edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Davidson Marama; Woods MeganHon MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Thank you Mr Chair. I'm hoping this is raising an issue that we may not have had a bit of a deep dive into. It's still on the emissions reduction plan but in the area of light vehicles light fleet and the potential—well not the potential but also—so the target from the emissions reduction plan was to increase zero-emissions vehicles to 30 percent of the light fleet by 2035. So I'm wondering if we have had enough response from the Minister around the impact of this repeal on that target from the emissions reduction plan. We can link that target to the Climate Change Commission's advice released just this week which shows that the emissions trading scheme alone is insufficient to substantially move people away from fossil fuel - powered vehicles. So what then? What then is the actual plan and the vision for moving people to the solutions and supporting our communities and our people moving to the way that the world is going to have to adapt rather than clinging with desperation to an old world with old energy and dirty energy?Tim van de Molen: Point of order. Thank you Mr Chair. I've been listening closely to the last several speakers now and at the beginning of this committee stage I sought leave to have all provisions taken as one debate so that we could have a more free-flowing debate across the breadth of the bill. That leave was declined by the other side which of course then requires them to stick quite tightly within the confines of the specific parts as we're going through and we're straying quite a wee way from that I would suggest across the last several speakers Mr Chair and I'll just ask your view on that.Hon MARAMA DAVIDSON: I absolutely agree that it is important to take this part by part and perhaps I should have been clearer that my repeal in my speech at least—I know I can't speak for others—is specifically pulling into Part 2 the amendments repeals and revocations concerning other enactments.CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): Thank you. Just for members' awareness we are starting to stray from Part 2. There have been some contributions which have been focused on Part 2 but we are starting to drift. When we start to drift we start to get repetitive then we'll need to move this debate on. Anyone wants the call?Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Point of order Mr Chair. I'm just seeking your guidance. I understand the need and the necessity not to have repetition at the committee stage. But you can see the dilemma that members are in in this Chamber Mr Chair when we simply aren't getting answers to questions that have been asked. So we're seeking some guidance from you Mr Chairman.CHAIRPERSON (Teanau Tuiono): We'll take a few more calls and see where we go but people are drifting and then we'll have to move this debate on.
Utikere TangiTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana Mr Chair. I still have a few questions that I'd like to cover off. Just looking at Part 2 there is reference to Schedule 2—which we'll come to in due course—but I do want to just identify that obviously colour is quite important because it's referenced there in the section around that.But my question to the Minister is whether he is comfortable that the time frame for the administrative functions in terms of winding things up that might come post 31 December 2023 if this bill is enacted—whether that is sufficient; whether he has received any advice relating to whether there might be a need to delay that somewhat or have some provision within Part 2 or indeed within Schedule 2 that might provide an opportunity if things were not winding up by the particular time in question; that there was provision around that. I think that is important.The other is about the cost of winding things up as they relate to the administration of it and whether there is provision for that. Can I just turn to the specifics of Schedule 2 because it is referenced in clause—well within Part 2 specifically its first mention comes from clause 22 and then clause 25 as well. It identifies a range of particular purposes for which that close the financial year which ends on 30 June 2024 would kick in. I know that there is an Amendment Paper on the Table that relates to clause 2 which we'll come to around the particular time that things would wind up.But I wonder whether the Minister has any thoughts or whether he's received any particular advice as to whether or not any of those specific elements or purposes that are contained in clause 15 of Schedule (a) through to (e) might be impinged or there is to be some impediment. Now the reason why I'm referencing that is because Part 2 is where the reference to Schedule 2 comes in—specifically as I've already said clause 22 and clause 25.So I wonder whether the Minister has any comments on that. And I still haven't quite received a response around whether or not there is some justification for having a purchase agreement reference in there. Again we haven't had an opportunity to hear from people about what they think about this bill as part of the parliamentary process and so I would be grateful if the Minister could turn his mind to those questions.
