Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13610] 
Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Amendments to principal Act 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
: 
 The Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill proposes to amend the Motor Vehicle Sales Act 2003 to improve its operation. The purpose of the Motor Vehicle Sales Act 2003 is to promote and protect the interests of consumers in relation to motor vehicle sales. This measure creates an environment in which consumers have the information and confidence they require in order to make informed decisions. 
A statutory review of the Motor Vehicle Sales Act in 2006 identified that its operation could be improved in a number of ways. The Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill introduces changes to the Act to improve its operation and ensure that consumers’ interests continue to be protected in relation to motor vehicle sales. This includes ensuring consumers have access to quality information that allows them to make informed purchasing decisions. The bill also removes compliance costs and red tape for motor vehicle traders private sellers and motor vehicle purchasers. The amendments are in three broad areas: disclosure requirements registration requirements and the operation of the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise and speak in support of the Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill and I start by acknowledging the new Minister of Consumer Affairs Mr Boscawen who is in the chair. It is good to see him here and I look forward to engaging in an interesting and robust debate with him over the next few hours on the issues in this bill. 
Labour supports this bill. It required review to ensure that it is operating effectively and that review identified a number of areas for change. Before I get into that let me start by saying we have a situation that is not different from what occurred a couple of weeks ago when the Minister of Consumer Affairs was an ACT Minister. Of course the previous Minister the honourable Heather Roy has steered this legislation through to date in this Government although much of the work was started by the previous Labour Government. We now have another ACT Minister of Consumer Affairs the Hon John Boscawen and I congratulate him on that appointment. 
Mr Boscawen is somebody of whom we do not know how he will take on his new role so we are looking forward to hearing his comments today. But it is fair to say that from this side of the Chamber we believe that an important part of a portfolio like consumer affairs is protection and that will often require us to have good solid protections in law and in regulation. Of course when we are discussing the Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill and the changes that it provides for certainly we want to see that remain the case. Our concern with ACT Ministers is that they can have a philosophical objection to concepts like regulation and legislation. But I hope that in this case we will be able to agree on more things than we disagree on. 
The main purpose of this bill is to make a number of compliance-related amendments to the Motor Vehicle Sales Act 2003. Of particular significance is the increase of the financial limit on the jurisdiction of the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal. I will talk more about the tribunal and its work but I will start in this first call—and I will be taking others I am sure—by acknowledging the work of the tribunal. Certainly consumer access to complaint processes is really important. Another significant factor is that they should be robust but easy to use. So this bill increases the jurisdiction of the tribunal which is a positive thing although it would be fair to say that most New Zealand consumers are probably not looking at vehicles in the range of $50000 to $100000. 
It is a good bill in that it makes some amendments to the current law. This bill was initiated under the previous Labour Government. Motor vehicle sales are very significant. New Zealand is a country that is highly reliant on roads and motor vehicles so getting this right is important. During the course of the work I undertook on the loan shark issue it was raised with me that for many many New Zealanders who cannot afford to buy their own home their motor vehicle becomes the most significant purchase they will make. So getting that process right and making sure they are protected and have redress with their problems as provided for by the disputes tribunal is very important. 
In South Auckland for example Otahuhu is an area where there are many motor vehicle sales yards. During the course of the work I was doing it became obvious to me that many people were being severely disadvantaged by the action of those motor vehicle salespeople and motor vehicle yards. It raised a particular point about enforcement of legislation because we have protections in law. We need to ensure that consumers are literate and know their rights that they are financially literate and know that they have recourse to action and that we enforce the provisions that are there. But some of the worst examples of high interest rates and extortionate levels of fees were ones that I found in relation to motor vehicle sales. So that is very relevant to this bill. 
Just looking at the specific purpose of the bill as has been said it is to promote and protect the interests of consumers in relation to motor vehicle sales. We are glad to see we are dealing with this bill. Whether it is the most urgent thing that requires urgency so it can be pushed through is another whole question but I will leave that to other colleagues to come back to. 
The specific provisions of the bill provide for seven main changes. There are provisions around processes to renew the annual registration of motor vehicle traders and that is partly about reducing compliance costs on traders. Let it be said that we have no problem with the idea of reducing compliance costs of businesses. There are some across the Chamber who often try to make out that this party is not business-friendly but that is not true. We are a party that likes to see balance and the interests of both consumers and businesses taken into account. Reducing compliance costs is not a bad thing. 
The bill also adds a requirement for providing information to the registrar when there are new directors or persons involved in the management of a registered company. It closes a loophole that prevents the automatic banning of traders whose registration has lapsed following conviction under the Act removes the requirement for a private seller to display a consumer information notice when selling through a car market and removes car market operators from the definition of motor vehicle traders. Essentially the argument is that they are just providing a space where that market takes place. The bill removes the requirement for transactions between traders or traders and wreckers to display a consumer information notice and as I have already mentioned it increases the financial limit on the jurisdiction of the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal from $50000 to $100000. 
The Motor Vehicle Sales Act is not one of the oldest Acts we have by quite some way. It came into force in December 2003 and it provides for the registration regime that we are now amending with this bill. It also provides for the information disclosure requirements and the establishment of the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal. The policy underpinning that which is still of course relevant is that there was a requirement for those trading motor vehicles to be registered a requirement for information disclosure concerning used motor vehicles and provision for consumer redress through the tribunal. 
