Expert Insights: Q&A with FCAI chief executive Tony Weber
Australia's first federally mandated automotive emissions legislation, known as the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard (NVES), is now upon us.
The NVES officially began on January 1 and there's now less than a month to go before auto brands start accruing financial penalties for exceeding increasingly stringent CO2 limits determined by vehicle type from July 1.
Intended to reduce the CO2 emissions of Australia's new-vehicle market overall by incentivising the uptake of more efficient vehicles, the scheme will also award credits to automakers that sell zero- and low-emissions vehicles, creating somewhat of a carbon trading system for the local auto industry.
Hundreds of new car deals are available through CarExpert right now. Get the experts on your side and score a great deal.
Browse now
.
Needless to say this has caused significant friction in the industry, between brands that sell only electric vehicles (EVs) such as Tesla and Polestar, which are members of the Electric Vehicle Council (EVC), and brands that do not.
In this exclusive interview with the chief executive of the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries (FCAI), Tony Weber, the head of the organisation that represents most auto brands in Australia, outlines several problems with the NVES.
These include the potential for higher prices for some new vehicles, which the FCAI says could throttle sales, force owners to keep their existing vehicles for longer and slow the total emissions reduction of the 'carpark' of vehicles currently on our roads.
The NVES is a policy that aims to reduce emissions from Australia's light vehicle fleet by setting emissions targets for new vehicle sales.
Manufacturers that exceed the targets must pay penalties or adjust their model mix to meet future targets.
The FCAI has long advocated for an emissions reduction scheme that is ambitious in scope. The scheme must recognise current and projected consumer demand, as well as the unpredictable nature of future technological breakthroughs.
The NVES provides the impetus to supply low-emission vehicles to the Australian market. The great unknown is consumer demand for these products.
But the NVES, an extremely ambitious scheme, could result in a lower-than-anticipated uptake of low-emission technologies, which could encourage consumers to hold onto older vehicles for longer.
This could have the opposite effect of increasing emissions rather than achieving the policy objective of reducing emissions, while making new cars more expensive.
The NVES has already led to the withdrawal of certain internal combustion engine (ICE) models. At the same time, several new market entrants have entered the market in 2024 and 2025, lifting the number of EV models to more than 90.
We expect brands to continue reviewing their product lineups in light of NVES targets and consumer demand.
Brands will consider the most efficient mix of low-emissions technologies, including hybrid, plug-in hybrid (PHEV), and battery electric vehicle (EV) offerings.
Most important is the Australian consumer's ability to continue accessing the vehicle models and powertrains they want at prices they can afford.
It will be up to individual OEMs [automakers] to make decisions on how they manage the cost of compliance across their fleets. This includes adjusting their model mix, purchasing credits, or factoring in the risk of penalties.
Many consumers rely on vehicle segments that lack practical EV options and will hold onto their existing vehicles for longer. The large commercial vehicle, large SUV and small vehicle segments are examples where the range of pure battery-electric or plug-in hybrid versions is still limited.
The model was produced as an indication of the potential impact of the proposed NVES at that time in 2024. It assumed that if 2023 sales were replicated in 2025 and the out years under the proposed government scenario, there was the potential for significant penalties to apply.
Since that model was produced, legislation was changed and passed in May 2024. OEMs are responding to the NVES by increasing the number of zero- and low-emission vehicles in the market.
Given the current level of consumer demand for EVs and their limited availability in a number of vehicle segments, we are concerned about upward price pressures on vehicles as fines accrue under the NVES.
Price is just one element buyers consider when purchasing a vehicle. Buyers correctly examine the total cost of ownership (TCO) when buying a car. The TCO includes purchase price, fuel costs, insurance, maintenance and resale residuals.
As the scheme commences on July 1, 2025, the need for modelling will be offset by sales data, which will provide real-time information about the scheme, including the accrual of credits and fines.
EV ownership costs are predicated on several factors, including fuel costs, purchase price, residual value, insurance costs, and maintenance. Focusing solely on potential savings from fuel costs is misleading.
