Court SimonSIMON COURT (ACT): It gives me great pleasure to be in Parliament speaking on this bill introduced by transport Minister Michael Wood under urgency—the Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill (No 2). Now ACT will be opposing this piece of legislation for completely different reasons than the Green Party.Firstly we don't think that any policy like ute taxes subsidising Teslas or taxing vehicles as they arrive on the wharf in New Zealand is necessary to actually reduce carbon emissions. And I want to give you an example about bad Government transport policy or climate policy or social engineering policy that doesn't reduce emissions. I'm just going to refer as a comparator to the car scrappage scheme. The cash for clunkers" scheme also proposed to reduce carbon emissions which for $569 million will only reduce 4500 tonnes of emissions—it's $126000 per tonne of carbon reduced.Now I'd be interested to know—and maybe this is a question we can wait until committee stage—for the cost of this policy how much carbon will be reduced and what will the cost per tonne be? Because if the clean car scrappage scheme the "cash for clunkers" scheme promoted by Michael Wood as a carbon reduction scheme—if that can reduce carbon from $126000 a tonne how on earth is that justified when you can buy a carbon credit on the emissions trading scheme today for about $85 a tonne put it through the shredder so no one else can use it again. Eighty-five dollars a tonne or $126000 a tonne for "cash for clunkers".And I wonder where this scheme fits in. Is it somewhere in the middle? Is it "Maybe we can reduce a tonne of carbon for $60000" or is it $20000 or is it $10000? But who would know because when the Government makes polices like the clean vehicle bill which ACT opposed at primary legislation. What they do is they say "We're going to help shift the dial. We're going to pull a whole bunch of levers in the economy so that New Zealand meets its carbon emissions reduction targets."But what this Government fails to tell New Zealanders is that not a single policy lever will reduce carbon emissions because we already have a cap on emissions under the emissions trading scheme. And if Minister Michael Wood wanted to reduce carbon emissions then he would go to his buddy climate Minister James Shaw assuming he's back from an Egyptian resort or wherever he's been—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Barbara Kuriger): Can we please go back—SIMON COURT: —where they have dates and figs—ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Barbara Kuriger): Order! Can we please go back to the Clean Car Standard. Thank you.SIMON COURT: Yes. So if the Minister of Transport wanted to reduce carbon emissions he'd go to the Minister of Climate Change and say "Could you please reduce the cap on emissions under the emissions trading scheme?" because that's the only cap that matters—the only cap that matters. None of these other policies reduces emissions.Then we have to ask ourselves what is the point of this policy? Well ACT asked that at Transport and Infrastructure Committee last year and officials were in a spin because when you ask an organisation like the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) whose responsibility is safe and efficient road networks actually building highways to connect communities to workplaces and recreation and schools for example and you say "Oh by the way could you please design a scheme?"—because the scheme wasn't designed when the bill was presented to select committee last year. The scheme wasn't designed and they said "We'll have a crack at that but we don't know if there'll be enough time to do it." So that was advice that NZTA gave to the Minister and then it turns out that not only was NZTA right but the industry was also right.The industry also pointed out that this legislation when it was passed last year had the potential to capture motorcycles and mopeds. And of course who could imagine that a motorcycle or a moped is a high-emissions vehicle that needs to be taxed at the wharf? Well the ACT Party asked the Minister in written parliamentary questions whether the legislation would in fact capture motorbikes and mopeds and he acted like there's nothing to see here. "Everyone move along. These are not the motorbikes you're looking for." And then he introduces a bill correcting the errors in the legislation.But it's wonderful the Minister's finally decided to listen to the industry. They've been crying out for months the system wasn't ready and would wreak chaos on the imported vehicle industry. The entire New Zealand motor vehicle industry relies on imports. We don't make cars here and the Clean Car Standard which this legislation sets up is actually designed to incentivise the production of clean vehicles at the factory gate in Europe. The EU first produced a standard of this type to incentivise or penalise the likes of Volkswagen and others who produce cars in a factory in Europe to produce cars with lower-emissions values. And if they went over the limit then they had to pay a tax to the EU but if they were under the emissions limit then they got a credit. And overall the likes of Volkswagen can kind of balance things up so they produce a combination of high-emissions and low-emissions vehicles.Well that doesn't apply to New Zealand. It couldn't possibly apply because we don't make cars here and that is exactly what the Transport and Infrastructure Committee was told by submitters last year. That's what Julie Anne Genter was told in her role as a former Associate Minister of Transport who proposed this. That's what Michael Wood was told the Minister of Transport but of course they ignored all the advice and here we are here today trying to work through why this bill should be amended.The ACT party won't be supporting this amendment because we don't support the primary legislation. We voted against the zero carbon Act. We voted against a climate emergency. As a civil and environmental engineer calling something an emergency does not help solve long-term problems. A hurricane is not a long-term problem to be solved; it's a real emergency. A tsunami is a real emergency. The climate emergency is a problem to be solved that requires long-term and considered solutions but it can't be solved by Government clearly—certainly not by this one.Now the Minister's listened to the industry but now he's kicking the can down the road by just six months. This is going to be a huge burden on importers who will still be liable for the charges under this scheme when those vehicles—about 200000 a year—arrive on the docks in New Zealand. They'll still be liable for the charge but they won't get an invoice for six months. Can you imagine operating a business knowing you're incurring a cost for which if you don't pay it you could be not just penalised but potentially bankrupted and not knowing the costs that you're racking up on a weekly monthly and daily basis? You've got to remember: a thousand cars a day come across the wharves in New Zealand. A whole lot of importers who import a few hundred or a few thousand cars a year they won't know what their actual liability is until six months after that car has landed on the wharf.What an appalling thing to do to New Zealand businesses but that's what this Minister is now proposing. Rather than saying we're going to delay the whole legislation we're going to delay the implementation date he's just saying we're going to delay the due date for invoices. What a terrible thing to do to New Zealand businesses. But rather than a 1 January date for having to reconcile your costs he's pushed it back by six months so at least some of the importers get a Christmas holiday back that the Minister was intending to take away with the original 1 January implementation date.But you know as I mentioned this Minister he's like a bad Santa giving vehicle importers a break on the one hand but making sure that he's got a terrible terrible present boxed up for them six months down the track. The importers will pay the price later. They're going to pay the price with stress uncertainty and of course everybody who buys a vehicle that comes across the wharf in the next six months is also going to face the uncertainty of "Did I pay the right carbon price? Did I pay a carbon price I shouldn't have paid? And will they come to me later and say 'When you go to register your vehicle again you'll be liable because the vehicle didn't pay enough carbon tax.'?"Now this is terrible law. There is no doubt that this again represents a net transfer of wealth from one group of people to another at the direction of the State. Now if the State knew better how to invest in things then maybe we could trust them. But under this Government there's been absolutely no evidence that the State knows better how to invest your money. So telling you that they're going to be encouraging you to purchase a lower-emissions vehicle by taxing utes at the border—they're already taxed at the dealer's lot with the ute tax. What they call the clean vehicle discount is just another tax on Kiwis; ACT will oppose it."