Woods MeganHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you Mr Chair. I note that the Minister in the chair the Minister of Transport for this part of the bill gave a previous answer that referred to emissions budget (EB) 1. What he was asked about he has answered about emissions budget 1 under this part of the bill—and I thank the Minister for that. He said New Zealand is on track to meet emissions budget 1 and that is absolutely the case. And a big part of how New Zealand is going to meet emissions budget 1 is because of the reduction in transport emissions largely driven by the uptake in electric vehicles that the Clean Car Discount has brought around.But what we still want to know despite asking multiple times and not hearing from the Minister is what the impact will be on EB2 and EB3. I think they're the ones that have the most consideration. Certainly EB2 is the focus of the Climate Change Commission's advice that was released this week which makes it abundantly clear that if we are going to see the uptake that we need to get baked into our emissions reduction plans—if we're going to see that uptake there do need to be supplementary measures. People aren't going to make the shift of their own volition at the moment.So I'm really interested to know what advice he's had and given the Minister's already alluded to EB1 under this part of the bill I'd like to hear more from him around emissions budget 2 and even out to emissions budget 3. And of course his Government will have to start putting together emissions budget 4 in the not too distant future.Obviously the Government can repeal things and is repealing things but one of the things that we did change in the last Parliament—actually I think it was the Parliament before and there was cross-party support for it—is we now have a framework that if you remove something that is baked into an emissions plan you need to say what you're substituting it for—what is going to be put in its stead.I can't imagine the Minister is saying that on 1 January the Government will be raising the emissions trading scheme price to $235 because that has been the answer that he's given for what will drive the uptake.But if the Minister is saying that on 1 January the Government is planning to raise the emissions trading scheme price the unit price to $235 a tonne then I think New Zealanders probably need to know because when they're coming back from their summer holidays they'll be paying around 80c a litre more for their gas.
Willis Scott; Brown SimeonSCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you Mr Chair. It has been a long day after another very long day and yet I'm yet to get any answer to the question I've asked more than once to the Minister of Transport. It is really important. It's important for many in our rural communities who are leaders or are keen to be leaders in reducing emissions that I get an answer to this question. I would like to encourage the Minister firstly to visit Mike Casey's electric orchard near Cromwell and see what rural leadership is in electrification for our rural communities and to show New Zealand leaders how we can change things.I would like to hear from the Minister an understanding of the proportion of fees and rebates that are paid and received by rural communities and what is the proportion of fees and rebates that are paid and received by urban communities—noting that many in rural communities drive Leafs not simply utes; noting that many in urban communities drive Ford Rangers and other large vehicles that are a danger to children on bikes. You don't really need them to get through the supermarket challenges. So to the Minister please can I have an answer or will you continue to dodge?Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Thank you Mr Chair and I thank the members for their questions. I note member Tangi Utikere was referring to a tabled amendment in the name of Camilla Belich which suggested that there should be continued identification of what the rebate values would've been if the scheme had not been repealed. This adds no value as we're discontinuing the scheme. We don't support that tabled amendment.I note there's a tabled amendment by the Hon Julie Anne Genter which seeks to extend the scheme by I think six years. Obviously we don't support that because it's not within the Government's policy intent.I thank the member Scott Willis for his question. You know this part that we're dealing with here is dealing with amendments to the Land Transport (Motor Vehicle Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2011 amendments to energy efficiency labelling revocation of land transport regulations. The question I don't think fits within the part that we're debating.
Brownlee GerryPETITIONS PAPERS SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INTRODUCTION OF BILLSSPEAKER: I present the report of the Controller and Auditor-General entitled Observations from our central government work in 2022/23 and the report of the ombudsman entitled Insights and observations on extreme weather events 2023". Those papers will be published under the authority of the House."
Vote Correction — Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Repeal) Amendment Bill
Brownlee GerryVOTINGCorrection—Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Repeal) Amendment BillSPEAKER: Before the House was suspended the result of the vote on the second reading of the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Repeal) Amendment Bill was incorrectly announced as Ayes 70 Noes 51. The correct result was Ayes 67 Noes 54. The record of the House will be corrected accordingly.
Ministerial Statements — KiwiRail—Interislander Ferry Fleet Funding
van Velden BrookeHon BROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Cabinet has made the right decision. KiwiRail's project iReX was hugely wasteful had already faced cost blowouts and was facing larger significant cost blowouts. We are a Government that wishes to ensure that we deliver value for money for all New Zealand taxpayers. This move will also send a clear signal to the public sector that we will not tolerate cost blowouts and a lack of value for money.
Peters WinstonRt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): Under Standing Order 365(1) and 365(1)(a) could I just say to the Minister well this is a fact: that when this matter was under control as quoted by Mr Robertson in 2020 it was under control but when experience and common sense left the room and the handbrake left the room—it was in 2021 they made that stupid decision without being able to see what it would cost eventually. That's why it blew out. A 21 percent cost project for ferries became the kind of thing that they did over and over and over again and the other project is in Antarctica where it's blown out as well—90 percent under their watch.
