Auchinvole Chris: Climate Change (Government Vehicle Procurement) Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Auchinvole Chris: Climate Change (Government Vehicle Procurement) Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 18 November 2009. Volume:659;Page:7810. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 The Climate Change (Government Vehicle Procurement) Bill aims to decrease the emissions of greenhouse gases by requiring the State sector to purchase or lease only energy-efficient passenger vehicles. The bill proposes that all passenger vehicles—vehicles designed to carry six or fewer people—purchased or leased by State sector organisations must be greenhouse gas emissions efficient emit no more than 170 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometre and be amongst the top 10 percent for fuel efficiency in their class. The purpose is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions both from State sector vehicles and from elsewhere in the New Zealand transport sector. 
National opposes this bill while nonetheless recognising the worthy sentiments as did the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment in her commentary on the Biofuel Bill which is currently before the Local Government and Environment Committee. However the worthiness of this bill including recognition of the changes that are proposed falls short of the requirement to do the job. Although the bill contains worthy sentiments it potentially would impose high costs on the State sector and be impractical to implement. We accept that transport is a major contributor to New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions and is one of the main areas that we can move on but we do not feel that this bill is the way to do it. The reporting requirements in the bill may be onerous and would need to be clarified substantially. 
It is not clear that sufficient vehicles exist to meet the practical needs of the purchaser whilst complying with the carbon dioxide requirements of the bill. There are relatively few vehicles in the top 10 percent band and the bill could reduce purchase choices to one or two vehicles. In reading through the bill this afternoon I recognised that clause 7(2) allows for exceptions and it lists them as applying to law enforcement vehicles conservation vehicles and emergency services vehicles but I suggest that the topography of some regions such as my own electorate of West Coast - Tasman which I have the great privilege of serving requires consideration beyond simply regulation. It requires consideration of what the vehicle requirements might be for the topography and the terrain. 
The bill does not take into account other important considerations such as the safety of passengers or pedestrians. The bill’s prescriptive regulatory approach is not consistent with the Government’s statement on regulation or the Bluegreens’ vision on managing traffic impacts by using incentives to ensure that transport choices are priced to reflect their true impacts. We feel that legislation is not needed in order for State sector organisations to adopt the vehicle procurement policies suggested in the bill. It does not require a fixed piece of legislation. National does not believe that the legislation is the appropriate way to determine Government procurement policy. 
At the last election if I just might reflect the requirement from people was for change. This bill takes us back to the way that Labour did things and it is a disappointment. Major improvements have been made in Government vehicle procurement practices since the 2006 report that Russel Norman referred to. In 2007 the Government fleet procurement guidelines were introduced which stated: “Public Service departments must: require that tenderers submit fuel economy information in their responses and to include fuel economy as a criterion in tender evaluations for all new tender exercises for vehicles to be purchased leased or hired.” National is already putting in place policies to encourage a reduction in emissions from the transport sector and our approach to reducing emissions from the transport sector is through the New Zealand emissions trading scheme. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: To continue— 
Grant Robertson 
: Why? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Well because I think it is important that we explain to the House that we recognise the sentiment of this bill. I have recognised the merits of it throughout my speech; we just do not think that legislation is the way to go. My colleague Charles Chauvel will probably speak next and I know that he too has an aversion to this Stalinist sort of thinking. We will be making something against the law when it is not necessary. Prior to the dinner break we debated the fact that there are ways of achieving regulation without legislation. We are talking about Government procurement. We recognise the influence that Government has—it is a big purchaser—but we also feel that incentives are a better way to go than making obligations through the law which was the sort of thinking that occurred before the present National Government. 
We are doing quite a lot. We are putting in place policies to encourage a reduction in emissions from the transport sector. Our approach to reducing emissions from the transport sector is to use the New Zealand emissions trading scheme which will expose transport fuel to a price on carbon from July 2010. We have invested $36 million into a bio-diesel grants programme to promote bio-diesel production and kickstart the biofuels industry and it started on 1 July. The new policy provides the sustainable bio-diesel and ethanol industry with the same incentives and encourages it to maximise that opportunity. We have also moved to exempt electric vehicles from road-user charges as of 1 October 2009 in order to encourage their uptake. We are also—wait for this bit—investing in rail with $39.2 million allocated to upgrading passenger carriages on the Tranz Scenic route. As one who has the wonderful experience of that train passing my house in Moana twice a day I can say that the carriages certainly need upgrading in order to reach the level of scenic beauty that the train travels through. That work is being done at the Hillside workshops in Dunedin so it is providing a local benefit. Another $75 million is being spent on 20 locomotives that are being built in China. A major upgrade of the Auckland rail network including double tracking and electrification is costing $1.6 billion and we are providing more than $258 million for the Wellington commuter network. 
We on this side of the House believe that people change their environmental practices for the better when there are sensible incentives to do so. We are quite determined that this is the way that Government policy will work. The explanatory note states that: “The cost and emissions savings obtainable from the Government fleet are worthwhile but the real value of a Government commitment to purchasing fuel efficient vehicles is the potential influence on purchasing decisions for company fleets and in due course vehicles owned by private individuals.” and although we respect that we feel that incentives can do that rather than legislation. This legislation would restrict State sector organisations to purchasing or leasing passenger vehicles with an emissions performance better than 170 grams per kilometre of carbon dioxide unless those vehicles are wholly or partly used for certain law enforcement conservation or emergency purposes. As discussed before the dinner break that does not take into account the topography of certain parts of the country notably West Coast - Tasman. All sorts of unforeseen circumstances could occur as a consequence of this legislation so from that point of view alone National will not support this bill. We oppose it.