Bills

Motor Vehicles (Electric Vehicle Levy) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 14 October 2021.)

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Leader of the Opposition) (11:02): I rise to speak on this bill and indicate I will have carriage of this for the opposition and that we very strongly oppose this bill. This bill has been introduced at a time when South Australia should be continuing to build momentum around its green credentials, not stifling it by disincentivising a higher uptake of electric vehicles. It is particularly disappointing to see the government take this policy direction after South Australia had proudly become a world leader in carbon reduction under successive Labor governments, particularly under the leadership of former premiers the Hon. Mike Rann and the Hon. Jay Weatherill.

Let's not forget that under the previous Labor government, South Australia's greenhouse emissions were reduced by 40 per cent in just 10 years, an enviable record around the nation. We also remember the leadership in particular former Premier Mike Rann provided as, I think, the inaugural chair of the subnational governments forum on emission reductions.

South Australia went from producing almost all of our energy from fossil fuels to having 60 per cent powered by renewables last year, and we have an uptake of rooftop solar which is unrivalled across the country. Because of this good and proud work on energy production, transport emissions are now the leading cause of carbon pollution in the state. South Australia ought to continue to be a world leader in this regard and promoting widespread uptake of electric vehicles is one of the next logical steps in reducing emissions. As policymakers, we ought to be doing all we can to make this happen, not putting up barriers.

Electric vehicle uptake in South Australia, and indeed Australia more broadly, is already low. In 2020, electric vehicle sales in Australia accounted for only 0.7 of 1 per cent of the overall market. For context, the UK market share for electric vehicles last year was 10 per cent, and in Norway, a world leader in electric vehicle sales, the market share was, I am told, almost 75 per cent.

As a country and as a state, we are lagging behind. We should and we must be doing better, because gone are the days when electric vehicles were viewed as a novelty. They are now inevitable as a mainstream technology, and the longer we delay the transition through poor policy and planning the harder it will be for us to catch up. In this context, it is utterly ridiculous at this point to disincentivise South Australians from purchasing electric vehicles by slapping them with a brand-new tax. That is a brand-new tax from our Treasurer.

Electric vehicle owners already pay the same for registration as owners of four-cylinder cars. Adding another $305 levy means that electric vehicle owners will be paying more than three times that of petrol owners for registration. This, coupled with the current logistical challenges of accessing charging points and the high cost of purchase of electric vehicles, means there would be little incentive for consumers to make the shift.

Even if you are not inclined to take the opposition's word for it, just look at who opposes the measure. In the words of the Electric Vehicle Council chief executive, 'Introducing an electric vehicle tax at this time when carbon emissions are dropping is like responding to a drop in tobacco revenue by putting an excise on alternative treatments such as nicotine gum.'

On Monday 6 September, a group of car manufacturers, automotive groups and environmental organisations published an open letter to the Liberal government, calling out the bill for the poor policy that it is. This unlikely alliance included Mitsubishi, Volkswagen, the Electric Vehicle Council, Solar Citizens and Conservation SA, all recognising that now is simply not the time for a brand-new tax in this state that is a tax on electric vehicles.

The consensus is pretty clear on this one. Car manufacturers oppose this new tax. Industry professionals oppose this new tax. Environmental groups oppose this new tax. Prospective consumers oppose this new tax. Even if there were not very strong policy reasons to oppose this, let's remember what the government said before they came to government: they said they would not be imposing new taxes.

This is exactly what this is: it is a tax that did not exist before and it is a tax that is going to exist now, if the Hon. Rob Lucas as Treasurer gets his way. This is a brand-new tax. It is eerily similar to the Hon. Rob Lucas going to an election a few elections ago, when they were last in government, promising not to privatise ETSA: a clear, unambiguous promise not to privatise ETSA; a clear, unambiguous promise of no new taxes. That is exactly what we have here.

Even if there were not such strong meritorious policy reasons why you do not want to disincentive electric vehicles, just keeping to your word and not lying to the people of South Australia about what you are going to do ought to be enough for this government.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (11:07): I rise to speak in support of the Motor Vehicle (Electric Vehicle Levy) Amendment Bill 2021. We did have some reservations about it, but I think we found some common ground in discussions that we have had with the government on this. Electric vehicles, or EVs as they are commonly known, are clearly the way of the future. They represent a major transformation of the world's transport sector.

Tax breaks and other incentives in countries like the UK and Norway have helped push up EV sales in those jurisdictions, but the lack of similar schemes and incentives in Australia is one big reason why EV sales here in 2020 made up a dismal 0.78 per cent of new car sales. Apparently, there has been a recent jump domestically to about 1.57 per cent of the total light vehicle market, but Australia sits significantly behind the rest of the world in EV adoption. As a proportion of the total fleet—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! Members on my left should give respect to the member on his feet.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: As a proportion of the total fleet of vehicles, EVs make up only 0.1 per cent nationally, or 0.07 per cent in South Australia.

According to the latest ABS data, there are only about 1,400 electric vehicles in South Australia, of 1.87 million vehicles registered. South Australia buys some 60,000 to 67,000 new vehicles each year. South Australia has struggled to make up this meagre market share. I understand the figures last year for sales were 128. There are probably several factors for that. It would be perhaps the impact of the pandemic worldwide. It has certainly had repercussions for the car manufacturing industry. They have had supply chain issues.

We know that many of the biggest car makers are now pumping up production of electric vehicles. In some cases some are still turning out plug-in hybrid vehicles; however, most of the major manufacturers have already indicated that their focus will now be on the production of electric vehicles.

Unfortunately, in Australia we do not have the great selection of models that they do perhaps in Europe and the Americas, but that is likely to change. I think currently there are probably only six models that consumers can choose from, but many more are on their way and with that I imagine the price of those vehicles will also come down. The federal government would also need to look at what it does with the luxury car tax to ensure there is a greater take-up of electric vehicles.

I have no doubt that this market will take off, and when it takes off it will probably be like a proverbial rocket. I was in Norway in 2019 and spoke to the electric vehicle association over there about the great inroads that electric vehicles have made in such a short period of time. I think from about 2011 through to about 2019 it has gone from what we have today, virtually, in Australia to something like more than 50 per cent of vehicle sales. That was in that short period of time.

I know that in this legislation we have set this figure of 2027—perhaps it should have been 2030—but I have no doubt that, once a number of new models come onto the market, the price will drop. This will be the option new car buyers will be looking at rather than the vehicles that are on the conventional fossil fuels.

Consumers, 56 per cent of them, are saying that they would consider purchasing an electric car as their next vehicle, so that in itself is a telling statistic that shows that people's minds are now attuned to these vehicles. If people are looking at replacement of these vehicles, one of the first things they will look at is what is out there for them to not only protect the environment and achieve zero emissions but also what will be convenient and save the family, save the consumer, money in the long term.