McAnulty Kieran; Brownlee GerryHon KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): Point of order Mr Speaker. I'm conscious that you did make comment in regards to the purpose of ministerial statements. Nevertheless riddled throughout that and after your advice to the Minister she continued to use a ministerial statement to comment on a previous Government's—not their Government's—decisions.SPEAKER: Well in the context of why the decision was made. In the last particular bit I agree there was an inappropriate comment prior to that and I referenced that with the Minister.
Bishop ChrisBUSINESS STATEMENTHon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): Even though it's not actually Thursday I thought I might do a Business Statement if the House would like it. Hon Kieran McAnulty: It is Thursday.Hon CHRIS BISHOP: No—[Interruption] He gets it; the parliamentary nerds get it.SPEAKER: Please just carry on.Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Next week—[Interruption]SPEAKER: Excuse me just a bit of quiet.Hon CHRIS BISHOP: —the House will consider legislation under urgency to progress the Government's 100-day plan. Legislation to be considered will include the Resource Management (Natural and Built Environment and Spatial Planning Repeal and Interim Fast-track Consenting) Bill the Employment Relations (Trial Periods) Amendment Bill and—this is not related to the 100-day plan—the Secondary Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 2). There will be members' maiden speeches on Tuesday and the House will hold the adjournment debate which will set the sitting calendar for 2024.
Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Repeal) Amendment Bill — In Committee—Part 2
Bayly AndrewHon ANDREW BAYLY (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you Madam Chair. First of all we are in the process of trying to get a blown-up version of the labelling.Second thing—and I'll sort of try and deal with these in reverse order—all we're doing with the labelling is removing the dollar sum. If you look at the label itself if you look at new Schedule 2 inserted by Schedule 4 just to help the members it's quite clear that 5.5 refers to carbon dioxide; it states that—even I can read that—and the 29 figure is 29 grams of carbon per kilometre travelled. Those are all standard measures right? So there's nothing unusual special. I know the members are keenly interested in looking at the detail but the reality is this is pretty standard stuff. So I think I've identified the key bits there for you.Second thing for the member in respect of her Amendment Paper (AP) regarding a new clause 22A the argument that we should disclose the value because that will help everyone in New Zealand to work out whether the National Party's approach is right compared to Labour I don't quite buy into that argument. We are removing that; we don't see a need because we're getting rid of the requirement to do that. Of course what you're proposing is a compliance cost and all that sort of stuff so unfortunately we won't be supporting your AP.Then I just want to go back to the previous member to that about the concept of: can someone willingly contribute the money back to the Crown? Well we don't need to change the legislation. If the good member would like to make a contribution to the Crown or any other organisation or he wants to take the rebate and give it to the Salvation Army—which is a very worthy cause—you don't actually need to change the legislation to allow that to happen. I am so grateful that the member might be contemplating to do that on behalf of other people or even from his own situation if he's happened to have bought an electric vehicle but we do not need to legislate that. But this is an interesting debate that everyone's going through at the moment.
Utikere TangiTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Ha ha! Thank you Madam Chair. I thank the Minister for the answer. There are two questions that he's responded to but perhaps I could just provide a bit of clarity. I note that the Minister referred to a report-back opportunity. My question was not about report back; it was around whether or not a review would be signalled which is not a requirement whether there's legislation or not. I note that the Minister is shaking his head so I'm not sure whether he doesn't like my question or whether he's answering it but we'll perhaps wait to hear in due course.The other is around the administrative function. I take the point that the Minister has said that the date on the table there is 31 December of this year. But my question was about whether or not the Government had given some thought to including in the legislation an opportunity to pay it back. So anyone who had received the rebate since it came into being right through to the end of the year—the question is about whether there was an appetite from the Government for people to choose to effectively refund the rebate that they had pocketed not if they think it's a bad scheme. Clearly if someone thinks it's a bad scheme I would be very surprised that they may have pocketed a rebate because if there's an opportunity for perhaps the Government to provide for those that had benefited from this rebate to then return it then I think that would be a wonderful step forward.So it's not about the deadline as such at the end of this year; it is more about providing an opportunity for anyone who has received the rebate since it has been in existence to pay it back if they choose to do so.
