Clean car plan a hot topic
The heat is still on the Government’s clean car plan, which includes a feebate proposal and emission standards.
More than 1000 submissions were received by the public closing date of August 20, with automotive industry representative groups, the Motor Industry Association (MIA) and Imported Motor Vehicle Industry Association (VIA) – the latter outspoken about the emission standards aspect – due to have submissions in by September 10.
“The vehicle industry has a bit more time to respond and we expect to have ongoing discussion with industry representatives to ensure the policies are practical, fair and effective,” a spokesperson for association transport minister Julie Anne Genter says.
Officials have yet to undertake a detailed analysis of submissions but EVtalk has been told 857 of the public submissions were online and 117 were emails.
About 80% of the online submissions supported both policies – the Clean Car Discount and the Clean Car Standard.
Written submissions are still being reviewed by the ministry.
The submissions summary and any recommendations will be viewed with keen interest, especially by those in the EV industry seeking early implementation.
Henry Schmidt of Autolink Cars in Auckland, says the sooner something is in place the better, especially around the Clean Car Discount.
“Otherwise EV sales will be killed next year,” he warns, adding that most potential EV customers will wait for the rebate which may not be introduced until 2021.
“Don’t set a date – just bring it in.”
Chris Bishop
“Perhaps knock off $1000 or $2000 now and phase in bigger rebates later so people don’t have to wait.”
The Clean Car Standard, which seeks to set emission standards, came under fire early from VIA’s chief executive David Vinsen, likening it to “Soviet-era central control”.
The MIA says the feebate scheme is “the most powerful policy” before the Government to influence car buying decisions, but has concerns about the Clean Car Standard, which it says could have a “range of unintended outcomes”, such as increased new vehicle prices and people retaining older polluting and less safe vehicles for longer.
Then it was revealed Treasury officials considered “neither measure would have a significant impact on emissions” and suggested dumping the feebate scheme and considering just the fuel standards.
Genter considers the Treasury findings wrong, adding the proposed policies could make a real difference.
The Treasury report explains Ministry of Transport (MoT) forecasts that the feebate scheme would reduce emissions by hardly more than 1.6 million tonnes over 20 years.
New Zealand’s gross emissions are reported to be 80.9m tonnes annually.
Genter says Treasury’s advice doesn’t compare with that from the Productivity Commission and many other developed countries.
She believes the MoT forecast doesn’t consider that the fuel efficiency standards would be gradually increased.
The forecast also assumes there would be a reduction in pollution under the status quo, which Genter believes is too optimistic.
She says overseas evidence shows such policies make a big difference in reducing transport emissions.
That’s perhaps referring to international keynote speakers at EVworld NZ in August, such as Sweden’s Jakob Lagercrantz – who Genter listened to – saying a similar “bonus malus” feebate-style scheme operating in his country for about a year, had been successful with fine tuning.
He suggested a feebate scheme needs to be combined with road taxes, describing it like a “Robin Hood scheme – where the dirty guys pay for the clean guys”.
The National Party has attacked the Clean Car proposals as a “car tax”, forcing some car buyers to pay thousands more.
National transport spokesman Chris Bishop says: “Ministerial advice released under the Official Information Act shows Treasury understands what Julie Anne Genter seemingly does not – that her Government’s car tax is bad policy.
“Treasury warned the Government that implementing a car feebate would create a ‘double burden’ for those needing to buy higher-emitting vehicles, such as double-cab utes, while creating a ‘double benefit’ for those able to buy low-emission and electric vehicles.
“National could see from the outset that it wasn’t fair to make families pay thousands more for a used seven-seater van while wealthy executives got discounts on a Tesla Model 3 or BMW i3.”
Bishop says National warned Genter – “and it turns out Treasury did as well”, while adding the Clean Car plan would reduce emissions by just 0.
09% over 20 years.
“National believes financial incentives, not penalties, are the best way to support this country’s shift to electric vehicles.”
National Party leader Simon Bridges continues to criticise aspects of the plan.
More than 12,000 people have signed a petition opposing the Government’s proposals, but it seems unlikely these will be considered during the submissions summary.
Bridges believes alternative policies, such as retaining the EV exemption from road user charges and National’s 2017 target of making more than a third of the government car fleet electric by 2021, would “potentially have more effect”.
Meanwhile, the Advertising Standards Authority found no grounds to proceed with complaints over the National Party’s advertisements attacking the government’s proposed feebate scheme.
Complainant J Cooper felt the advertisement was seeking to deceive those who viewed it about the scheme.
“I also believe they are seeking to deceive those they influence by implying that low income earners will be required to pay fees under the policy which only applies to newly imported cars,” Cooper’s complaint says.
“The advertising repeats the words ’small fee’ without providing any broader context, a reasonable viewer would believe that it applies to all car sales rather than just new and second-hand imports.This advertisement is clearly spreading misinformation about the proposed policy.”
The complainant also felt the ad deceived viewers by claiming it is a Labour Party tax, when the minister pictured in it was the Green MP Julie Anne Genter.
The complainant also implied her photo had been edited to make her appear less attractive.
The ASA chair noted the material was an “advocacy advertisement”, and as such National was “entitled to put forward its opinion of the policy being considered”.
The ASA said the implication the “tax” was a Labour one was not misleading, as the party is the major member in the coalition, and the policy would not go ahead without the party’s backing.
The chair also found there was no evidence the picture of Genter had been edited, and it did not meet the threshold to demean or denigrate the politician.
The Green Party had earlier pulled a spoof advertisement likening Bridges to a used car salesman, because its members were unhappy with it.
The mock advert features an impersonation of Bridge’s heavy accent, and television included it, when referencing a clip taken from an Auto Media Group video of Julie Anne Genter’s explanation of the Government’s clean car plan at a VIA function.
Join the conversation