All that points to these new revolutionary electric vehicles that will be pumped out. News Limited's motoring journalist, Stephen Corby, wrote recently:

EVs have already snuck up on us, all ninja-like, with their silent engines and zero emission tailpipes, to usher in a new age of motoring, where 'petrol' is just a dirty word (although not as dirty as 'diesel', which is also going the way of the horse-drawn carriage).

As that quote suggests, we are on the cusp of a new era in motoring. Not that electric vehicles should be considered new because, as I pointed out in a speech earlier this year or it may have been last year, electric vehicles, at the turn of the 20^th century, outsold the petrol versions that were coming out at the time. They were in such demand that there were people queuing up and waiting for these vehicles to be delivered and the only thing that stopped the advancement of electric vehicles was the fact that initially petrol-driven engines had to be cranked by hand to start. But when electronic starting began, mostly because of the Ford Motor Company and others, that saw the demise of electric vehicles and the petrol versions quickly took over.

But it is quite clear that electric vehicles have been popular in the past. I have no doubt that they will again be popular coming up in the future and I look forward to the time when perhaps I can get behind the wheel of a fully electric vehicle. I have been in a couple of them while I was overseas and I found the ride quite comfortable, although it was a little bit disconcerting when you cannot hear any noise. The taxi driver who was driving me had to ask me to keep my tone down because I was sounding a bit too loud inside the cabin. The technology continues to improve and these vehicles are certainly going to be taken up by consumers.

Despite all the fanfare around new EV models and technology, it is unfortunate that South Australia has been caught napping. We are one of the last jurisdictions to introduce any legislation in regard to zero emission vehicles. It was also disconcerting to read a story in the weekend press last week that a company that wanted to set up EV manufacturing in South Australia was finding it difficult to get support from the Marshall government and are looking at probably taking their business elsewhere. I hope that does not happen. As we know, South Australia has a long, long history in car manufacturing and there is no reason why we cannot take that next step and also move into EV manufacturing.

South Australia is currently rated the equal lowest of any state or territory in the Electric Vehicle Council's 2021 'State of Electric Vehicles' report. To borrow another of Stephen Corby's analogies, the EV horse has well and truly bolted and South Australia has pulled up lame.

From the outset, I want to place on the record that I believe that this is a policy area crying out for a COAG approach or, at the very least, the focused attention of a South Australian parliamentary committee. Clearly, there should have been leadership from the commonwealth government in regard to EVs and an EV strategy and that has not happened. It has basically been left up to the states to do that and it is quite disappointing.

A federal parliament senate select committee reported in 2019 that there was a relative absence of overarching policy direction from Australian governments in regard to electric vehicles. The committee recommended a national EV strategy and an intergovernmental task force be established to lead its implementation. The federal government has been heavily criticised by car makers and advocacy groups for its refusal to set targets in the sector and previous public ridicule of the technology.

Last year, it ruled out subsidising new cars to incentivise widespread uptake. While the federal government's efforts have so far been lacking or non-existent, the states and territories have been left to pick up the slack with their own incentives.

The New South Wales government is arguably leading the charge with an electric vehicle strategy offering $500 million of investment to encourage EV uptake. It has set a goal of 52 per cent of all new car sales being electric vehicles by 2030-31. Victoria has set a similar goal of 50 per cent by 2030. By comparison, South Australia is hoping the two provisions in this bill will achieve a 30 per cent uptake by 2027.

I think there is a lot more that needs to be done, and I am sure that we will certainly agitate in this place that it is done. We do want to see further incentives and the types of incentives that are being offered in countries like the United States, where subsidies of up to $US12,500 are being offered along with other sweeteners for purchases of electric vehicles. I am sure that in the United States—as we know it is the car capital of the world—the Americans will certainly jump into them and we will see a greater uptake and a greater availability of models coming out of the US, as we will out of Japan and also Europe.

Through my extensive consultation with manufacturers, industry, consumers, peak motoring bodies and various think tanks, I found that there is a wealth of experience, knowledge, information, technology and research out there, all of which could be harvested and relied upon by COAG to develop medium to long-term policies that will assist us to a shift to clean zero emission vehicles.

As far as I can see, there are currently no national targets and no economic forecasting to model how South Australia, or any other state for that matter, is going to build and maintain roads and transport infrastructure in the absence of petrol and diesel fuel excises being paid to the commonwealth and then redirected as grants to the states.

I have not seen any discussion about a very fundamental and significant shift of responsibility and funding for roads and infrastructure from the commonwealth to the states, and the liabilities this will potentially create for the states. How would major works or upgrades such as, for example, the north-south interconnector be funded in future without the commonwealth collecting petrol and diesel fuel excise?

I do hope that the government of the day, should this bill pass, devotes significant funding to ensure our system of roads, especially in the regions, are upgraded and maintained, because many of them are in quite a poor state, and it is not because of the light vehicles that use those roads; it is because of the reliance on heavy freight that is causing damage to those roads, and that needs to be addressed.

The bill has only two provisions. The first is for a 2 to 2.25 per cent per kilometre levy to be placed on all zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) from 2027 or when we hit 30 per cent uptake. I know that the 2¢ charge on the hybrid vehicles has been a point of contention from some of those manufacturers, including Mitsubishi and also VW. We have had discussions with Mitsubishi about the impact that levy may well have on their revolutionary hybrid technology, which only they and Nissan have so far been able to put on the market. It is quite impressive technology that these vehicles have: the ability to be able to charge a house at night, for instance, and meet all those energy needs. They also can be used out in the field if there are power blackouts or whatever.

Their concern is that there will be an extra impost on these plug-in hybrid vehicles because not only will they be paying the fuel excise but they will also be required to pay the levy that will be imposed by this tax. I am sure it is something that could be looked at and addressed. Mitsubishi had concerns that it might restrict or limit the take-up of these particular revolutionary vehicles. But, as I said, perhaps it is something that can be looked at by this parliament, should we be able to conduct reviews of this legislation.

I also see that there is a class action in Victoria that is challenging the constitutionality of the states charging the levy at all. Again, we look forward to watching how that pans out. I would also be interested to hear if the Treasurer has Crown advice on the constitutionality of this measure in South Australia.

I have three questions in relation to this levy that I shall pursue in committee stage. Firstly, what if the levy acts as an disincentive to EV ownership? Most of the peak bodies advocating for EVs believe it will, so what will we do if it proves to be a significant barrier to EV purchases? Secondly, will the small 2 to 2.5¢ levy per kilometre in this bill sufficiently replace lost petrol and diesel fuel excise taxes that would have been collected by the commonwealth and redirected to the states to build and maintain roads and transport infrastructure, or will there be a gap, and who will fill this? Thirdly, if this levy will not commence until 2027 or we have a 30 per cent uptake of EVs, whichever comes first, what is the haste in passing this legislation prior to more thorough scrutiny by a parliamentary committee or COAG pursuing a nationally consistent approach?