It's too early to predict how credit trading will impact the market, as the decisions of individual OEMs will ultimately drive it. However, given the current demand for EVs among consumers, it's unlikely that sufficient credits will be generated to offset the accumulated debits over the years of the scheme from 2025 to 2029.
While there's an increasing number of EV models available in Australia, several segments including large SUVs, LCVs and some small vehicles still have limited EV options.
Without suitable models, consumers may hold onto older vehicles longer, delaying overall emissions reductions.
A more balanced transition is necessary to allow technology to catch up, ideally incorporating all forms of zero and low-emission vehicle options.
Recent sales data indicate that consumers are increasingly turning to hybrid and plug-in hybrid vehicles as a transitional step toward full battery electric vehicles.
Still, these vehicles are unlikely to meet NVES targets after the initial stages of the scheme.
In general, the FCAI advocates a technology-neutral approach to transport sector decarbonisation, allowing the market to determine the most efficient and effective method of achieving the government's ambitious carbon dioxide reduction goals.
Emissions reduction targets should be approached by engaging all forms of emissions reduction technology. Based on prior analysis by our independent global expert, we expected EVs to account for around 11 per cent of new vehicle sales in 2024.
However, the actual result was around 7.0 per cent. Despite the increased availability of EVs, this level of EV penetration is not likely to meet the NVES targets.
Many Australians remain unconvinced about the suitability of EVs due to range limitations, charging concerns, and concerns about the total cost of ownership.
Australia's public charging network is underdeveloped, particularly in regional areas, creating range anxiety.
In general, EVs remain more expensive than ICE vehicles.
There are few options in key segments like utes, 4WDs and small vehicles.
There is pressure on residual values, which can be a significant concern for private and fleet buyers. This might be a positive for potential buyers of second-hand EVs but an issue for buyers of new cars, which in turn reduces the number of vehicles entering the Australian market.
Increased EV adoption will require significant [electricity grid] upgrades to ensure sustainability.
High interest rates and cost-of-living pressures limit consumer purchasing power.
Inconsistent federal and state policies create uncertainty for manufacturers.
MORE:
Australian Government set to make crucial change to emissions regulations
MORE:
EV brand urges Australian Government to 'stay the course' on new emissions rules
MORE:
Customers to wear the cost of new emissions laws
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
AU Financial Review
28 minutes ago
- AU Financial Review
Patent ‘trolls' come for Canva as it prepares for share sales
Canva is being targeted by a Canadian serial litigant alleging the Australian design software giant has stolen its patents for an artificial intelligence voice generator that is now integrated into its platform. Cedar Lane Technologies has made similar claims against hundreds of companies over the last five years including Amazon, Zoom and Huawei. Its lawyer, Isaac Rabicoff, has lodged separate patent claims against Canva in Texas on behalf of other companies over the last two months.
