Sowry Roger: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Sowry Roger: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4756] 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 As a transport spokesperson I am very concerned about this legislation. The title of this bill certainly does not now reflect what we have before the Committee. It is important to say that the National Party supports this legislation and along with interested groups has supported it right through the process. We worked with those groups and the Motor Vehicle Dealers Institute to make sure that we had legislation that was non-controversial and able to pass through Parliament with relative ease. 
I am disappointed that the Government has decided—for the second time with this bill—to debate it under the urgency motion because I do not think that is appropriate. What we have now is a bill that the Government has titled the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill which is the bill the industry has been consulted on and the title that everybody is comfortable with. We all know what we are talking about when we talk about the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill. The bill of this title was first referred to a select committee on 5 December 2001 and reported back in 2002 so it has had a long period of time in the House. Now we find that the title of this bill suddenly does not reflect what is in it. Suddenly the bill is changed. 
This is a large bill. Radio listeners cannot tell how big it is but I can tell them that the title of the bill— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No the member must not refer to radio listeners. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: For those people who are interested out there the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill covers 96 pages. Then a little wee amendment—about three or four pages—is put in— 
Steve Chadwick 
: It is a tidy bill. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: The member says it is a tidy amendment. Perhaps she will tell us whether she has consulted the motor vehicle dealers in Rotorua on the new levy that is being put into this bill—the so-called Motor Vehicle Sales Bill. The title does not reflect that this bill has new compliance costs and the member supports new compliance costs and new taxes. This bill is now an extra imposition on motor vehicle dealers and the people who sell cars. Instead of being the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill this bill should now be the “Motor Vehicle Sales and New Tax Bill”. Why would anyone take something as important as a new tax not put it in the main bill not have it as part of the submission process and then just sneak it in at the end but keep the title the same? That is so that Labour members can say that everyone supported the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill. They want to be able to say: “We had submissions on it. It was all OK.” But the real part of the bill—the sneaky little part of the bill—is not reflected in the title at all. We are very disappointed that under urgency the Government has decided to do that. We know— 
Steve Chadwick 
: Does the member not want a disputes tribunal for consumers? 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: The member interjects and asks whether we want a disputes tribunal in the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill. Of course we do. A disputes tribunal was in the bill and we voted for it. The Labour Party voted for it and that party did not put the tax provision into the bill in the select committee—so what changed? What changed between the Labour Party reporting back the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill and titling it that and going along to its caucus and deciding to put in this Supplementary Order Paper with the extra tax in it? Why was that done?[ 
Interruption 
] Well Helen Duncan says that was a clever cunning move. It’s as cunning as a—