Accelerating the roll-out of public EV chargers
'The Government will therefore utilise the highly successful Ultra-Fast Broadband model to accelerate the roll-out of EV chargers.
'Under the status quo, the private sector are reluctant to invest in charging infrastructure until there's sufficient demand, but demand for charging won't grow until the purchase of EVs stops being hampered by a lack of public charging.'
Bishop said this 'chicken-and-egg' situation is hampering the roll-out and justifies government action.
Since 2016, government investment in EV chargers has consisted of direct grants, Bishop said.
'This made sense when the market for public EV charging was being established. This model is now outdated, with EVs now making up over 2% of the light vehicle fleet, and expected to make up around 11% by 2030.'
He said a range of charge point operators have now also entered the market.
'The Government is moving to a more sophisticated, commercial procurement model.
'We have set aside up to $68.5 million in currently held grant funding, to provide concessionary loans to private operators to co-invest in public EV charging infrastructure. Loans will be quicker to implement and will help achieve the Government's objectives with less complexity, cost and risk.
'Concessionary loans will bring forward private investment in public EV charging infrastructure by lowering the cost of capital. They will also provide better value for money by maximising private sector investment while keeping the taxpayers' contribution to a minimum.'
Bishop said loans will be awarded through contestable co-investment rounds, and applications will be open to proposals to establish portfolios of public EV charging sites (i.e. multiple charging locations).
'This is the best way to support scaled-up development and to maximise competitive tension between providers.
'Giving effect to commitments made on the National-Act coalition agreement, this competitive tension will help ensure public investment flows to proposals delivering the best value-for-money.
'A cost benefit analysis will also be applied at the point loan applications are assessed, with a successful applicant having demonstrated that the benefits to New Zealand of its project outweigh the costs.'
Watts said that EVs make a 'huge amount' of sense for New Zealand.
'With our bountiful renewable energy resources, EVs are a winner for New Zealand.
'Kiwis charging their EVs are essentially filling their cars with predominantly water, wind, and geothermal energy – rather than fossil fuels – due to our high level of renewable energy.
'There are real benefits to owning an EV. Not only does it support our economic and climate goals, but it also delivers long-term benefits to users by helping keep running costs low. This Government is focused on growing the economy so Kiwis can get ahead.
'By giving people more options to reduce everyday expenses like transport, we're helping households stay ahead and build a more sustainable future. By co-investing to accelerate public EV infrastructure ahead of demand, we will give more Kiwis the confidence to go electric.'
The new EV charging initiative will be administered by National Infrastructure Funding and Financing (NIFFCo), the successor organisation to Crown Infrastructure Partners (which delivered Ultra-Fast Broadband). EECA will provide assistance as required.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
26 minutes ago
- NZ Herald
What to do if you find yourself in financial hardship
Every single baby step helps when you're navigating financial hardship. Photo / 123RF THE FACTS When money's tight, it's easy to feel you're up against an insurmountable wall. Job losses, reduced hours, break-ups, business failures, and rising costs mean more Kiwis are under financial pressure. Every single baby step helps when you're navigating hardship. You don't have to solve everything today. Just start.
NZ Herald
4 hours ago
- NZ Herald
KiwiSaver hardship reveals hidden cost of this economic downturn
We had news last week that KiwiSaver members withdrew more than $470 million for hardship reasons in the past 12 months amid continuing economic stress. Inland Revenue figures showed $470.7m was taken out of KiwiSaver in the June financial year, up 56.6% from $300.5m over the prior period. Looking back through the figures, there has certainly been a big spike in withdrawals in the past two years, but they have been on the rise for several years. Since Covid, both the number of people withdrawing funds and the amount withdrawn have risen steadily. As a barometer of the general economic situation, that isn't great. But the bigger problem with these hardship withdrawals is that the ultimate cost is (quite literally) compounded through the years. More than $1.3 billion of KiwiSaver funds has been withdrawn for hardship reasons in the past five years. If we do some back-of-the-envelope calculations and assume this money could have earned around 7% returns for the next 20 years, then we get a figure of more than $5b that will be missing from the nation's pool of retirement funds by 2045. Given the current trend of withdrawals, I suspect this is a conservative estimate. I understand why we allow withdrawals for hardship. It doesn't make sense for people to lose their homes or to go hungry when they have thousands of dollars sitting in a KiwiSaver account, so I'm not advocating that we stop allowing the withdrawals. However, there is a hidden cost and the situation highlights just how crucial it is for the Government to put more focus on retirement savings. There is a lot more money coming out of the KiwiSaver scheme to fund people into their first homes. Since Covid hit, an average of about $1.2b a year has been withdrawn from KiwiSaver for first home purchases. A home is an asset at least, and home ownership is an important step on the path to financial independence. I suspect we just have to accept the first home buyer withdrawals as a feature of the KiwiSaver scheme. If young people are in the scheme from the start of their working life and have $10,000 or $20,000 to put towards a house deposit, they are probably ahead of where many in my generation were at the same age. But the reality is that as a nation, we're well behind on where we need to be with our retirement savings. According to Stats NZ projections, the percentage of the population