Kuriger Barbara; Brown SimeonPart 2 Amendments repeals and revocations concerning other enactmentsCHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): So now we come to Part 2. Part 2 is the debate on clauses 18 to 26 Amendments repeals and revocations concerning other enactments" and Schedules 3 and 4. The question is that Part 2 stand part.Hon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Thank you Madam Chair. This part deals as you just said with amendments repeals and revocations concerning other amendments. It makes amendments to the Land Transport (Motor Vehicle Registration and Licensing) Regulations revokes regulations prohibiting the register of motor vehicles from issuing a certificate of registration for a vehicle if there are charges payable for a vehicle under the clean vehicle discount scheme and those charges have not been paid because of course the charges under this scheme will be ceasing after its enactment.It makes amendments to Energy Efficiency (Vehicle Energy Economy Labelling) Regulations and as members will see in their copy of the bill there are some templates as to what the new labels will look like. I encourage members to take a look. There is a colour version and there's also a greyscale version in the back of the bill so feel free to have a look at that. It also makes revocation of Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Charges) Regulations 2022. Of course it is the intent of this legislation to not continue with charges under this scheme."
Utikere Tangi; Kuriger BarbaraTANGI UTIKERE (Chief Whip—Labour): Point of order Madam Chairperson. Thank you Madam Chair. Just seeking your guidance and I appreciate that the vote on those matters has just been taken but there were a number of proposed amendments that had been tabled that members in the committee had not had an opportunity to speak to yet and they were seeking a call on those amendments. We've just exercised a vote effectively without having an opportunity to make any comment on those. The Minister had been posed with a number of questions many of which he sought to answer two or three times and so I seek your guidance. Given the House is under urgency there hasn't been a select committee process but there have been a number of tabled amendments and I know that in terms of my amendments I tabled prior to moving into committee yet members have not had an opportunity to speak to them.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Look thank you for that point of order Mr Utikere. I was finding that actually the calls were not as vigorous as they had been before and we seemed to have been coming to the end of the debate. So I suggest members should be perhaps a bit more vigorous if there's an Amendment Paper that people want to speak to.TANGI UTIKERE (Chief Whip—Labour): Point of order Madam Chairperson. In light of that I seek leave for tabled amendments to be redebated.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The leave is sought. No leave has been given for that course of action.
Brown SimeonHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): There have been a number of questions—again a repetitive question—around the repeal in clause 5 of section 167A regarding whether legislation is required rather than regulation. One of the additional reasons why legislation is required is that removing the regulations or having a regulation of a zero fee would be likely to be found to be inconsistent with the purpose of the original legislation. Therefore it is actually requiring the legislation to be repealed which is what we're doing but also by repealing it it also means that we don't have to have this on the legislative books at the same time. The member Tangi Utikere asked about consequential amendments and what specific engagement has occurred. There's been a range of engagements with the sector and the reality with these things—this has been well signalled. In fact there was a thing called the election on 14 October. We signalled well in advance of the election the intention to remove the ute tax by 31 December. That was something we campaigned on New Zealanders voted for it and that is very specific and wide-ranging engagement with a very large sector of New Zealanders.There was a very good question from the new ACT MP Cameron Luxton about the fiscal costs and I have some answers for him which I'm sure he will probably not like to hear because I know the ACT Party very much cares about our fiscal situation as a country. But since this scheme has been put in place through to 30 November 2023 $579 million was paid out in rebates and $13.5 million was spent in costs to establish and operate the scheme while $290 million has been received from charges. This leaves taxpayers footing the bill of $302.5 million. Now I heard from the member the Hon Julie Anne Genter who was talking about how we can just simply change the fees and the structure. Well I'm not sure if the member understands the impact that actually has on the car industry when they have to then have massive peaks and changes to their demand or the significant challenges that that actually provides to their industry when you're constantly changing the rules on an industry because they have to change stock levels and they have to quickly move stock forward or back depending on what the rules are going to be. We saw that on 1 July this year when there was a massive shift in terms of the fees and penalties and if that's what the Hon Julie Anne Genter thinks is the right approach well that is not good for business and that is not good for our economy. But that again reminds us about the approach that that party takes to the important issues.