West Australian
an hour ago
- West Australian
Scott Morrison: Donald Trump's strikes on Iran a necessary measure to achieve peace, not war in Middle East
The recent strike by the United States on Iran's nuclear facilities marks a critical turning point in global security. It is not just a matter for the Middle East or for U.S. foreign policy. It is a test for all nations that rely on the strength and credibility of the international rules-based order and the western alliance for their security, Australia included. Let me be clear, this strike was not an act of provocation. It was a necessary measure, undertaken as a last resort by a President who wants peace, not war. The purpose was clear, to disrupt the capabilities of a brutal authoritarian regime that has openly defied international norms, supported terrorist proxies, and pursued nuclear weapons with increasing brazenness. In times of geopolitical crisis, clarity of purpose and principle is essential. That is why I was compelled to speak out following the U.S. operation. What we have seen instead from the Australian government is a concerning lack of clarity and a reluctance to define where Australia stands when it matters most. It is in times like this when allies look around to see who is with them. For a country like ours, deeply integrated into global economic and security networks, reliant on open trade routes and US led allied deterrence, strategic ambiguity is not a strength. It is a vulnerability. Throughout my time as Prime Minister, I took the view that Australia's interests are best served when we speak plainly and act decisively in defence of our values. That is why we stood firmly with our allies against China's economic coercion. It is why we invested in AUKUS, strengthening our sovereign defence capabilities and deepening our technological integration with the U.S. and UK. it is why we worked so closely with our Indo-Pacific partners through the Quad to uphold regional stability. It is why we stood with Israel against those who sought their annihilation. In this context, the U.S. strike on Iran's nuclear facilities must be understood for what it is: an act of strategic deterrence, grounded in the reality that Iran has long been operating outside the bounds of good faith diplomacy. It is what President Trump meant when he spoke of peace through strength. For years, Iran has methodically violated its obligations under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), enriching uranium well beyond civilian thresholds, restricting IAEA inspections, and hardening its facilities in preparation for exactly this kind of confrontation. Attempts to revive the nuclear deal have failed, not because the West abandoned diplomacy, but because Tehran refused to comply with the very terms it had previously accepted. The question facing policymakers in Washington and, indeed, in Canberra is not whether we prefer diplomacy over conflict. Of course we do. It is whether diplomacy alone can halt a regime that has no intention of negotiating in good faith. At a certain point, the cost of inaction outweighs the risk of confrontation. That is precisely where the United States found itself. Given Iran's refusal to cooperate with international monitors and its aggressive posture across the region, including arming Hezbollah, enabling Hamas to commit atrocities on innocent Israelis, supporting Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping, the Trump administration concluded that a targeted strike was the only viable option left. Only the US could have taken this step and President Trump should be commended for his courage and leadership, especially by allies. This was not a broad campaign. It was a calibrated operation aimed at degrading the most advanced elements of Iran's nuclear infrastructure specifically, targeting Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow. The objective was not regime change. It was to halt Iran's progression toward nuclear weapons capability and to send a clear message that the West's red lines still mean something. Yet here in Australia, the official response from the government has been muted. No strong statement of support for the United States. That silence is telling. It suggests a reluctance to confront difficult choices and to support our most important ally in the righteousness of the actions that have taken. I believe that such an approach is short-sighted and fundamentally misjudges the nature of the challenge we face. Australia cannot afford to be passive in moments like this. Our voice matters, not just because we are a U.S. ally, but because we are a middle power with global responsibilities. We sit at the intersection of East and West, of advanced democracies and rising developing powers. Our stance sends signals across the region, from Beijing to Moscow, Jakarta to Seoul. We must make the case for resistance against authoritarian arrogance. That doesn't mean we should follow Washington blindly. It means we must be clear, consistent and credible in how we support a global order that has protected our prosperity and security for generations. This is a time for strategic clarity, not importantly, we must ensure our own defences are fit for purpose. AUKUS is not a theoretical construct. It is a practical framework for dealing with the kinds of threats we are now seeing unfold. That means accelerating delivery timelines, investing in sovereign capabilities, and ensuring that deterrence in our own region is not eroded by distraction or delay. The world is entering a more dangerous phase. The era of risk aversion is over. Strategic competitors are testing our resolve, our alliances, and our willingness to act in defence of shared values. The choices we make now will define the kind of world our children inherit. We must choose clarity over confusion. Strength over silence. And principle over passivity. We must know who we stand with. That is the standard Australia has upheld in the past. And it is the standard we must uphold again now Scott Morrison was Australia's 30th Prime Minister.
