Power Simon: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Power Simon: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4781] 
SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 It gives me some pleasure to be speaking on Part 4. In particular late last night at about 20 to 12 I was raising questions relating to the issue of tampering with odometers. I raised the question in the Committee: if one was a banned person or a person who tampered with odometers—so what? What would happen under Part 2 to that person if those offences occurred? Part 4 contains some of those provisions that relate to enforcement. It is worth making the point that I personally do not think that this way of drafting legislation is satisfactory at all whereby there is an offending provision in one part of the bill and an enforcement provision further on. There is not even the actual penalty on conviction in the same part as the section that dealt with creating the offence. So in fact there are three sections that relate to the prohibition on tampering with odometers. 
Then one must go to clause 89 for the creation of the offence of tampering with the odometer but to find out what happens to an offender if it is an offence—before anybody who infringes those sections knows what the penalty is—one must go to clause 106. So first of all we are told in clause 13 that a person must not tamper with a vehicle’s odometer then we are told at clause 89 that it is an offence to tamper with an odometer—well what is the difference between being told one must not tamper with an odometer in clause 13 and being told in clause 89 that it is an offence to tamper with an odometer—but we do not even know what the penalty for tampering with an odometer is until we get to clause 106. 
I say that that type of drafting is sloppy at best. There should be one clause that states that it is an offence to tamper with an odometer and here is what happens if one offends that provision—one would be jailed or fined. It should all be in one tidy clause. Looking through this document during the course of last night and early this morning I have to say that it is pretty sloppy stuff in my view. 
Again I raise the point that has been raised by other members during the course of this debate: if this legislation is so necessary so tight and so well drafted why does it have a 2-year review clause in it? Why does it have a sunset clause? It is sloppy lawmaking. There are three different clauses all relating to the one offence and we have a review at the end of 2 years. I say that it is just not good enough for this Parliament to be producing legislation that is set out and configured in such a difficult way to follow. This Parliament should be about providing clear and concise laws for the people of New Zealand with the old “plain English” approach to legal interpretation. In this bill we have some sloppy work with three different clauses relating to one issue of interference with odometers and if we are not worried about that then we will just review the whole thing after 2 years! The Government should be thinking seriously about the processes being followed when that type of drafting is becoming the norm. 
Turning to a specific point in Part 4 I read that now the District Court is to consider whether a person is fit and proper to participate in a business of motor vehicle sales and I note at clause 65(2) that every application to a District Court must be by way of an originating application. That actually means one has to pay court filing fees and have supporting affidavits and originating applications. That will become a costly business. I would be interested in hearing from the Minister about whether the costs incurred by an originating application in a District Court differ from the current costs to gain a motor vehicle dealer’s licence if so by how much and what her estimate is for whether that is necessarily a good or bad thing. 
One further point has come to my attention on which I want to wind up my short contribution to Part 4: what happens to those cases currently before the fidelity fund? That is a very interesting question and I think it is worth asking the Minister— 
Peter Brown 
: There is a transitional— 
SIMON POWER 
: I am sure there is a transitional clause.