The second provision in this bill is for a subsidy of $3,000 for the first 6,000 vehicles, payable to purchasers of new EVs. The Electric Vehicle Council's submission on this bill notes that to 68 per cent of consumers, subsidies to reduce the cost of purchasing an EV were of equal importance as the availability of public and home charging. We have been in discussion with the Treasurer about this number—6,000—and I welcome his decision that they will look at increasing this number as well as providing a further incentive on registrations, and I will allow him to make that announcement. That will apply up until 2027.

As I have mentioned, we have had discussions with all stakeholders in relation to this. While many of them expressed concerns, I think a lot of them also have come to the conclusion that it is going to be inevitable, and we need to certainly start having discussions on it now. There remains a real risk that consumers will purchase their EVs interstate, if the incentives there are greater, and simply drive them back across the border to their home. As I have indicated, that is why we needed and still need a nationally consistent approach.

Completely lacking from this bill are equally popular and effective provisions like they have legislated in the ACT, Tasmania, Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. For example, permanently or temporarily abolishing stamp duty, reducing or abolishing registration fees, better availability of charging stations and prioritising parking for EVs have all been identified as important influences on purchasers of EVs. There are no grant schemes for fleet vehicles or research and development. I believe should this bill pass the number of sales of these vehicles that are covered by and will attract a subsidy will be limited for companies to only two purchases.

There is a lack of promotion and clarity about who will provide charging stations or hydrogen fill-up points, particularly in regional and remote areas. Range anxiety is noted as a significant disincentive to EV purchases. I think the other issue that will also need to be addressed when it comes to charging stations is the compatibility with particular models, because I know the Tesla model has its own charging mechanism, and of course there needs to be compatibility in relation to that as well.

We have also spoken to the MTA in relation to their concerns about the direction of where the electric vehicle industry, the policies of government, are heading to ensure that their members could have confidence in their investment in infrastructure to prepare and then be able to cater for a surge in electric vehicle sales. So there are still a lot of questions that need to be addressed and, as I say, it is probably something that this parliament is going to need to look at.

One of the amendments that I will be moving is that there be a joint parliamentary committee established within the next 12 months that will then look at the electric vehicle industry, the broader approach for policies and how it impacts on other associated industries in the lead-up to electric vehicles becoming the major vehicles on our roads.

It needs to be an all-encompassing look at the sector and it needs to be done comprehensively. I do not believe that has been done by this government. I do not think they have come here with this bill, or with a clear EV strategy in place, to ensure that South Australians do not lag behind other states and the rest of the world. I think it is incumbent on the parliament to have a look at the sector and what can be done to ensure that it is going to be smooth sailing from the time that these vehicles start to gain traction in the marketplace.

We also do not know if there is a restructuring package for petrol and diesel retailers, farms and businesses that will have to completely replace expensive items of capital equipment, buses, and commercial vehicles, or transition plans for mechanical and parts businesses that will need to adapt to new and completely different technology.

We do not know if our grid or hydrogen-generating power stations will be up to providing the power necessary for the EVs. We are completely lacking a marketing, promotional or information plan for the motoring public. Consumers are basically out there doing their own research and their own maths. The amendment, as I have indicated, that I have filed will seek to address some of these glaring omissions as we come to them.

Firstly, consistent with other jurisdictions, I propose that the act be reviewed by the select committee within a year after assent, so basically next year. Secondly, my amendment proposes that the select committee also considers the longer term issues relating to the use of electric vehicles in the state and recommends strategies to address these issues in accordance with terms of reference determined by the Legislative Council.

The use of EVs, as we now know, is a fast-moving and complex policy area. I liken it to the scale and scope of the transition our grandparents and great-grandparents must have experienced from the advent of the motor car and the move away from horses as their primary form of transport. It will be important to review the act as to its operation, and even more important to address the longer term bigger ticket issues that I have highlighted. With those words, I commend the bill to the council and look forward to a lively debate.

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (11:34): The lively debate has begun. I am bitterly disappointed to see that it appears the government have cobbled together the numbers to put this tax on electric vehicles. It is really disappointing that the climate denialism that seems to have infected the Liberal Party over in Canberra—and we have seen evidence of that over the last few weeks with the dud of a climate policy that the Prime Minister is going to be prosecuting in the lead-up to the next election—has now infected the Liberal Party in South Australia. It makes us one of the few jurisdictions in the world to be putting a tax on electric vehicles at a time of climate crisis. It is a disgrace.

Make no mistake, the battleground is clearly drawn, the battle lines are clearly drawn for the next election, and the choice of voters will be clear. The choice of voters will be very clear because the Liberal Party is the party that is putting a tax on electric vehicles and adding a disincentive to people who want to do the right thing by our planet during this period of climate crisis. Some of the crossbenchers, it appears, are going to be supporting them and they need to think very carefully about that.

It is not enough to say, 'Let's have an inquiry once we have put this tax in place.' You do not act now and inquire later; the time to have the inquiry is before you support the legislation. This really is the wrong track for South Australia and I think a very alarming development. I should say the Greens have been against this from the outset. We have been opposed to this legislation on the basis that it really undermines our efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It is a missed opportunity to bolster electric vehicles in South Australia by removing their roadblocks to car purchasers. That is why the Greens have always been on the public record opposing this tax.

In other parts of the world, this is not controversial. Electric vehicles are seen as part of the future and they receive public support to encourage consumer purchases. They are not sabotaged by the government of the day. Last time I spoke in this chamber about electric vehicles, I stated that taxing electric vehicle drivers for not burning petrol is like taxing non-smokers for not smoking. It is laughable. It is an example of failed leadership from this Marshall Liberal government.

That remains true whether you are going to be a taxing electric vehicles in 2022 or in 2027. That remains true, even with a $3,000 one-off payment that would be made available to just 6,000 motorists. It is not enough to make what is a harmful bill only less harmful. It is not enough for some on the crossbench to just try to sugar-coat the government's bitter pill here; they need to spit it out and reject it entirely.

At a time when we face a gathering climate crisis, a time when transport emissions are our most rapidly growing emissions—in fact, they are almost 25 per cent of emissions—we should be using this opportunity to make it easy for people to do the right thing. We should be trying to make it as affordable as possible for people to purchase electric vehicles.

It is not just me saying this, it is not just the Greens saying this. Let's look at what governments around the world are doing. Let's consider what governments around the world are doing. The UK government will be banning the sale of petrol cars by 2030. In the ACT, the Greens-Labor government is offering electric vehicle buyers free registrations and $15,000 loans. In Norway, the electric vehicle users are rewarded for their environmentally beneficial decisions through no registration charges, no parking fees, no road tolls and the use of free bus lanes. So they get rewards for doing the right thing.

In New Hampshire there is strong investment in highly accessible 24/7 charging stations that make it as affordable as possible and convenient as possible to drive an electric vehicle. The New South Wales government has committed $171 million for new electric vehicle charging infrastructure and $33 million to help transition the government's passenger fleet. That is the Liberals over in New South Wales.