Perth Now
an hour ago
- Perth Now
‘Liberation Day' drives Aussie investor exodus
Australian retail investors are ditching the United States and moving their money to 'stable' economies on the back of US President Donald Trump's 'Liberation Day.' New retail data from investing platform eToro, who asked 10,000 retail investors across 14 countries, including 1,000 from Australia showed a sharp trend away from America. According to eToro's data the downturn in enthusiasm for US markets reflects broader economic uncertainty, with 37 per cent of Aussie investors citing the global economy as the biggest threat to their investments – the highest figure recorded since Q2 2022. Inflation follows as the second biggest concern at 17 per cent. Instead of investing abroad, local investors are increasing their exposure to Australian markets. eToro managing director Robert Francis says investors are moving away from the US. Supplied Credit: Supplied eToro managing director Robert Francis told NewsWire a combination of US policies and high valuations have retail investors sceptical of investing in the world's largest market going forward. 'People are beginning to realise the US exceptionalism isn't what it was a year or two ago with the inauguration of Trump has meant a lot of uncertainty,' he said. Rayeiris Maduro Rondon, an investor based in Sydney after relocating from Venezuela told NewsWire it is her opinion that the days of the US exceptionalism has 'paused' as she shifts to Europe and China. 'I view this more as a period of recalibration rather than decline,' she said. 'Historically, when markets trade at elevated valuations for extended periods, investors begin to see high multiples as 'the normality' and price in unrealistic growth expectations. 'That's where the U.S. stands today.' While she still holds some US investments on a 'reasonable valuation,' she said there are better opportunities abroad. 'In Europe and Asia, I'm finding businesses with higher returns on capital and strong cash flows trading at deeply discounted valuations, making them far more attractive from a risk-adjusted perspective,' she said. Rayeiris told NewsWire US exceptionalism has been paused Credit: Supplied Alert not alarmed Australian investors are split on what the current market volatility means for them. eToro's survey data showed 35 per cent of Aussies are more vigilant about their portfolio while a further 28 per cent are feeling anxious. On the flipside, 24 per cent are actually hopeful or excited about the large market swings. This optimism extends to investing strategies, with over a quarter of Aussie retail investors seeing a decline of 10 per cent or less as an opportunity to buy the dip. eToro's market analyst Josh Gilbert said investors are alert but not all of them are alarmed. 'Many see recent market dips as buying opportunities, which signals a level of confidence in long-term market resilience, he said. 'The risk of being out of the market altogether is something savvy investors are acutely aware of. 'The recent rebound in global equities since April has reinforced that view, even in uncertain times.' The ASX slipped after Liberation Day. Photo: Gaye Gerard / NewsWire Credit: News Corp Australia It has been a volatile ride for investors since Mr Trump took office for global markets initially rallying before hitting a bear market on April 2, with the announcement of Liberation Day. The wide-ranging tariffs were touted as Liberation Day for the US, with Mr Trump arguing it would level out the playing field. In a list of countries, Australia was 21st with a 10 per cent tariff on all goods imported into the US. The ASX slumped 11.4 per cent in the five days following 'Liberation Day', while the US S & P 500 fell around 12 per cent while the Dow Jones dropped 11 per cent. In both the Australia and the US shares quickly recovered after Mr Trump announced a temporary pause on his tariff policies. Mr Francis said this was a dramatic turnaround in investor confidence with the market initially rallying when Mr Trump returned to office. 'The whole market was buoyant with Trump's inauguration,' he said. 'I mean, we all thought investors, market commentators, all thought that we were going to see a continued bullish trend in the market. 'But given what we're seeing now around trade conflicts, tariffs that are being implemented, this is kind of, where is this going to go? 'All of this means that there's a level of uncertainty right now that doesn't bring confidence in investing in the US'. Some still move to safe assets Commodities have also been a favourite of Australian investors as they look to protect their positions. According to eToro's results, fears mount over a weaker US dollar and persistent inflation, Aussie retail investors are repositioning their portfolios, with nearly half of respondents having adjusted allocations or planning to. Mr Gilbert said 60 per cent of respondents said they expect gold prices to increase in the next 6–12 months, which reinforces its traditional role as an inflation hedge. 'Interestingly, we've seen Bitcoin's growing status among younger investors as a similar hedge. 'Out of local retail investors who are adjusting their portfolios based on a weaker USD, 27 per cent of Gen Z respondents said they will buy more crypto, the highest out of all generations. Indeed, 52 per cent of local Gen Z investors already hold crypto.'