aged 65+ will increase from roughly 16-17% in the early 2020s to about 19-20% by 2030. By 2050, around 24-26% of New Zealanders are expected to be 65+. The old-age dependency ratio (ratio of elderly to working-age population) is expected to nearly double between 2020 and 2050. Our annual superannuation bill already comes in at more than $20b, and Treasury has projected that to rise to about $45b by 2037. According to Budget 2025 data, New Zealand Superannuation costs $4352 per person per year, making it the third-largest area of government spending after welfare ($6181 per person) and health ($5804 per person). From the Treasury's long-term fiscal projections, spending on NZ Super is projected to grow from 4.3% of GDP in 2010 to 7.9% in 2060, an increase of 3.6 percentage points. It is also rising as a percentage of the Government's total tax revenue – from about 17% now, it is projected to rise above 21% by 2037. So we know we have a problem. It seems almost certain that the age of superannuation will have to be raised to 67 in the coming years – despite the current opposition of NZ First and Labour. Future governments will almost certainly come under more pressure to means-test. KiwiSaver, which currently has total funds of $122b, is one of our great hopes. But the total figure is flattering. There are more than three million KiwiSaver members so the average fund size is just $37,000. Hopefully, that will be skewed by a lot of young people who will see their savings grow dramatically in the next decades. That brings us back to the downside of withdrawing funds early for hardship, though. We need to be saving more, not less. Moves by the Government to lift the default contribution rate for both employees and employers to 4% from April 2028 were a step in the right direction. However, they pale in comparison to Australia's compulsory scheme, which requires 12% employer contributions. The scheme has the equivalent of $4.5 trillion invested, making Australia the fifth-largest holder of pension fund assets in the world, not per capita but in nominal terms. Australia, for the record, also allows people to withdraw funds for hardship, but one suspects fewer people there need to. If we want to make the most of the KiwiSaver scheme we have, we need to look more closely at who is withdrawing their money and why. Meanwhile, young Kiwis are voting with their feet and joining the Australian Superannuation scheme ... by virtue of moving to work there. Liam Dann is business editor-at-large for the New Zealand Herald. He is a senior writer and columnist, and also presents and produces videos and podcasts. He joined the Herald in 2003.
NZ Herald
4 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Heather du Plessis-Allan: We are being irrational about the price of butter
Unless you're into commercial scale baking, butter is not the thing putting the most pressure on household budgets. Try power. This winter power is costing the average household almost a block of butter every day. Or rates. That's costing the average Wellingtonian more than a block of butter every day. Those expenses have no alternatives. You have to pay them. With butter we at least have alternatives. If we don't like the price we can do a swap. I don't want to be Marie Antoinette but at least we have the option to switch to margarine. Not only have we abandoned logic, but also facts. Even the Finance Minister briefly took to complaining that butter is cheaper in Australia than in the very country that produces it. Except that's not true. At the time of writing, if you take Woolworths' salted butter, which is available both sides of the Tasman, adjust for currency and the fact the Australian Government does not charge their equivalent of GST on butter, we actually pay 30c less. Discounting butter domestically is impractical, as it would require subsidies, impacting farmers and shareholders. Actually, the price of butter is a good news story for New Zealand. Because if we're paying our farmers more, the world is paying our farmers more. And they're buying a lot more blocks of butter than we are. So that means they're paying a good chunk towards our tax take, our health, our roads, our schools. It's become slightly fashionable to suggest the solution is to discount butter domestically. That's a nutty idea. A discount is a subsidy. A subsidy has to be paid by someone. Who? Fonterra? The shareholders will probably object to that. Maybe, if this drama runs on long enough and there is enough reputational damage to Fonterra, it might be in the business' interest to cut the price to make the pain stop. That would not be a good day for farmers and shareholders. Miles Hurrell attributes the 46.5% rise in butter prices to global demand and supply issues. Photo / Alyse Wright The Government? Again, bonkers. If New Zealand is too broke to afford the full Dunedin hospital build, we're too broke to help commercial bakers afford their butter. The truth is there is no fix to the price of butter that isn't stupid or temporary. We simply have to pay the price that we pay. And the Finance Minister knows this. She knows this because she is a very clever woman. And because she worked for Fonterra for six years. Finance Minister Nicola Willis has turned butter into the cost-of-living symbol. Photo / Mark Mitchell So, she should never have turned butter into the cost-of-living symbol she has. This really started with her in April when she visited Costco and was taken by the fact it could sell butter for about half the price mainstream supermarkets were selling it for. It became her evidence that supermarkets were ripping us off. But then somehow, Fonterra got dragged into it and one of their regular ministerial briefings became a please-explain. And then the TV news was chasing the CEO Miles Hurrell around the forecourt of Parliament and going live to air while the meeting was under way. And there were expectations. And then nothing happened. And it has become yet another example of the Finance Minister, disappointingly, talking big but doing nothing. Just like with the retail banks. And just like with the supermarkets, so far. Spare a thought for Hurrell. The man is one of the most impressive Kiwi CEOs of his generation but had to spend his week cast as the villain of the butter story. There is no story. It's not even the biggest pressure on our weekly bills.