Genter Julie AnneHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green—Rongotai): I also wanted to flag that later in this debate on further parts of the bill I and the Green Party have tabled two proposed amendments and I know that other members will be proposing amendments too. So we look forward to the support from Government members as well as Opposition members in the committee on those two amendments but I'll speak to those at the appropriate part of this debate.But just responding and kind of coming in on the question just raised by the member from the ACT Party—which I think is a great question—and the comments made by the Minister earlier that if you were to exclude utes you'd have to raise more revenue clearly the way that feebates are designed and used by successful countries all over the world is with that intention that it will be moving over time. The thing that is intended by the scheme is to over time narrow the range of vehicles that are eligible for rebates—and that's one way of reducing the outgoing costs—and to over time progressively increase the fees on the most polluting vehicles particularly as it's been well-signalled in advance that alternatives are becoming available so that people can plan ahead and know that over time higher-emitting vehicles will face higher fees. Those fees will contribute to more electric and zero-emissions vehicles on the road and that's how we meet our target of reducing emissions.So there's no proposal for ongoing Crown funding from the Green Party. In fact if the Green Party had been responsible for the implementation of this legislation we would not have had such a gap between the announcement and implementation of the rebates and the announcement and implementation of the fees. That's how it's done in other countries. It's actually commonplace that when you use these types of price mechanisms to reflect the outcomes that we all want to see as a world which is lower carbon emissions you bring in those price mechanisms relatively quickly so that you don't have the perverse impact of encouraging people to panic-buy high-emissions gas guzzlers or defer their purchases of electric vehicles.So the way that it was implemented wasn't ideal but still over time there was a plan and it should be possible—and I'm sure the Minister has received advice on this or I would hope the Minister had asked for advice on this—to make adjustments to the scheme that would have meant that it carried on and achieved fiscal neutrality beyond the last six months. It has been fiscally neutral but it would carry on being fiscally neutral simply by reflecting higher fees on high-emitting vehicles over time and a smaller range—so rather than petrol vehicles and diesel vehicles receiving rebates the rebates would be restricted to zero-emissions vehicles.
Luxton CameronCAMERON LUXTON (ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. Congratulations on your august role and I'd also like to take the opportunity if I may to thank our new Minister of Transport who I'm sure is going to do a fantastic job repairing the mess of our current infrastructure in New Zealand.Hon Member: And the potholes.CAMERON LUXTON: And the potholes. So I'd love to ask the Minister if I could: could the Minister explain what had been the fiscal costs of the Clean Car Discount—it would be good to get some clarification on that and I think the opposite side would appreciate that—and as laid out in clause 12 was this scheme actually sustainable at its time of implementation? Thank you.
Utikere TangiTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you Madam Chair. I want to pick up on the contribution made by my colleague the Hon Rachel Brooking and the question to the Minister around an assurance—that he can assure the committee that the imposition of make all … consequential amendments" is not considered as substantial given that the House is in urgency and I'm yet to receive a response to my question around the nature of the work that officials have been undertaking.The second question: some of the contributions made in the second reading touched on some of the concerns that had been raised with members as a result of this not going through a select committee. So my question to the Minister is what specific engagement he's had with individuals or members of the sector—or anyone else for that matter—and in particular who they are and when that stakeholder engagement had taken place in the lead-up to this bill."
Willis ScottSCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. I would like to seek a further response from the Minister in relation to the proportion of fees and rebates paid by or received by rural communities or urban communities. I ask this because modelling showed that the forecast was that more than 90 percent of fees paid under the Clean Car Discount would be paid in urban areas and I can attest that in urban areas we do see a lot of Ford Rangers having to climb the steep steep curbs of supermarkets and having to buffer themselves against children on bicycles. We do see the challenges that the Ford Rangers face in our urban areas so I'm really really keen to have a precise answer from the Minister—with detail please—on the proportion of fees and rebates paid by or received by rural-dwelling people or urban-dwelling people. I am really concerned about this because I work with rural communities who want to decarbonise. I work with farming families who are putting every effort in to decarbonising and they want to understand the rationale behind this idiotic repealing of the most progressive successful initiative we have seen. Thank you.
Brooking RachelHon RACHEL BROOKING (Labour—Dunedin): Thank you Madam Chair. This is my first chance to congratulate you on becoming the Deputy Speaker and it was remiss of me before not to congratulate the Minister the Hon Simeon Brown for becoming a Minister. Now I'm aware of repetition and I've raised this point before about the fact that we do not need primary legislation; this can all be done by regulation. I think the Minister has confirmed that the answer is yes but that he—Hon Member: He hasn't—he hasn't answered.Hon RACHEL BROOKING: I'm not sure about that; I would like him to give a straight yes or no answer to it. But it is his preference to make the bold political call that the Government is opposed to Clean Car Discounts and that they are taking this down the primary legislative route even though it is unnecessary so this whole debate in urgency is unnecessary. I do have a separate question but I would also note that I look forward to hearing from Simon Court at some stage. He has had a lot to say on other members' contributions. But going to clause 9 of the bill this says that Schedule 1 be amended and I know we're not discussing Schedules at the moment but we are discussing clause 9. It says that the new Part 7 in Schedule 1 of the bill will now be inserted in Schedule 1 of the Land Transport Act but also in clause 9(b) it says to make all necessary consequential amendments." If you go to Schedule 1 of the Land Transport Act 1998 there is a whole part in it—Part 4 "Provisions relating to Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Act 2022"—there's an interpretation clause and another clause regarding transitional provisions.I'm just interested in this phrase "make all necessary consequential amendments." and I'm aware that it is a phrase used in multiple pieces of legislation and it's not a unique phrase. But when looking at the Legislation Act the example given is that a necessary or consequential amendment would be something like changing a heading in a section—that's the sort of necessary consequential amendment that might be changed. If it's the Minister's understanding that in this case all of Part 4 from Schedule 1 of the Land Transport Act would be removed or if he's imagining that the necessary consequential amendments would be smaller—it might be for reasons relating to the fact that they are transitional provisions. But I'm interested in an answer to both those questions.To be clear: this legislation is not necessary to get rid of the Clean Car Discount—a short answer on that would be grand—and what the Minister's views are on the necessary consequential amendments to Schedule 1. Thank you."
