Mapp Wayne: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Mapp Wayne: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4767] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (NZ National—North Shore) 
: 
 I want to take up a particular point that has been raised with me—that a tractor is not a motor vehicle. I was reading the purpose provision months ago and it said that this bill would protect the interests of consumers. Why does the Government not want to protect the interests of farmers? Do members know how much a tractor costs? Mr Carter tells me that a tractor costs half a million dollars—an amazingly huge sum of money. Yet we are more concerned about $2000 cars. This bill is huge. It has many parts hundreds of clauses many schedules to protect consumers of $2000 cars but no protection whatsoever for $500000 tractors. Tractor owners are just stuck with the Sale of Goods Act and the Fair Trading Act—which are pretty good Acts. 
This is what I think. National has a policy of supporting this bill. When I think about it why would we support a bill that cannot even support the farming community? They are consumers they spend hundreds of thousands of dollars but they do not get the sympathy the empathy or the legislation. This Government just washes them aside. [ 
Interruption 
] It does not care about the rural sector. Does this Government even know what it is doing? Does it have legislation that is consistent logical concise and protects the consumer? It seems to me that the honest purchaser of a tractor should be protected. 
The other thing that strikes me as rather odd is that the Government does not trust itself. Clause 5 states: “This Act binds the Crown.” Normally that is seen as a good thing—the law should cover the Crown. But in this instance it is based upon a presumption that the Crown is dishonest that it will try to con consumers that consumers need hundreds of pages of legislation to protect them from the voraciousness of the Crown. 
Sandra Goudie 
: They have given themselves an exemption. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: So the Government is covered and exempted all at once. It is unbelievable. Why would it do that? 
The underlying premise says that the public cannot trust the Crown; that when the Crown disposes of vehicles—through the Government stores board I guess—when it sells those gold limousines that those members all so desire the public is likely to be sold a pup. They will have hundreds of thousands of kilometres on the clock they will have been thrashed and the motors will be about to bust and the public will have to have recourse to all these provisions. 
The other thing is this. We have heard today that the Government has put in a sneaky Supplementary Order Paper to have annual fees for the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal. I have to ask the Minister of Finance who must be concerned about the Government finances whether it is the intention that the Government will each and every year pay fees to the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal. Alternatively will it be making a special allocation of tax funds to the tribunal? One of those things must be true and the Minister should be able to answer that. Why should we be punishing honest hard-working entrepreneurs and small-business people—men and women—with special fees but exempting the Crown? This just loads it all on to the customer even though the Crown is in this legislation at least potentially so dishonest that it would sell vehicles that are faulty to the public.