We know from the Australia Institute that almost three in four SA residents believe that electric vehicles are good for the environment, and seven in 10 SA residents support reducing the cost of electric vehicles through subsidies and stamp duty waivers, and so do manufacturers. In late August, after the state government announced it was postponing, not scrapping, the electric vehicle tax, 12 manufacturers, industry associations and policy and research groups published an open letter on Monday calling on the state government to scrap its stamp duty for electric vehicles.

Among these signatories was Mitsubishi Motors Australia, whose director of marketing and operations, Rob Nazzari, said at the time that it was important to get things right from the start. 'We remain concerned about the impact of the proposed tax on our customers,' he said. Seven in 10 SA residents, according to that same Australia Institute poll, said they would be less likely to purchase an electric vehicle, because of an electric vehicle tax.

Seven out of 10 said they would be less likely to purchase an electric vehicle, because of this Liberal government's new tax. It is outrageous that the government are introducing such a disincentive into the market at this time of climate crisis. What on earth are they thinking? They are on the wrong track. Why is the Marshall government not listening?

This flawed Victorian approach—its reckless, highly unfair tax on electric vehicles, on people who are just trying to do the right thing—has been opposed by 25 organisations, including global auto manufacturers Volkswagen and Hyundai, and policy experts the Electric Vehicle Council have called it 'the worst electric vehicle policy in the world'. This is the policy that the Liberals are going to be taking to the next state election. This is the policy that the Liberal Party are taking to the next state election, and I urge the crossbench not to get in the car with them. Think very carefully about what you are doing, members of the crossbench.

The worst electric vehicle policy in the world does not deserve to be pushed back; it deserves to be scrapped, taken off the road for good. Mr Lucas said that we need an electric vehicle tax to help pay for road maintenance and upgrades. Well, that is a furphy, with respect to the honourable member. Richie Merzian from the Australia Institute has pointed out that fuel excise taxes do not directly pay for road construction or repair. He says:

The fuel excise does not pay for roads. It stopped doing that in the fifties.

We pay for roads like how we pay for hospitals, defence and schools: it comes out of the consolidated funds. Consolidated revenue that comes from GST, income tax, a whole variety of sources, which electric vehicle drivers already contribute to.

If the Hon. Rob Lucas needs some suggestions for how he could fund roads rather than taxing electric vehicles, the Greens are happy to come up with some ideas. Instead of penalising those who are choosing to reduce their carbon footprint by investing in electric vehicles, perhaps the state government could take steps to make electric vehicles more accessible to more people.

Electric vehicles are no longer seen as expensive or out of reach of ordinary people. There is a growing awareness of the much lower running costs, but this trend, this growth in the industry, must continue, not just in the short term but indefinitely and well into the future. If we are going to see that trend continue, we need a government who are committed to playing their part in reducing emissions, and that means reducing emissions from road vehicles. That is why putting a tax on electric vehicles is such a disastrous thing.

Where is the consideration of things like interest-free loans? Where is the waiving of stamp duty? Imagine if instead of putting a tax on electric vehicles we were talking about how South Australia could play a role in manufacturing electric vehicles here in our state. This is a missed opportunity. It is a missed opportunity and it is a dark day for South Australia when, in the middle of a climate crisis, we have a government going to the next election putting a tax on electric vehicles. They are on the wrong track and they need to change course very, very quickly.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (11:44): I thank honourable members for their contribution to the second reading debate. The pace of technological change, which the Hon. Mr Pangallo referred to, is extraordinary. If I reflect on my long career in this parliament, when we were first here we did not have access to fax machines or indeed mobile phones. The delivery of press releases was by me hopping into a Volkswagen and driving to The Advertiser and Channel 7 and Channel 9 and hand-delivering them.

The world has moved on. At that time, if I had contemplated telephone technology where you are connected to people and see them around the world, I would have laughed at it. If I had contemplated a future of 100 per cent electric vehicles, where we are inevitably heading, I would have laughed at the concept as well. They are talking about flying taxis, airplane taxis now. The whole world has changed. The Hon. Mr Pangallo is correct to say that the pace of change is getting even quicker. He has referred to some of the projections, and certainly stakeholders have indicated to us that the pace of change in this industry is overwhelming.

The Hon. Mr Simms, even though he comes from a different direction, refers to some of the policy imperatives that governments around the world are driving, which will mean that global manufacturers of vehicles will sooner rather than later be producing all electric vehicles. This is one of the reasons why the halfway house of the hybrid, sadly, as exciting as the technology might be, will disappear. The future is zero emissions, the future is 100 per cent electric vehicles. Whether it is in 10 years or 15 years that we are 100 per cent electric vehicles, who knows, but it is likely to be, I suspect, the shorter period rather than the longer period.

Equally, as the Hon. Mr Pangallo has highlighted, and as a number of the stakeholders like the RAA have highlighted, whilst there are varying projections at this stage as to when we will see cost-competitive up-front purchase prices for electric vehicles, those more optimistic projections say 2025, that is, cost-competitive with internal combustion engines. The more pessimistic are around about 2030, or the early 2030s. My view is that it will probably be somewhere in between. We may well see it in the late 2020s. That is just the range of advice that we are receiving.

With the big Chinese manufacturers, there are vehicles already on the market in the $30,000s internationally and globally, and they are looking to have electric vehicles in the market in the $20,000s sooner rather than later. Even the more expensive vehicles have had significant price reductions in the last 18 months, even though they are still expensive electric vehicles.

So the Hon. Mr Pangallo is 100 per cent correct. The pace of change is overwhelming, and if you actually have governments, like the UK government, banning the manufacture within their jurisdictions of internal combustion engines, then it is only going to hasten the fact that global manufacturers are sooner rather than later very quickly going to go down this 100 per cent electric vehicle path.

I need to address some of the issues that stakeholders and others have raised. I want to say at the outset that since this bill has been introduced the government has consulted widely with stakeholders and many others, who have indicated that the original bill the government introduced missed a significant element, which was a recognition of the need, at least in the interim period, in the short term, for financial incentives. The government, a month or two months ago, I think it was, announced a range of incentives, and I will return to those in a moment. The government has recognised that the original bill needed to be improved, and the government has acknowledged that and is doing that.

I issued a press statement in September. To be fair, the RAA is the leading advocate of the punters out there, the consumers, the motorists. With great respect, the other academic organisations and the vehicle manufacturers all have, understandably and not unreasonably, a particular perspective on this, in relation to the companies, their own business interests, and they are entitled to prosecute a view that they are sympathetic to.

So I am unsurprised at the views that they might express. I note the Hon. Mr Simms has used their opposition in part as support for his opposition to this. But if you want to talk to the organisation that represents the punters, the motorists, the consumers, it is the RAA. The RAA has indicated support for the motion of a road user charge, for the reasons that I have outlined before, and I will not repeat again. They said:

The RAA is committed to the increased uptake of zero and low emission vehicles in South Australia, but we also see the importance of reforming the tax system to reflect declining revenue from fuel excise and the need to ensure road transport is sustainably funded. The delay of the road user charge, along with an incentive package, should support EV uptake and ensure we have a sustainable transport funding model going forward.

