By Robert McLachlan
Thanks to The Post for publishing this article, and for making it free to read.
https://www.thepost.co.nz/nz-news/350179050/casualties-governments-declaration-war-evs
They didn’t include my graph, though, so I include it here:
The Government’s war on EVs
Published
Planetary Ecology 
Well there are a few things missed out from your commentary I think Robert:
1. Most of the $ value went to Tesla buyers – this is not spin just fact. Teslas were astounding good value for their cost but they do have this cachet of being luxury vehicles – even if it was only the cheapest Tesla model that came under the $80k cap. They could of changed that – and I wrote to Simeon Brown urging him to do so, as after 2,1/2 years of the scheme there are now a number of good $60,000 cars. He could have and should have lowered the cap to $60 or even $50k.
2. Labour completely mismanaged the scheme – they should have been rebalancing it every six months so it was cost neutral as it always was designed to be – this would have meant smaller incentives for EV’s and/or bigger disincentives for gas guzzlers
3. There could have and should have always been a farmers and rural tradespeople exemption for off-road 4WD utes for which there wasn’t and still isn’t an equivalent EV. I urged Simeon to change that and then it coud not be called a ute tax any more (or at least just an urban ute tax)
4. Maybe the Clean Car Discount has given such a kick start and such a momentum to changing to EVs that maybe the EV trend will continue. Of course Januarys figures for EV sales were minuscule compared to the mad rush the month before of people getting in before the discount was over.
5. Almost all of the NOx pollution from motor vehicles are from diesels. The lattes HAPINZ report gave a shocking new report that NOx was killing more people than particulate pollution. There are very few diesel cars in NZ, but almost every ute now is a diesel and maybe 1/3 of the SUVs – especially the bigger ones. So the health burden of the pollution should have been included perhaps in the clean car discount.
Thanks for your comment PeterO. Yes, there are a lot of moving parts here, a whole report could be written (and probably will be in time).
In 2023 there were 37000 EV sales of which 5000 or 13% were Teslas.
Many regard the fact that the scheme ended in deficit ($300m) as a negative. The changes in mid-2023 would have put the scheme back in balance but for the fact that buyers started to anticipate its end. Still a good way to spend ETS revenues, though, and the fuel savings accrue to the whole country (by accelerating the transition), not just the buyers.
The scheme could have been tweaked, yes, but Labour’s version was subjected to extensive analysis whereas in my view the four factors discussed in the article add up to a determined and incoherent anti-climate stance.
One aspect confuses.
Can you clarify your claim of an effective 85% cut in the carbon tax?
I can’t arrive at that figure from the charges listed in your article.
Currently a petrol vehicle pays a carbon-based charge of 89c/l (fuel duty) plus 16c/l (ETS). This could potentially be reduced by 85% to 16c/l only. On the other hand, the carbon price might be allowed to rise, and the effect on sales, emissions etc is hard to predict. But currently, petrol vehicles face a carbon charge of $500/tonne which by itself has not been enough to drive fast enough change. (Diesel currently sees ETS only.)
Thankyou the maths is fine but what confuses is your statement – the 89c/l isn’t a carbon tax. 16c/l now or 16c/l later is zero reduction.
Your meaning is not clear.
Additionally my understanding is the current carbon charge is almost $76/tonne which gives the present 16c/l (petrol). $500/tonne would drive very rapid change!
Fair enough, the 89c/l is a compulsory fee which is exactly proportional to the emitted carbon dioxide.