Doocey MattMATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I rise to support my learned colleague Simeon Brown's amendment for the title of this bill to change it from the Land Transport (Clean Vehicles) Amendment Bill to the Land Transport (Ute Tax) Amendment Bill". It'd be fair to say to start off as Labour MPs have outlined in the House if you look at the legacy of the former National Government in incentivising the take-up of electric vehicles (EVs) that this is a space that on this side of the House we support. But the reason why this bill and the ute tax went down like a cup of cold sick in parts of New Zealand like regional New Zealand it's that saying "You never sort of told anyone anything new; you just crystallised something in their mind they already knew." This bill fundamentally shows the divide between that side of the House and this side of the House: the principle of choice.Kiwis have an innate sense of fairness and they know this carrot-and-stick approach is not fair. It is not fair that those people who may need to use a ute for their occupation are penalised because they do not have a choice. And that is quite right why Simeon Brown has amended this title and moved that we would want it to represent the "Land Transport (Ute Tax) Amendment Bill".The Government will talk a lot around equality and inequality when it suits them. But what about this bill and the inequities that this bill will drive especially in areas like regional New Zealand especially in the South Island? In the South Island we pay high petrol tax we pay our road-user charges yet our land transport fund is constantly raided by this Government to pay for pet public transport projects in Auckland that provide the South Island with no benefit. Now through this bill we will have hard-working people in the regions who need to use a ute who will be taxed for that under this bill. It does raise the question: why you would just not incentivise EVs and leave it there? Why the stick? Because the Government fundamentally believes that they know best. Where on this side of the House we believe people know best. They will make the right decisions for them and because of this ute tax—as Simeon Brown clearly outlined—some people will actually sit on their gas guzzlers a lot longer. They won't be moving to fuel-efficient vehicles which will become counter-productive.So ultimately we've got a bill that marginalises a certain group of New Zealanders and this Government says "We don't care about you." There was an ability and there is an ability in the bill for the Minister to carve out utes and other vehicles during the time that people have no other choice and then bring them in when they do have a choice but this is fundamentalism. It's ideology. It's one-size-fits-all. "We'll run the country through the beltway of Wellington we won't listen." There'll be many regional Labour MPs out there who will be feeling the pressure. Of course when we ran the "ute tax" campaigns it was fever pitch because New Zealanders didn't like it. The ute tax three waters—it all lines up.You'd have to ask yourself why some members of New Zealand will be marginalised from this bill—farmers tradies. What about those who have big families that can't afford to buy an EV or actually need a large vehicle that is not an EV at the moment? Even the Minister's own words through this debate in the committee of the whole House he mentioned it might take 12 to 24 months. That's why this bill should be rightly called a "ute tax" because that group of New Zealanders could have got a carve-out until they had choice. Thank you Madam Speaker."