Brown SimeonHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Thank you Madam Chair. There's been a number of questions. The Hon Julie Anne Genter asked about the scheme and talked about how we could make this somehow—she talked about fiscal neutrality and suggested we should exempt utes. But I don't know whether she realised that would create an even bigger hole and I'm not sure how the member suggests that that would be paid for other than by borrowing more money. But for the Green Party I guess money grows on trees. On this side of the House we actually think that people have to work for it and pay for it through taxes.Hon Julie Anne Genter: Point of order Madam Chairperson. Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought that the Minister was meant to address his comments to substantial answers and not unfounded attacks on the Opposition.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): Yes. Look the Minister will answer some questions but as this is a very I guess intense debate between different views in the House some things are going to go each way. But the Minister will continue to answer the questions.Hon SIMEON BROWN: The next question was around why we are using the legislative process rather than using regulations—a similar question a repeated question from other members. On this side of the House actually we want this legislation off the books because we don't agree with the Government being able to tax people buying their utes or buying their cars. We actually don't agree with keeping it on and using regulations instead. So we're repealing the Act and repealing the regulation-making power. She asked a question about the tailpipe emission labels. This bill doesn't change any of those things.Helen White asked some really good questions around cleaner air which is a completely separate issue than what this bill deals with and she also suggested an exemption scheme for youth. Again there was no suggestion around how that would be funded.Megan Woods asked about the Clean Car Standard review. As the former Minister will know the Clean Car Standard—there is a legislated review which must start by 30 June next year which we will be undertaking.The member Scott Willis: I thought they were very good questions from Scott Willis who is very concerned about our rural communities—it's not long until he'll be joining the National Party! I'm advised that about roughly half of the tax which has been received has been paid for by people buying utes.
Willis ScottSCOTT WILLIS (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. Acknowledging that we haven't had the benefit of a select committee on this and we haven't had the opportunity to hear from electric vehicle (EV) owners or aspiring EV owners or owners of second- or third-hand EVs I really want to understand things a little bit further. I have certainly heard some concern and anxiety and fear from the dinosaurs in the house—the self-proclaimed dinosaur over here. As an EV owner I can reassure the dinosaurs that there is nothing to fear from EVs and in fact they are the most exciting cars to drive if you are into vehicles.I'm really interested in how youth in particular are going to be able to afford to move into EVs. My youngest son with his partner bought an EV. It cost them $5000 to drive a Nissan LEAF and that has saved them a fortune in petrol costs and it has saved emissions. So I'm really really interested in how much of the fees were paid by people in urban areas for EVs and what advice has he received regarding the proportion of fees and rebates paid by or received by rural dwellers rural communities and urban communities. This is really important to me because as the Green Party spokesperson for rural communities I work with farmers. I grew up on a farm. I live rurally. I know a lot of people who own EVs or who want to own EVs. I've visited the electric orchard in Cromwell and been really impressed with how rural New Zealand or the progressive parts of rural New Zealand are trying to electrify. So I'm really keen to understand because we don't have the benefit of a select committee what proportion of fees and rebates have been received by or paid by rural New Zealand and what proportion of fees and rebates have been received or paid by urban New Zealand.This is really really critical because what we're talking about is a desire in our community. We know New Zealanders want to do the right thing. We know that rural New Zealand is looking for opportunities and innovation. We know that rural New Zealand can't afford to be hit by any more cyclones. We know that they're going to happen and we know what the cause is. So I'm really really keen to hear how much the pain has been felt in in rural New Zealand with a very progressive successful policy that is reducing emissions and reducing our dependence on overseas oil. This is really really important for our rural communities and I'd like an answer please.