That is the group that represents motorists, consumers, the punters out there, recognising the reality of what we are confronting. Whilst I acknowledge the view of the Australia Institute person who has been quoted, I 100 per cent disagree with that particular view. As the Treasurer of the state I suspect I know a little more than the Australian Institute does in relation to federal/state financial relations, and I can assure that particular individual that road excise goes into that bucket of money the federal government has got, and the federal government then allocates significant federal funding to the states and territories for jointly funded road transport projects in our state jurisdictions.

When excise disappears, something has to replace it. If you have 100 per cent electric vehicles, as we inevitably are going to have, governments around Australia are recognising what has to be done. It is not just a Liberal government. The trailblazer in the area was a Victorian Labor government, where the road user charge has been implemented since July of this year. New South Wales has now passed the legislation and South Australia is now considering it. I am aware of one other jurisdiction that is closely considering this particular option in their jurisdiction.

The two biggest jurisdictions in the nation, New South Wales and Victoria, which obviously are going to drive demand and supply issues for us as a nation, because they are the two biggest jurisdictions, have now locked and loaded a road user charge—Labor and Liberal governments. This is not a left versus right, conservative versus progressive, issue. It is the reality of where we are heading and governments, Liberal or Labor, are going to have to address it at some stage.

The other question that has been raised by a number of the groups arguing against this is that this government does not have an overall strategy in relation to electric vehicles, it is merely just the imposition of a road user charge. I strenuously deny that. The government has a comprehensive strategy, South Australia's Electric Vehicle Action Plan, which was released a long time ago and which drives the state government's electric vehicle strategy. This is just one element—an important element, but just one element—of a strategy that is required.

The government's EV action plan aims to make electric vehicles a common choice by 2030, and the default choice by 2035, consistent with net zero emissions by 2050. An amount of $13.4 million has already been allocated to the statewide fast-charging network. The successful tender will be announced soon, and will ensure that South Australians have confidence that an EV can work for them and their lifestyle. It will support interstate travel, tourism and regional travel in South Australia. The statewide fast-charging network is a critical element of electric vehicle take-up in the future, an issue raised by both the Hon. Mr Pangallo and the Hon. Mr Simms in relation to their contributions. Charging is critical. You cannot just have a strategy in relation to road user charging; you have to address the broader issues that electric vehicles are going to present to our system.

In terms of the question the Hon. Mr Pangallo raised, there will be state government funding and there will be federal government funding, but there will also be significant private sector investment funding. When the results of the tender are announced, we will see that this has to be a partnership between federal, state—maybe even local, I am not sure—and business funding models as well.

The other thing I would say is that, given the recent announcement by the federal government in relation to zero emissions by 2050, there will inevitably have to be a response, in my view—I do not know this to be fact, but it is my judgement—from the federal government in this field of electric vehicles and charging infrastructure. It would be a critical issue for rural communities, in terms of how charging infrastructure is rolled out. It is a bit like mobile phone technology in regional areas, which is a critical issue for regional members in the federal coalition government. I would be stunned if it was not also an issue, as electric vehicle take-up becomes more apparent, for regional members.

The amount of $3.6 million has been allocated to electric vehicles smart charging trials. These will demonstrate how electric vehicles can support the grid and EV owners can benefit from supporting the grid and using up abundant renewable energy, including in home, work and public settings.

In relation to that, there has been a series of questions put to me in relation to whether or not anything within our rules or legislation prevents the notion that, at some time in the future—people are already talking about it—electric vehicles will be batteries on wheels. They will be part of a grid response, and how that is coordinated and how that is governed and managed will be critical as the cost of the currently very expensive technology comes down and retailers look at what their charging models will be as they adapt to the new environment. It is going to be important.

I place on the record the advice that I have received, which I have shared with others, that there is nothing in the electricity market rules which prohibits discharging from a vehicle to the grid; that is, this notion of electric vehicles being batteries on wheels and assisting the grid.

Customers can connect small generators, such as a battery, through a small embedded generator approval. Any vehicle that discharges to the grid through a bi-directional charger is considered a generator and the bi-directional charger must meet a number of standards to keep the grid safe.

In order to connect a small embedded generator, the infrastructure will need to be approved by the distribution network operator, which is South Australian Power Networks, as a meeting of standards is required to protect the grid. These are the same standards that apply to solar and battery installations; namely, AS/NZS 4777.2020 or equivalent standard. They would also need to adhere to export limits to protect the distribution network. In practice, this means that the bi-directional charging equipment has to meet the standard when it is installed, not the vehicle itself.

There are already pilot programs underway that are discharging power from car batteries to the grid. For example, the ACT government fleet is using a number of Nissan Leafs to discharge power to provide frequency control. Nissan are also undertaking a broader pilot of vehicle to grid with households. These occur within equivalent rules frameworks, as apply in South Australia, so what they are already doing in a pilot fashion in the ACT and the rules that allow that to occur are the same rules that we have in South Australia.

The main issues these pilots have had to face are the significant cost of the bi-directional charging infrastructure and the cost of building IT systems to manage power dispatch in line with market bids. Further work is underway on updating the relevant national standards to consider alternative forms of bi-directional charging. This is particularly relevant to individual companies, like ACE EV, which is an AC bi-directional charger, whilst the current standard is for DC to AC inverters.

There is a lot more information on that, which I have been able to share with people who are interested in this. I do not propose today to read all of that onto the public record, but that is a summary of the essential answer to the question: is there anything in the current rules which prevents this notion of the future of electric vehicles being batteries on wheels being an important part of our grid response? The answer to that unequivocably is no and I have outlined the reasons and the challenges that will be required in that particular area.

One of the speakers in this debate has raised the issue of fleet vehicles—I think it might have been the Hon. Mr Pangallo and I think the Hon. Mr Simms also raised the issue of fleet vehicles. We accept the fact that there is going to have to be leadership from government in relation to it. In South Australia's Electric Vehicle Action Plan, under Action Theme 2, let me summarise as follows:

We envisage that full electrification of the South Australian government’s passenger vehicle fleet will occur by 2030 or earlier.

I will not go through all of the summary there. There is a detailed summary of what the government is proposing. In the executive summary, we are already requiring:

…new government fleet vehicles to be plug-in electric models where they are fit-for-purpose, and cost effective on a total cost of ownership basis, or additional cost can be managed by improving utilisation of the vehicle fleet.

The second one is critical at this stage because what we are saying is if the whole of cost is still not cost competitive, and that will increasingly become more cost competitive as the initial cost comes down as we have been talking, what we have said to some departments and agencies is that if you actually reduce the number of vehicles in your fleet so your total cost even though your individual car cost might be slightly higher, then the government will allow and encourage that sort of response.

