Utikere TangiTANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Kia orana Mr Speaker. Can I firstly congratulate you on your ascension to the high office that you now hold. I heard the Hon Marama Davidson say that you look good in that seat. I agree with that sentiment. It's good to see that half of the New Zealand Parliament's Cook Island caucus is represented in the presiding officer's seat.It's a pleasure to rise and take a call on the Land Transport (Clean Vehicle Discount Scheme Repeal) Amendment Bill. As we progress through the many hours ahead today—in terms of progressing this bill at various stages—we'll be having some conversations about the appropriateness of what this bill is called amongst other things. But this is very clearly a step back into the future—a step back into the past. That is not the direction that any country in this world needs to be heading when it comes to meeting the needs of tackling climate change.Now members opposite might be quite comfortable with that but let's not have any confusion around this: for members on this side of the House that is not the case. We have already dealt with the Reserve Bank. We have disgracefully passed the piece of legislation that effectively removes the rights of hard-working Kiwis here in Aotearoa New Zealand. Now we are considering a bill that will effectively roll back steps towards meeting our obligations when it comes to addressing the immediate and near need around climate change.We heard from the Minister of Transport—my breakfast TV buddy—who I have said previously is leadership material. I thought he was going to be the Deputy Prime Minister and I stated that on television. I have to say that his pathetic attempt at addressing the House with this piece of legislation has meant that all of those aspirations that he might still hold no longer exist.We heard from the Minister that he's had an opportunity to focus on this regressive and fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation as it currently stands. He's talked about fiscal irresponsibility. He has talked about how we would be taking the money from hard workers and effectively giving it to the rich. How fiscally responsible is it then for the Tesla-loving Prime Minister's household to be able to access the very rebate that his Government seeks to remove? The question that many of us will be asking: is he going to pay it back? Are other members opposite who may have benefited from this—given they are the very ones who want to remove this piece of opportunity—are they going to be paying it back? I bet you they won't. I bet you Mr Speaker that they won't. Because it's all about actually taking from others but when it concerns themselves it's a different consideration as far as they see that.I don't think taxpayers think it's right for a Government to want to focus on removing a rebate—the very rebate that the Prime Minister has benefited from. I think that as we progress through this piece of legislation over the coming hours—and perhaps coming days; who knows?—there will be some contributions about the relevancy of this piece of legislation particularly where leaders in the current Government have effectively benefited from this particular rebate.Now there'll be plenty of opportunity to talk about this rushed process. Those who may have switched on their telly on a Thursday morning or listen to the radio might be thinking Why is the House sitting at this particular point in time?" Well we can share with them that it's because the House is unfortunately in urgency. Urgency is utilised for what the House considers to be the most pressing issues for the most pressing needs. What we've heard from the Government is that the rationale for progressing this piece of legislation is that it is to give effect to key elements of the so-called 100-day plan that they have. It's interesting isn't it? Because I think members in the House—and certainly I think lots of people all around the country—will be thinking "My my how has the Government prioritised this over some of the many other things that they went into the election indicating that they wanted to roll back or do?" What is it that they are purely focused on when they identify this piece of legislation which is focusing on actually removing something that is going to make a huge difference and it has proven so? So on this side of the House we will vehemently oppose all stages of progress for this particular bill."