3.5 billion mainly due to an increase in importing fossil fuels. So this is a Government that is wanting to pursue this with that particular screenshot as the background to it that particular cost to our economy that particular cost to the globe as well.They also in terms of a further document that they sent through which relates to some work by Concept Consulting indicate that if policies and initiatives such as this are actually removed then there is absolutely an expectation that the EV percentage of the sales mix to fall to similar levels to actually prior to the incentive coming in prior to this scheme coming into place. That's really quite an indictment on the Minister of Transport wanting to lead this piece of work for communities and for NGOs for businesses for individuals for families as well because we don't have the select committee process. I've had a number of constituents from my own constituency of Palmerston North but also around the country who have indicated that actually this does make the difference for them in making the choice between whether they are actually able to transition to a lower-emission household or not. For many families this is a big thing in terms of encouragement to making that decision easier.One of my constituents said for them they're going to have to save up a little bit longer. That means that the closer they are to a lower emissions future for them their household and their family is just one step further away as a result of this Government wanting to take limited to no action on climate change. And let's also be very clear that this is happening at a time where the globe is just coming off the end of COP28 where the focus is on the need to take responsibility. What sort of sad particular view does that send from our country where our Government is saying that an incentive that encourages people to take the choice for them and their whānau which is an easier choice is actually no longer going to be an option? It is no longer going to be an option.So on this side of the House we will be focused over the coming hours on yes scrutinising this bill. Our fundamental view is that this is a bad piece of legislation but none the less we will be putting questions to the Minister because he is accountable to this House in terms of explaining why it is that he has brought this dire piece of legislation at this time in urgency without any reference to a select committee process without any opportunity for our wider community to submit and for their views to be heard. So it will be dependent on members of this House to reflect and share with others the views that have been articulated to them because there is no other option for the community to participate in this process.They say "People voted". Well should we talk about smoke-free legislation? You know where do you stand on that? Oh they're all silent now aren't they? All silent waiting for the smoko break probably. Well I tell you this: it's one thing to say that we went to an election and they told us this; well there are many things that this Government went to the election on and they have failed to deliver because they are a Government that has not been able to deliver. They took their time trying to actually form one and now they're in a sad state of affairs—many of us will continue to hold this Government to account. We oppose this bill."