Woods MeganHon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Thank you Madam Chair. I have some very specific questions for the Minister. Given that this is a bill that is not going through the select committee process and Part 1 of the bill is the part of the bill that does disestablish the legal basis for applying a Clean Car Discount I have a question around the intersection of this bill with the Clean Car Standard and whether it's the Minister's intention to make any changes to the Clean Car Standard.
Brown SimeonHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Thank you Madam Chair for the opportunity to answer some of the questions which have been raised. The member Tangi Utikere asked a number of questions around whether other pieces of legislation require amendment. The answer is no. This bill includes all of the legislation that needs amending and I note that he started talking about what's in Part 2 and I look forward to him talking about that later when we get to that stage.The member Rachel Brooking asked a very good question: why do we need legislation at all? Maybe she needs to reflect on what she did for the last three years and we're repealing a lot of the legislation that that last Government put in place. This piece of legislation needs to be repealed because this Government does not support the fees and charges which were put in place: the ute tax and the Clean Car Discount scheme. So we are removing the legislation off the books and that is why we're progressing it through the House in this method. The member Arena Williams asked exactly the same question and I give exactly the same answer.
Brown SimeonHon SIMEON BROWN (Minister of Transport): Thank you Madam Chair. This debate here on Part 1 makes amendments to the Land Transport Act 1998 and the Land Transport Management Act 2003. It repeals the definition of the clean vehicle discount scheme" it removes the regulations imposing fees and charges for purposes of the clean vehicle discount scheme and makes a number of other changes in relation to the repeal of those definitions. It's pretty straightforward and I look forward to questions from members in the committee."
Pugh Maureen; van de Molen TimIn CommitteePart 1 Amendments to Land Transport Act 1998 and Land Transport Management Act 2003CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Members the House is in committee on the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Repeal) Amendment Bill. We come first to Part 1. TIM VAN DE MOLEN (National—Waikato): Point of order Madam Chairperson. Thank you Madam Chair. I seek leave for all provisions of the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Repeal) Amendment Bill to be taken as one debate.CHAIRPERSON (Maureen Pugh): Leave is sought for that purpose. There is objection so we will continue with Part 1.
Brewer CameronLAND TRANSPORT (CLEAN VEHICLE DISCOUNT SCHEME REPEAL) AMENDMENT BILLSecond ReadingDebate resumed.CAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): What a great day for this coalition Government that promised a 100-day action plan. We just heard What is the urgency with this?" The urgency is this was one of our big campaign promises and over a million people supported it and to think that in the first few days of this Government we're coming out and backing businesses small businesses farmers New Zealand taxpayers.The member over there Megan Woods asked for numbers and evidence. Well if a $302 million deficit on taxpayers is not enough numbers then let's have a look at this. What did the subsidy do? What did the tax do to on-farm inflation? The year that it was introduced on-farm inflation for sheep and beef farmers rose to 16.3 percent up from 10.2 percent and Dairy New Zealand says on-farm inflation for the last three years has been at 33 percent. So under Labour inflation soared for our small businesses and farmers and yet they just whacked on another tax the ute tax for good measure. Land prices are the lowest they've been in 15 years. Fertiliser fuel machinery insurances and rates have all soared under Labour. So I'm delighted to support this coalition Government's urgency on whacking this tax axing the ute tax. I commend the bill."
Bishop Chris; Pugh MaureenBUSINESS OF THE HOUSEHon CHRIS BISHOP (Leader of the House): Point of order. Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker—congratulations. I seek leave notwithstanding that the House is in urgency for there to be oral questions at 2 o'clock as has been agreed.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Maureen Pugh): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.
Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Repeal) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
Costley TimTIM COSTLEY (National—Ōtaki): It's a pleasure to rise in support of this bill. Electric vehicles are a great thing for New Zealand they're a great thing for our environment and I'm proud to drive one but I didn't claim a discount on it. We don't need that. There are plenty of incentives to make this shift. What we don't need is this ideologically driven policy that we've been stuck with that is punishing everyday New Zealanders—that is punishing the taxpayer as they subsidise people that don't need the help.Members opposite have asked for some specifics. Well let me give you some. The tradies in my electorate in Ōtaki the good people of Horowhenua and Kāpiti—they don't have another option. They don't have another option. They don't need to be forking out taxpayer dollars to support Tesla owners. The farmers that need to drive up the western faces of the Tararua Ranges they don't have an electric option and they don't need another ute tax and neither do the growers that are providing 30 percent of our leafy greens for New Zealand. I'll tell you what's happened to the cost of living crisis. You think it was bad enough before this came in—we can tackle that and we need to make sensible changes. That's why I'm commending this bill to the House.