One of the issues that some agencies rightly are raising is this issue of charging infrastructure throughout the regions. There are significant issues, for example, for police, emergency services, and the like, in relation to charging infrastructure. I think in the initial period we have to accept that we are going to have to get charging infrastructure right throughout the state as a critical element to the maximum take-up of electric vehicles.

There are many other elements of the action plan for electric vehicles that the government has outlined. Again, it is publicly available. There are a number of attachments in relation to all of that area which indicate that the road user charge is merely one element of a coherent, overall government strategy which recognises that much, much more needs to be done both in relation to charging infrastructure, in relation to connection to the grid and through the homes, and in relation to all of those other issues, including fleet policy. All of those other issues are critical issues that are going to have to be addressed.

A couple of other issues: the government is pleased to support the amendment that the Hon. Mr Pangallo has raised, because there are many questions in relation to this, and they are not going to all be resolved by one committee in a 12-month sitting period. I would envisage this committee in future parliaments having a continuing role. As we see the initial stages, we will be able to look at what is occurring in Victoria because they have had the first mover advantage, but New South Wales and South Australia, and maybe one other jurisdiction, are likely to have start-up dates of 2027.

For the first three or four years, the work of this committee will be looking at global influences, will be looking at what we can learn from Victoria, and making recommendations. There will be many other issues raised in these discussions. The Hon. Mr Pangallo referred to the Mitsubishi view of maybe a lower charge for the hybrids. Again, that is not a position the government can support, but this committee will be fully able to consider those sorts of alternative models.

I think the government has two arguments: one is that everyone agrees that the greatest degree of national consistency we can have, the better it is likely to be; and 2¢ and 2½¢ is what the two biggest jurisdictions in the nation have implemented. I have to say two or three of the fiercest opponents of the road user charge in South Australia have said to me privately—and I will not indicate who they were—that, whilst they oppose it, if it is going to be imposed then it should be as consistent as possible with New South Wales and Victoria. Indeed, that is the government's view as well.

The second reason, also, in my view—although the committee can look at this particular issue—is that I think we are hellbent on getting to fully electric vehicles, and providing an encouragement for a halfway house or a three-quarter way house of hybrid vehicles is not where it is going to head. If you have national governments, like the UK and others, potentially bringing in bans on what vehicles can be manufactured or not, then I suspect where we are going to head is 100 per cent electric vehicles or, indeed, potentially hydrogen vehicles in the future as well.

Another issue that has been raised, which, again, this committee can look at, is whether or not particular concessions for concession card holders or Centrelink beneficiaries might be accommodated in some innovative way. They are suggestions for this committee, together with the broader issues in relation to EV take-up and the charging infrastructure, which I think ought to be a critical role for this committee, in particular the rollout of charging infrastructure in regional areas. The main highways, clearly, will be the first port of call where it is going to be required. So this committee, to be established not more than12 months after the assent of the bill, should cover all of these areas.

The terms of reference that have been drafted by Mr Pangallo are so broad that any issue the committee decided that it wanted to do, for whatever period it wanted to do it, they would be able to address. I did indicate in my discussions with the Hon. Mr Pangallo that there was one particular committee of the Legislative Council which endured, I think, for up to eight years. It survived one or two election periods. So there is nothing that prevents this Legislative Council or this parliament from continuing with the ongoing operation of the committee, if it sees fit, in relation to the electric vehicle industry.

One other issue that was raised with me was the issue about industry and employment commitments in relation to encouraging job opportunities within the electric vehicle industry. What I place on the public record is that in this year's budget the government announced a $200 million funding allocation over four years into what we call the Jobs and Economic Growth Fund. This particular fund provides funding required to meet industry employment commitments in a whole variety of growth industry sectors.

For example, the government is going to commit a significant level of funding out of the $200 million—not the majority but a significant element—to support the establishment, potentially, of a hydrogen industry hydrogen hub at Port Bonython. We are out at an expression of interest at the moment, and we have a significant number of national and international players who expressed interest in that. The governments—both state and federal—together with the private sector, if this proceeds to reality, are all likely to put in significant elements of funding. The federal government has a hydrogen hub funding stream. Most of the companies that are interested in this have access to significant funding or funding partners, and the state government is prepared to make its contribution.

This fund is intended to help create jobs and grow state sectors, and renewable energy-related jobs are clearly a high priority. Emerging industry sectors which can deliver long-term sustainable job growth can be supported as well as sectors which might need support to adapt and transition to new technologies. While South Australia might not be able to compete with global players in car manufacturing—again, the committee could look at that—there will be many opportunities for growth prospects in the electric vehicle supply chain. The fund is available for these types of opportunities.

A significant component, when we had a car manufacturing industry in South Australia, was the component industry. As the manufacturers have moved on, there are still significant growth opportunities in the supply chain for global manufacture of car vehicles. There are industry sectors in that particular sector. If the electric vehicle industry moves down the same path, we will have the capacity because we do have the skill set base within our smaller and medium-size companies in South Australia to look at these particular areas as a potential growth sector.

There will have to be a sustainable case made but, as I said, that is what this Job and Economic Growth Fund is there for. If there is a sustainable case, if it makes sense to grow jobs within a particular industry sector, then it is able to do so. There are also other smaller pots of money, funds that are available, one of which is the regional development and infrastructure fund, which has $15 million per year, which really can only support a range of smaller projects. They are not all in this particular area—tourism projects and others are funded within regional communities—but there is nothing which prevents smaller projects, which might be consistent with that particular objective in mind, being considered as well.

Finally, let me come to a summary of what we have heard in terms of what the government requires. This comes from, for example, the RAA, which said to us, 'We are supportive of what you have announced. However, we believe, to encourage further take-up, you need to provide more generous incentives.' As I said, even those who were opposing it said the government should provide more generous incentives.

At this stage, our incentives were pitched at the level that the Victorian Labor government has implemented in Victoria. It is correct to say the New South Wales level of incentives is significantly greater than Victoria. What I place on the public record today on behalf of the government is that the government has heard the submissions from individual members but also stakeholders like the RAA and others in relation to the need for greater financial incentives for people to take up EVs in the short term, in the transition period.

The government is announcing today, should the bill be successful, a three-year motor registration fee exemption for all purchases of electric vehicles. The government will provide a three-year registration fee exemption for new battery electric vehicles. The exemption will be available for new battery electric vehicles purchased after the passage of the bill and up to 30 June 2025. Because it is a rolling three-year registration fee exemption, the benefits of that will be felt from now through to 2027 because if someone purchases a vehicle in June of 2025, they would still get a three-year motor reg fee exemption, which would therefore take you beyond that particular period.

The government is not capping that, so whatever the number of vehicles purchased between now and June 2025, that is an uncapped number of vehicles that will attract that, to use the parlance of the Hon. Mr Simms, 'free motor reg for electric vehicles', which he was calling for. I am sure he will be delighted that the government listened very closely to his submissions and the submissions, indeed, of one or two others in relation to this area.

