Let’s dump the phrase “dumping ground”
It’s a slogan, not a standard. And it’s getting in the way of better policy.
“Dumping ground” has crept from a few submissions into officials’ summaries and then into political soundbites. It’s used as a warning: if New Zealand doesn’t tighten up, we’ll become the place other countries send their clangers and bangers. Nobody in our industry wants a low-quality fleet. VIA’s members make a living by doing the opposite—bringing in well-specced, well-maintained cars that lift what Kiwis drive. But the phrase itself is scaremongering. It isn’t defined in law, it isn’t a decision criterion, and it muddies the conversation.
What the record actually shows
In the material we’ve analysed, officials cite “dumping ground” as something submitters said; it is not a formal policy objective. Where Government makes decisions, the purposes are emissions and safety—not reputation management. When rhetoric starts driving settings, you get rules that are tighter than reasonable, without a clear link to real-world harm.
The standards are already strong
Let’s deal in facts.
-
Japan’s emission rules are stringent. For years they’ve been referenced internationally as high calibre, particularly on noxious pollutants.
-
NZ entry compliance is rigorous. Every used import is pulled apart at entry for structural condition, crash damage, corrosion and safety systems; it must sit within safe tolerances of manufacturer spec before being registered. That’s a higher bar than anything in-fleet vehicles face once they’re on the road.
-
CO₂ reality: The bulk of used imports from Japan—especially the hybrids and smaller petrol vehicles that dominate today’s mix—sit below the current NZ fleet average for CO₂ per km. Pretending these are “high-emitting leftovers” is simply untrue.
The result? A ten-year-old Japanese vehicle that clears NZ entry inspection is, in practice, very close to “as-new” on safety tolerances and often cleaner on CO₂ than what it replaces.
The fleet-turnover paradox
Here’s what people who say "dumping ground" are missing: if you over-tighten the import gate, you don’t magically improve the on-road fleet—you slow its renewal.
Shrink the supply of affordable, mid-life vehicles and families hang on to older cars for longer. Scrappage slows. Average fleet age rises. Emissions and safety outcomes stall. In other words, the quickest way to create our own “dumping ground” is to choke off quality used imports and force people to stretch an ageing car for another WOF cycle or two.
A steady pipeline of both new and mid-life used vehicles is how you refresh a small country’s fleet at scale and at price points real households can reach. That’s not theory; it’s how New Zealand lifted quality after deregulation.
The Squeeze
When the Euro 5 exhaust emissions setting was applied to used imports in 2024, the test requirements were inexplicably made stricter than they had been for new imports. This created a mismatch: for years, new vehicles could meet Euro 5 using baseline Japan 2005, but used imports now must match only the stricter D-code/Low Harm slice of Japan 2005, without any clear reason why tighter standards were needed. The tightening really seems to be focused on lab test formats, not actual emissions impact.
The Clean Car Standard penalties have also shrunk vehicle supply by pushing popular family-sized models out of the price range of average Kiwi families, making it harder for many to access practical, affordable vehicles.
Time to bin the slogan
“Dumping ground” is a lazy phrase. It doesn’t describe New Zealand’s import reality, and it’s been used to justify settings that risk making our fleet older, dirtier and less safe by throttling supply. We should retire the rhetoric and get back to first principles: evidence, parity, and a steady flow of good vehicles that help Kiwi families drive better for less.
Let’s dump the phrase—and lift the debate.
