sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

No mercy for Ford Ranger buyers as government pushes New Zealanders into electric and hybrid vehicles

Public Policy / analysis
No mercy for Ford Ranger buyers as government pushes New Zealanders into electric and hybrid vehicles
Michael Wood, Labour MP

The revised Clean Car Discount will double the fees charged on New Zealand’s two most popular vehicles and exclude almost all petrol vehicles, as the Government attempts to bring the scheme’s costs into balance. 

It hopes that doing so will not slow progress being made in the decarbonisation of the country’s light vehicle fleet. The Climate Change Commission recently said this was one of the few areas in which emissions reductions were ahead of expectations.  

In its draft advice for the second emissions budget, released last month, the Commission said uptake of low-emissions vehicles had grown rapidly since the introduction of the Clean Car Discount in 2021.

The Commission and Ministry of Transport hadn’t expected electric vehicles to make up over 10% of new vehicle registrations until 2025 and 2028, respectively. 

That milestone has already been passed with battery powered vehicles making up almost 12% of new registrations this year. Over 43% of all light vehicles — cars, utes, and vans — registered the past three months were hybrids or battery powered.

“This highlights the opportunity for electric and hybrid vehicles to deliver significantly higher and faster emissions reductions than previously thought,” the Climate Change Commission said. 

It wants the government to keep its foot on the pedal, as incentives and subsidies help consumers overcome the upfront cost barrier, but success comes with costs. 

The rapid uptake of low-emission vehicles has almost exhausted the $300 million Crown grant used to establish the scheme. As of the end of 2022, the scheme had collected $118 million in fees and paid out $288 million in rebates. 

Waka Kotahi, the transport ministry, said the scheme ended the year with a negative balance of $193 million and estimated it would run out of funds entirely last month. 

And so, the Crown has tipped in an extra $100 million in grant money and Transport Minister Michael Wood has adjusted which vehicles are eligible for fees and rebates. 

The upshot is that fees on a Ford Ranger and Toyota Hilux—NZ’s most popular new vehicles—will almost double and no petrol-only cars will get the subsidy. 

Previously, the lowest emission petrol vehicles, such as a Toyota Corolla or Mazda Demio, were eligible for a small rebate. 

This still had the effect of reducing emissions in the light vehicle fleet, as it may have encouraged consumers to choose a more efficient vehicle even if they couldn’t manage an electric one. 

Now, eligibility has been narrowed to only imports which emit less than 100 grams of CO2 per kilometre, down from 146 grams in the original scheme.

The average exhaust emissions of newly registered vehicles has dropped from roughly 190 grams per kilometre, prior to the clean car discount, to about 150 grams today. 

What will it get you? 

In broad terms, hybrid-petrol vehicles emit between 70 and 140 grams, most petrol vehicles range between 140 and 200, while diesel vehicles sit between 200 and 260.

The Toyota Prius is an example of a popular hybrid, and the Nissan Leaf was the most common electric vehicle — although it was almost matched by the Tesla Model Y and 3 combined. 

Popular petrol cars, previously eligible for a rebate, included the Suzuki Swift and the Mazda Axela. But at least there are alternatives available, not so for the Toyota Hilux and Ford Ranger.

These two vehicles will now attract a more than $5,000 fee, despite there being almost no equivalent hybrid or electric vehicles to buy instead. These are workhorse utes often bought by farmers and construction workers. 

There is one electric ute available in New Zealand, a Chinese make called LDV ET60, but low-emission versions of well-known brands are still years away. 

Simeon Brown, the National Party transport spokesperson, said the clean car discount would be axed if his party were to win the October election. 

He said the scheme was subsidising buyers who could already afford low-emissions vehicles by taxing people who don’t have the luxury of a choice. 

“That has been paid for by a significant subsidy by the taxpayer, and by taxes on our farmers and tradies who now are going to have to pay more under Michael Wood’s scheme.” 

National’s plan to fast-track electrification of the NZ economy by building energy infrastructure would be enough to encourage rapid uptake of electric vehicles, without requiring subsidies, it says. 

Labour’s Michael Wood said this was “laughable” as discount schemes had been proven to be the best way to get people to buy cleaner vehicles.  

“We know from research that the upfront cost is the biggest barrier to people getting into cleaner vehicles. So, you will not make the progress that we have made without a discount scheme.” 

Waiting on Japan 

The Climate Change Commission has made recommendations that support both parties’ perspectives. 