As I said, the exemption will apply for three years from the date of purchase of the vehicle. For example, a new battery electric vehicle purchased on 1 July 2024 would receive the registration exception over the period 2024-25 to 2026-27. The exemption will be for new battery electric vehicles. It is not available for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Other charges—this is the motor reg charge—such as CTP, etc., are obviously still payable. This is on the motor reg component.

The administrative arrangements for the delivery of the registration exemption: we are working with Victoria in terms of their particular model. In the initial stages, as Victoria has done, we will implement this policy soon after the passage of this legislation as a rebate on the registration charges that may be provided initially while longer term administration arrangements are finalised. We are still working through how that will be done. We will need to work with the Department for Infrastructure and Transport offices.

The second, further incentive that the government announces today is that we had previously announced that the number of $3,000 subsidies available for the purchase of electric vehicles would be capped at the number of 6,000. That is actually higher than the pro rata, when one looks at what is available in New South Wales and Victoria, given the number of vehicles that are purchased in our state.

Given the submissions to which I have referred, the government is now going to increase that number of capped subsidies up to 7,000 back to electric vehicles purchased in South Australia following the passage of the bill. The price cap of $68,750 inclusive of GST will still apply to provide an incentive to bring lower price electric vehicles to the market and avoid subsidising expensive electric vehicles.

The subsidy gain will not be available for plug-in hybrid vehicles, consistent with the arrangements in all the other jurisdictions. Subsidies will be limited initially to one per individual person residing in South Australia and two per business located in South Australia. The vehicles will be required to be registered in South Australia.

Subsidies will be initially provided as a rebate after a vehicle is purchased. Options to deliver subsidies through a different mechanism at the point of sale or similar will be explored. Again, in that area we are looking to work with the Victorian government as to what particular model they might utilise, with the exact type of subsidy that they are already providing. They are doing it, we are told, at this stage as a rebate after the vehicle is purchased.

With that, we indicate that we have listened to the submissions from the RAA and, indeed, even those who have opposed the bill by saying we need to provide further incentives. I thank colleagues in this particular chamber for their willingness to engage in discussions over the last weeks and months in relation to this particular issue. Their willingness to sit down and discuss solutions is warmly accepted and acknowledged by the government. With that, I urge support for the bill.

Ayes 11

Noes 10

Majority 1

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1 passed.

Clause 2.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Pangallo–2]—

Page 2, after line 6—Insert:

(a1) Subject to this section, this Act comes into operation on the day on which it is assented to by the Governor.

This is an amendment that essentially allows for a change to allow the setting up of the select committee to operate within a year after assent of this act is granted.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): If I can clarify, the Hon. Mr Pangallo, we are referring to amendment No. 1 [Pangallo-2] and that refers to the commencement of the bill. It is part of the package.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: If I can just speak in support of this, our advice from parliamentary counsel is the Hon. Mr Pangallo's three amendments are consequential upon each other. They are part and parcel of what was discussed at length in the second reading—that is, the joint committee—so I would propose that we speak to the package of amendments. This is the first amendment, and we are either for or against the establishment of the joint committee with the broad terms of reference that are there. Certainly, from my viewpoint, I propose to speak generally.

I will not repeat what I have said about this particular issue in the second reading, other than to say it certainly makes sense to continue to monitor the developments within electric vehicle take-up not only nationally but internationally. A number of members from different perspectives have highlighted bits and pieces from around the world in terms of government policy. Inevitably, it is going to move and move quickly in relation to it, and having a committee of the parliament with the responsibility of considering these particular issues would make great sense, in my view. For those reasons, the government is supporting the amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I have a very serious question about this. How does this parliament intend to ensure that it can bind another parliament to an action of the Legislative Council? I thought that was not possible and not constitutional.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The parliament is sovereign. The parliament can pass legislation which is the law of the land. We establish parliamentary committees which survive beyond a particular parliament. Some survive many decades. If the parliament passes amendments to legislation, such as the Parliamentary Committees Act or the various other acts that have established ongoing committees, the parliament can pass the legislation.

Certainly, from the government's viewpoint, there is no issue in relation to seeking the support of the parliament. Ultimately, if the parliament does not want to support an ongoing committee looking at this particular issue then the parliament is entitled to express that view, but certainly from the government's viewpoint we are supportive of having an ongoing committee that looks at these particular issues.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Can the Treasurer or the mover of the amendment please outline where this changes the Parliamentary Committees Act or where it has any provision that would require a future parliament to take this action of the Legislative Council being required to appoint a select committee? This Legislative Council of this parliament can appoint a select committee. We can do it here and now. We can do it without a dodgy deal. We can do it into something that would actually look at the impact of this legislation.

This particular select committee does not anticipate looking at the impact of this legislation; it simply looks at the issues of electric vehicles. But my understanding and my advice previously from previous clerks is that this parliament cannot bind a future parliament to set up a select committee of that parliament or of that Legislative Council.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: This does not seek to amend the Parliamentary Committees Act. It is amending this particular act that is here before us, in relation to the decisions. Ultimately, this parliament can choose to pass this legislation. If a future house decided to take an issue in relation to the establishment of—I cannot imagine why they would—a committee, then I assume that would be an issue for the house of parliament in the future to adopt. There is nothing that prevents, in the advice that we have received, this parliament being able to pass legislation in this particular form.

The honourable member is raising the issue that if a house refuses to establish the committee, then what is the issue? Ultimately, that would be an issue for either or both houses of parliament in the future in relation to what particular position they might establish. I cannot imagine why they would, but if either house, or both houses of parliament, wanted to take that particular point of view that would be an issue ultimately, as the member says, for the houses of parliament.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: My question is to the mover. Does he understand that by moving this he is actually getting a commitment to do something that cannot be guaranteed and that a future parliament could decide to do of their own volition, regardless of what happens with this vote on the electric vehicle levy? Does he trust this government, given we are still waiting for the online gambling joint house committee to commence? That was part of the pokies legislation deal over two years ago—and in the same parliament, not a different parliament.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: First, I object to the inference that it is a dodgy deal. It is not a dodgy deal at all. The concern that we had—myself and the Hon. John Darley—was that there needed to be a mechanism whereby the parliament could then look at the evolving electric car industry and the other implications that could eventuate, any unforeseen circumstances and perhaps look at other matters that are related to that industry.

We wanted to have a parliamentary committee able do that before the tax comes into effect in 2027, and look at ways of improving and adding to any electric vehicle policies that emerge over a period of time. It may be that the select committee could even look at the tax again and make recommendations to the parliament, so it is not a dodgy deal at all. We also did not get any adverse advice from the drafters when this was put together.