Rutherford TomTOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. Just following on from that contribution from the member Megan Woods about stating some facts I point her to the departmental disclosure statement which says The scheme has challenges that are likely to intensify the longer the scheme is in place. The main challenges of the scheme are as follows: it is difficult to make financially sustainable and self-financing: it poses ongoing equity and fairness concerns: it will become less effective over time as electric vehicle prices fall battery technology improves and model variety increases: it requires constant changes to its rebates and charges that impose significant costs to vehicle suppliers and consumers."I say to hard-working farmers tradies and all-round good New Zealanders who need their utes for everyday life that common sense has returned to the Government benches and help is on its way. I commend this bill to the House."
McCallum GrantGRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise again to support this great change today from our transport Minister. January 1st is going to be a great day for those of us who need to buy utes to run our businesses. It's a day we can finally go into the local dealer and purchase a ute that we need so we can help drive New Zealand's productivity and therefore get on with life without the restrictions of the previous legislation.I've noticed with interest the amount of attacks that have been sent on the farming sector about our commitment to emissions reduction. Well I'll just point a couple of things out that a few people on the other side of the House might not be aware of one of which is that Fonterra recently announced that we're going to have a 30 percent reduction in our carbon intensity on-farm emissions by 2030. That is our goal. And Nestlé one of our biggest customers are very happy with that. We understand our obligations. We're doing our bit. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.
Brewer CameronCAMERON BREWER (National—Upper Harbour): Thank you Mr Speaker.ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Greg O'Connor): Sorry Mr Brewer.CAMERON BREWER: I rise in support of this bill and perhaps the biggest revelation this morning that we've heard has come from one of the most seasoned operators in the Labour Party Megan Woods. She said in her call that this scheme was supposed to be self-funding in 10 years. Well yesterday the Minister of Transport revealed that the Clean Car Discount has become fiscally irresponsible with taxpayers now footing a $302.5 million deficit.The Ministry of Transport has also admitted that the ute tax in the electric vehicle subsidy scheme is fiscally unsustainable. And even in our explanatory note here it notes: The scheme has challenges that are likely to intensify the longer the scheme is in place. … it is difficult to make financially sustainable and self-financing; it possesses ongoing equity and fairness concerns; it will become less effective over time as electric vehicle prices fall … it requires constant changes to its rebates and charges". Subsequently I rise in support of this on behalf of hard-working Upper Harbour taxpayers that the Government has decided to discontinue this mad scheme. Thank you."
Rutherford TomTOM RUTHERFORD (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you Mr Speaker. I'm proud to rise in support of the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Repeal) Amendment Bill. Firstly I'd like to commend the leadership of the Minister of Transport the Hon Simeon Brown for bringing this bill so quickly to the House to back the rural sector here in New Zealand our hard-working farmers who that last member Megan Woods is out of touch with. She's spending too much time here in Wellington and needs to get out into our communities and understand what it is like for our rural communities and how they are experiencing it under this ute tax. I'm proud to be part of a party that is going to back our farmers and back our rural sector and ensure that we get back to what we need to.This scheme is financially unsustainable and fiscally irresponsible and taxpayers are currently footing the $302 million deficit. Shame! We have plenty more to say but I'd like to commend this bill to the House.
McCallum GrantGRANT McCALLUM (National—Northland): I rise in support of the repeal of this ute tax. As a farmer we have been punished by this ute tax because we had no choice. We had no choice. What did the Government of the day think—that we were going to put the dogs on the back of a pushbike; we were going to cart the fence posts around the back of the Prius while we actually did our work and actually earned this country an income? We were punished for actually trying to do our job and we didn't have any choice at all. But of course because they don't own businesses and have to work on farms they don't understand that do they?I also compliment the tradies of this country. They were the ones also with little choice. They need their utes for their job. And the other thing: I come from an electorate called Northland. Believe it or not in Northland our roads are rubbish and in Northland you need a ute to get around. So many people in Northland have had to park up their cars and drive utes so they can get around without blowing out tyres. Please go and check all the newsfeeds you like—you'll see that.So I would say to you here now: farmers want to do their part to help with climate change. This is not one of them. This was unfair. I rise now and I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.