On one hand, it has emphasised the need to decarbonize light vehicles and encouraged the government to reduce emissions at their source, rather than offsetting them with forestry. 

But it also said the main constraint on EV uptake between 2026 and 2030 would be sufficient vehicle charging infrastructure – not access to low emissions vehicles.

“Charging infrastructure, both public and private, is crucial to the success of the EV transition. If the network rollout leads EV uptake, it has the potential to support consumer demand. If it lags, it has the potential to dampen EV uptake,” it said. 

Discussion of the Clean Car Discount often revolves around incentives for consumers, but it also aims to incentivize manufacturers to get affordable, clean vehicles to the NZ market. 

This could be a serious challenge. The Climate Change Commission imagines all new vehicles, and 40% of the national fleet, will be electric by 2036. 

However, we largely buy second-hand cars imported from Japan which is not adopting electric vehicles as quickly as Aotearoa. The new cars entering that market today will become the used cars we buy after 2026. 

In 2021, only 45,000 new electric vehicles were registered in Japan but the Climate Commission hopes that 55,000 used electric cars will be imported in 2030. 

“Not all these EVs will be available for export as secondhand vehicles and there is an increasing competition from markets like Australia,” it said. 

Households are likely to need government support to buy new electric vehicles in the latter half of this decade, if there is insufficient supply of secondhand right-hand drive cars globally.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

24 Comments

“Charging infrastructure, both public and private, is crucial to the success of the EV transition. If the network rollout leads EV uptake, it has the potential to support consumer demand. If it lags, it has the potential to dampen EV uptake,” [the Climate Change Commission] said.

Wise words, but like most other guidance offered by commissions formed under this Government, it seems to be going ignored. If you don't have the infrastructure in place first, the rest of it will simply fall apart.

Up
4

I don't really think that's true. More than 90% of charging is done at home, and most people commute less than 50km/day.

Road tripping during public holidays is a pinch point, and might stop households going fully electric. There's ways around that -  no reason why accommodation providers can't install a few wallboxes (cost 2K) for their customers to use.

Up
9

These 'green' policies attempting to do away with fossil-fuel-consuming goods before directly comparable 'clean' technologies exist are simply insane. 

Up
4

I've been wondering which Grease tesla uses in their wheel bearings. Or do they use KY lube.

Up
1

We're not setting fire to our EV axle grease, so I guess FF for lubricants are not relevant to the climate discussion. Nice try though lol.

Up
5

For new technologies to be successful they need to reach economies of scale. The point of the rebate is to support EVs to get to economies of scale. They now account for 20% of new vehicles - proof the subsidy is working. The Hilux scenario is an edge case. The policy still stacks up because a lot of people buying big utes don’t need them for a work purpose, some do but most don’t so it’s good that they pay.

Up
11

And none of that is the business of the State. The market (sans govt intervention) shall decide if new technologies are to be successful. Who is the govt to decide who should own a ute? Absolute rubbish. 

Up
1

You are saying incentivising the adoption of innovative and beneficial technology and regulating negative impacts on the environment are not two core functions of the government? That is a weird political ideology you hold.

Up
5

Governments are woeful at picking winners. Let the laptop class take the punt on EV's themselves. Marginal electricity comes from jungle coal to charge these things and there is no practical/economic way to recycle the batteries. Subsidies for CFL and LEDS bulbs are another example of promoting a toxic resource intensive product. Being green is all about the virtue signal.

"We discovered that both CFL and LED bulbs are categorized as hazardous, due to excessive levels of lead (Pb) leachability (132 and 44 mg/L, respectively; regulatory limit: 5) and the high contents of copper (111 000 and 31 600 mg/kg, respectively; limit: 2500), lead (3860 mg/kg for the CFL bulb; limit: 1000), and zinc (34 500 mg/kg for the CFL bulb; limit: 5000), while the incandescent bulb is not hazardous (note that the results for CFL bulbs excluded mercury vapor not captured during sample preparation). The CFLs and LEDs have higher resource depletion and toxicity potentials than the incandescent bulb due primarily to their high aluminum, copper, gold, lead, silver, and zinc. Comparing the bulbs on an equivalent quantity basis with respect to the expected lifetimes of the bulbs, the CFLs and LEDs have 3–26 and 2–3 times higher potential impacts than the incandescent bulb, respectively."

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/es302886m#

 

Up
0

Just make the clean-up cost of all pollution user pays and let the market decide. As long as folk aren't putting the cost on society that's better. 