In terms of trust, it is not so much trusting this government. I hope they trust the will of the chamber that next year, should this pass, the select committee will be able to be established, and I am sure it will be. It is not a call about a matter of trust. We decide that this goes into the legislation, this is what will happen next year.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I will just place on the record my concerns that this select committee deal that the crossbenchers, the Hon. John Darley and the Hon. Frank Pangallo in particular, seem to have arranged with the Marshall government, members of this parliament and this council in this session does not transfer to bind any future Legislative Council to vote any particular way. I am saying it is a dodgy deal not because you have been dodgy but because it cannot hold, and personally I would not trust them to hold it.

You have not been offered a standing committee referral. You have not been given something that can absolutely transcend from this parliament beyond the election to the next. We may have a new government, we may have the same government faces, we certainly will have a new member of the Liberal Party in the place of the current leader of the Liberal Party in this place, because he is retiring, so the person you have done this deal with will not be here. The parliament will be configured differently, and it will have to go to a vote anyway. We will have to have this debate again, so getting this deal is not even worth the paper that it is printed on here today, is all I am pointing out to you. That is why this is a dodgy deal. A dopey deal, is what it is.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Pangallo–2]—

Page 2, line 7 [clause 2(1)]—Delete ‘This Act comes’ and substitute ‘Part 2 and Schedule 1 come’

As indicated, this amendment is consequential.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Greens will not be binding another parliament to do something because we know we do not have the power to do that, so I just put that on the record at this point.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Remaining clauses (3 to 11) and schedule passed.

New schedule 2.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Pangallo–2]—

Page 7, after line 6—Insert:

Schedule 2—Review of Act

1—Review of Act by Select Committee

As soon as practicable after the day that is 1 year after the commencement of this Schedule, the Legislative Council is to appoint a Select Committee to consider longer term issues relating to the use of electric vehicles in the State (including infrastructure, training and the disposal of batteries and other electric vehicle components) and to recommend strategies to address these issues, in accordance with terms of reference determined by the Legislative Council.

This is the relevant section that calls for the Legislative Council to appoint the select committee within a year of the commencement of this schedule and to consider the long-term issues relating to the use of electric vehicles. I will not restate what I have already said about the role that this committee will take, except that it will certainly provide oversight over electric vehicle policy and also look at the evolving industry as such and address any issues that may well arise that have not been taken into account at the moment.

I take note of what the Treasurer said about the government's own Electric Vehicle Action Plan. Going through that, most of it is padding of press releases and some motherhood statements and whatever. It is not as comprehensive as perhaps it should have been or perhaps the report that was tabled by the Senate in 2019.

The intention of having this select committee next year is to look at the electric vehicle industry and associated industries and any impacts that could arise as a result of issues that may be unforeseen and also whether we need to look at other incentives to try to stimulate sales and take-up and other problems that may arise in other industries—for instance, the heavy freight industry and how they make the transition as the country moves towards zero emissions in 2050. So there are many issues that this committee can look at, take up and also make recommendations for. As I said, there is no reason why that committee may not be able to even review this tax.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: The opposition voted against the bill at the second reading and I suspect there will be a vote at third reading and that the opposition will maintain its opposition to this new tax, but in terms of the amendments that have been moved I have a question that may be directed at you, sir, as the Chair and the Presiding Officer of the chamber at the moment. It was raised by the Hon. Tammy Franks before. Is legislation capable of binding what a parliament does in appointing a select committee? Does the effect of this necessarily mean that the next Legislative Council has to appoint a select committee and they do not have any say in it or is it the case that it will have to be a vote on the floor of the Legislative Council for that to be established?

My question is: does this, in fact, have any practical effect? Will it have to be a motion for the next Legislative Council to appoint it, regardless of what this says? Is this capable of actually appointing a committee? My follow-on question is: if legislation is capable of, effectively, directing the Legislative Council to appoint a committee, could legislation direct who is on that committee? Could you do that by legislation as well?

The CHAIR: My advice is that, while the Leader of the Opposition raises questions about how this would impact a future Legislative Council, the reality is that if this passes it is still in the hands of the Legislative Council to determine to have a motion to establish such a select committee. The establishment is pursuant to the act, but the actual way in which that committee is formed is pursuant to the standing orders of the Legislative Council.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Thank you, sir. I appreciate the guidance. So, in effect, it would still need to be a resolution of the council in the next—is it a joint committee?

The CHAIR: No, the committee is a select committee of the Legislative Council. Just to clarify that, it is suggested as a select committee of the Legislative Council, so it does not need the other house.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Thank you very much. That helps to clarify. So, in effect, this has no practical effect. Regardless of what this purports to say, it cannot establish a select committee in the next parliament. This is a suggestion or guidance at most.

The CHAIR: Except that, as I said, the establishment would be pursuant to this act but the actual way in which the committee was established would be pursuant to the standing orders of the Legislative Council.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: You would need a motion

The CHAIR: You would still need to have a motion.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The points that the Hon. Ms Franks and the Hon. Mr Maher have made are entirely accurate, that is, that ultimately this is saying there ought to be a committee which looks at all these things, and let's not go into that sort of thing. The process in the end would be, it being the Legislative Council, the opposition of the day (we in the government hope that it is you) and the crossbenchers would abide by that and so too would the government of the day. So if there was any concern about not proceeding with the commitment, the power in terms of the process of appointing the committee ultimately rests with a vote of the Legislative Council.

I cannot see in this particular issue why anybody, frankly, irrespective of which particular view you come from, would oppose a committee looking at a critical issue like this, but it is for others to make those particular judgements. I cannot contemplate, either now or at any time in the future, why anyone would be arguing against a committee which looks at what will be the ever-evolving challenges and issues of the establishment of an electric vehicle industry and all that is required to support it in the future.

If it were something that was hugely controversial in relation to a particular issue, one could imagine strongly differing views between members in this particular chamber, but on an issue like this where whatever your view is in relation to the establishment of the road user charge which, if the bill passes, is established, it is all the other issues together with this. The Hon. Mr Pangallo and the committee can look at the road user charge and make recommendations to the then government of the day in relation to the future, but it seems to be a no-brainer that there ought to be ongoing oversight of this particular industry, and that is all that is being suggested by the amendment from the honourable members. The government supports it.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Ms Franks has the call.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Thank you, Chair. It is a question to you in the same vein as that just posed by the Hon. Kyam Maher. Is there any enforceability of this provision by a future Legislative Council member?

The CHAIR: As I said earlier, there are two aspects to it. One, is that it would be part of the act but, secondly, the way in which it would be done, I think, is a little bit like the description that the Treasurer gave. It would be a member or members in the Legislative Council in the future who would act upon that by moving to establish such a select committee.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: So there is no enforceability?

The CHAIR: I think I made it clear: it would be in the act. However, it is still up to this house to effect such a thing. To clarify, being in the act does not mean that automatically there is a select committee of the Legislative Council. It would have to be a normal motion that we go through many times in every session.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Thank you, Chair. That clarifies it, and that is what I was seeking—that clarity.

New schedule inserted.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (12:46): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The council divided on the third reading:

Ayes 11

Noes 10

Majority 1

Third reading thus carried; bill passed.