Woods MeganHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you Mr Speaker. I signalled in my substantive contribution on this legislation some of my questions that I would like answered. As my colleague Arena Williams has pointed to Labour is supporting this bill. This is policy work that we started but there are still really important questions that need to be considered and nine days simply is not long enough to consider those.One of the things that I am going to point the House's attention to is in the departmental disclosure statement wherein it talks about the external consultation that happened on the policy document that underlies the legislation we're examining today. There were over 3000 submissions; they were far from unified. In terms of what a nine-day select committee period will do to the number of people that we already know have an interest in this policy area they will expect and rightfully expect that there will be a legislative process that they can feed into. It is not an unfounded expectation of people who take the time to lend their expertise into a ministry-led consultation on a particular policy area to understand they're also going to get a chance at the select committee stage. The pressure and unrealistic expectation that this nine-day time frame puts on those submitters is not something that Labour can support. The people that have expertise in this area that we need to hear from need longer and it's just undoable and not realistic.The second area that I'm concerned about is the kind of advice we need to get to make proper informed decisions about whether the balance is right between the various technologies. Other speakers have talked about the modelling around—what we need to do is see the modelling and talk to officials about the modelling that is settled on the relative rates for battery electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. The fact that we have the seeming anomaly that has been released from the Minister of Transport that you could by driving a plug-in electric vehicle—a hybrid—end up paying more than if you were driving a petrol car or a diesel car a vehicle that ran on fossil fuels. It seems counterintuitive and members of this House as good legislators need the time with officials to understand that modelling to understand the thinking that lies behind it and to look at whether there have to be changes made.We get there needs to be a balance. No one is saying this is easy policy work and that is precisely why nine days at select committee is simply not acceptable not doable and not going to achieve the best outcome that we need for New Zealand. We know we're here having to alter definitions in the primary legislation because we have hard-wired in technology definitions into our road-user charge (RUC) legislation. This is a rapidly moving field. Are we capturing everything? Are we setting ourselves up for the conversation we also need to have about heavy vehicles that I signalled in my first contribution on this legislation? Do we need to make this more fit for purpose so that we can come to think about what we have to do to incentivise the kind of technologies that we're going to need to address 25 percent of transport emissions that we have in this country?The other thing that I simply do not believe that we're going to have enough time for over nine days is to see the necessary modelling either from the Ministry of Transport or from the climate commission around the impact that this change given that this is happening in a different policy context than the previous Labour Government went out and consulted in is going to have on emissions and in particular emissions budget 1 and emissions budget 2. There is modelling that needs to be done.When the Labour Government went out and consulted on the 1 March phase-out of RUC exemptions we had a Clean Car Discount. We had other measures in place that were driving the uptake of electric vehicles (EVs) and arguably—well actually demonstrably; not arguably—were driving the uptake of EVs at a far greater rate than RUC exemption ever had. I as a legislator need to know what impact this is going to have on emissions budget 1 what impact it is going to have on Emissions Budget 2 because this matters. This is why Cabinet requires climate impact statements on Cabinet papers. We have to understand that. The Government that is leading this the National Party part of that Government that is leading it signed up to the Zero Carbon Act. The National Party that is leading this say that they're on target to meet emissions budget 1 and emissions budget 2. If we're going to make those claims we have to hear from the experts. As responsible legislators we need more time than nine days so that we can receive that modelling. That modelling is wholly dependent on various variables—there we go various variables—that will come in in terms of what that modelling will look like what will the fleet be in 2030 what will the fleet be in 2035 as a result of this policy action.This matters. We are talking about a big chunk of New Zealand's greenhouse gas emissions. We are talking in our light vehicle fleet about something we simply have to decarbonise but I don't know how we're going to achieve that. As someone whose vote is being cast in favour of or against legislation I want the opportunity to hear from the experts and to know what those implications are and nine days is simply not acceptable.It's not just about us as the politicians that will have to sit there and hear it. This is about the submitters. This is about those people who rightly think that they're coming back to have a place in a legislative programme. They gave their expertise in terms of the first initial consultation document that came out. I think it is frankly rude of this House to say We'll take your expertise at that policy consultation stage but look we're on a bit of a rush for a 100-day plan because we've got a marketing gimmick as a new Government and we want to get it through so we're not interested in your expertise coming to bear on the legislation." So let's respect those people that give their expertise freely and let's remember that our legislation in New Zealand is better because we do have robust consultation and that we have consultation that happens at a policy level and then we have it that happens at a legislative level. That is what is being denied and it is also not giving the officials I would put forward the opportunity to do the modelling to prepare the evidence that members need to see to understand what it is they're voting for."