Up
0

Did we really need the subsidy to get to 20% though of new car purchases?

Or would we have been close anyway without?

Up
0

You can answer that question by looking at the change since the subsidy. The data speaks for itself.

Up
3

What a bunch of BS! By far the majority of utes are used for commercial use. It is hard to put into words just how brain dead Wood & co are!

Think of all the contractors working on public works. Most need utes to carry stuff and people to and from worksites, many of which are off road. There is no alternative for utes for this work. So when contractors replace them, who do you think will pick up the extra cost? Yep, the good old taxpayer!  Talk about an own goal! As for farmers, yep, screwed over again! They don't have the option of tacking a bit more onto a contract price.

Up
2

How many tradespeople and farmers are there in New Zealand? And how many ute’s? Yeah that’s right - a shed load aren’t being used for anything other than recreation, pulling the boat and dropping the kids off at school. 
 

For the farmers and tradies who do get caught. It’s like $4000 spread over a working life of 15 years- that’s less than $300 per year - suck it up.

Up
4

It wasn't that long ago that tradies managed just fine driving a station wagon with a roof rack. You don't need a monster truck to do the job.

Up
4

NZ is already so infested with utes that there are enough already to support bona fide users for a long time.  Change is needed. Let’s get on with it.

Up
1

Expand? That statement alone is inadequate.

Fossil 'fuels' are, of course, finite. So there are questions about obligations to future generations; about the lesser-energy-supplying replacement options, and what to do abut same.

That isn't 'greenie' (using such throwaway descriptions is strawman); it's just physical science. Which we must address.

Waiting for the magic elixir becomes invalid with time - just sayin

Up
1

Have you noticed Michael Wood is positioning himself as next Lamebour leader.

The Mt Albert and Mt Roskill electorates have a claim of right over prime minister role and want it back as soon as chippie is gone. In October 

Up
1

The clean car discount is a good policy. These changes seem to strike a good balance. I don’t know why people are losing their minds over paying an extra $700 for a $50,000 asset with a useful life of 15+ years. You’d think every farmer and trades person was replacing their work vehicle every two years or something.

Farmers need to realise the more emissions we cut from passenger vehicles, the less we need to cut from cow farts. They’d therefore be well advised to pick their battles and realise the weight of this measure falls on townies and Remuera tractors.

I also want to call out Toyotas sour grapes. The reason they are so salty about this is they turned their noses up at EVs (despite an early lead in hybrids) and pursued hydrogen. They even had a stake in Tesla which they sold for a pittance. Now EVs are a massive part of the market and Toyota is left high and dry. Well sorry, that was the result of a bad strategic decision.

Up
10

As a semi-farmer I have no issue with this policy. If I buy a new farm ute due to heavy towing and off-road requirements it's all a tax game and the extra cost makes little to no difference. If I replace my backup vehicle (a clapped out old AWD wagon) with a ute for personal use then I need to come to terms with being hung like a jellybean and stop trying to compensate.

If our old Leaf was able to handle the school runs then we'd still have it, and the policy means an EV replacement for the old wagon is that much more attainable.

Up
8

Do tell! What is a "semi farmer". Do you mean a life-styler?

Up
0

No, I farm and also maintain a desk job, while my wife focuses full time on the stock and land after leaving a corporate role. We crop over Summer (normally squash), graze over Winter, and breed on the side (beef), with the intent of making a profit from all. The amount we're sinking into the land and assets is far beyond what a lifestyler would contemplate but is necessary for the next step.

At present our income from the land doesn't cover expenses, hence the need for one of us to keep a desk job. We're only a few years into the transition, and it would be foolhardy to throw away the easy white collar money at this stage.

Whether you consider this "lifestyler" or not is up to you. I wouldn't presume to call myself a "proper" farmer because farming is not yet our major source of income.

Up
4

I am a full time farmer in a remote location and need a powerful 4WD. However the levy don't bother me as everything is tax deductable anyway, as it is for all businesses and tradies.

The fact that it helps clean up emissions, and the pollution, in cities I feel is a good thing

to do. As soon as electric 4WDrives are available that can tow 3.5 tons we will get one.

Up
4

Funds permitting I'll be right there in the queue behind you for the EV tow vehicle. It doesn't even matter if the EV tow range isn't spectacular for our purposes, as most of our heavy towing is under 50km.

Up
1