When the bill was brought in in 2003 it required a review after 2 years. That review was completed and tabled in the House on 22 March 2006 and I guess it provides quite a lengthy background to this bill here in the Parliament today. 
Going back to the importance of motor vehicles which I will touch on again in later contributions I say that getting this right is important for New Zealanders who are struggling at the moment. In tough economic times making sure that consumer protection is strong and that people are not ripped off—or if they are that they have redress—is significant. People can ill afford to lose money in such tight economic times. This is why we support the Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill. I am sure colleagues will also be talking about that. 
Let me also flag that I want to look at this bill later on in a broader context of consumer legislation and at how the various proposals in this bill align with what we might consider to be a robust framework for consumer protection and information. I am sure that as a new Minister Mr Boscawen will be particular interested in hearing our point of view on what a framework for consumer affairs could look like. We have some pretty strong views on that. Those in the Chamber including the Hon John Boscawen know that we have a particular interest in protecting vulnerable consumers. 
I go back to my point about motor vehicle sales yard in Otahuhu in particular vulnerable consumers who are ripped off daily by motor vehicle sales people. I am sad to say that but it is the reality. A woman called Catriona MacLennan in Auckland a journalist and a lawyer who works in the community law sector will be able to evidence that for the new Minister. I think it will be very important for him to get that information. Thank you. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I am very pleased to follow on from my colleague Carol Beaumont and to pick up where she left off—that is to reinforce the view on this side of the Chamber that vulnerable consumers are those who require our protection. I also want to talk a little bit about regulation. 
I know I bang on about regulation and people get sick of the fact that I am really interested in it but the process that has been adopted is really good and I want to commend it. Carol Beaumont mentioned in her contribution that the Motor Vehicle Sales Act which was passed in 2003 had a 2-year review built into it. I quite like that concept. Sometimes 2 years is too soon; actually given how long it has taken for that 2-year review to turn into something practical—the Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill which is before the Committee today—maybe 2 years is a good time to get things cracking. That process enabled the new regulatory framework that had been put in place to be subject to the test of time and experience and the contribution of major—I was going to say “key” but I have stopped using that word—stakeholders. I shall identify the ones consulted: the Motor Trade Association the Independent Motor Vehicle Dealers Association the Motor Industry Association the New Zealand Automobile Association and Consumer New Zealand. That is not a full list but it shows us the degree of stakeholder engagement in a really good process of review. So I commend the process to Parliament and to the new Minister who has taken up the role of champion of consumers. I hope that is how he sees his role as Minister of Consumer Affairs; certainly that has been my experience from working with him on the Commerce Committee. He was probably a member of the select committee when the Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill came before us and he will recall the work we put into it. 
Another thing that I thought was useful was that the review process picked up a number of recommendations. I think there were a dozen in total many of which are picked up in this bill now. Post the review a discussion document was produced that set out the proposed amendments to the Act. It was released in March 2007 for discussion. Then there is a little gap in time; I know that a general election intervened and that may have had something to do with it but the bill was introduced into Parliament on 26 May last year and it came to the very efficient and excellent Commerce Committee which reported back on 14 December 2009. So I ask why we are dealing with it under urgency on a Thursday morning when the Commerce Committee would normally be undertaking its very important work. Instead we are in the Chamber sitting under urgency. The calendar on the wall says 24 August but I know that it is not really 24 August; it is 26 August. Under urgency in this place alone time stands still. We are still on Tuesday because that was when we entered urgency. 
I notice that the Government has used the expression “extended sitting hours” and I want to put on record that I am really supportive of the change of name from “urgency” to “extended sitting hours”. The use of the word “urgency” indicates that things are urgent but if this bill was urgent it would have been dealt with before Christmas last year. It is definitely not urgent. I support the idea of asking the Standing Orders Committee to change the Standing Orders so that the expression “urgency” would be used for what is generally referred to now as “extraordinary urgency” which is when the House has to immediately take a matter through all its stages. Usually it happens post Budget but there are other occasions as well—often when we find some fault with the law that we have to correct very quickly. Those sorts of cases are genuine urgency but I think extended sitting hours of House like this should be called extended sitting hours. I know that I am slipping away from the topic but I am allowed to refer to the context of the discussion we are having at 11 o’clock on a Tuesday morning— 
Hon Paula Bennett 
: Thursday. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: It is Thursday morning but the calendar on the wall says Tuesday morning. 
Grant Robertson 
: Forever Tuesday morning. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Forever Tuesday. That would make a really good song I reckon. 
I am diverting from the subject. Let me get back to the really serious issue which is that an excellent process was put in place to make sure that the Act would be capable of being refreshed after the experience of its operation. This bill essentially is an opportunity to refresh the Act. 
I think the degree of consultation that occurred—and I pay credit to the officials for that—is indicative of that process. The closing date for submissions was 20 August 2009. We received and considered eight submissions from interested groups and individuals and we heard two submissions. I pay credit to the Ministry of Consumer Affairs and the committee’s excellent advisers from that ministry for that and the reason I give credit to them is that if the bill had been controversial there would have been a lot more interest in it. The fact that they were able to do so much consultation prior to the arrival in Parliament of the Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill—see I got mention of it in there—is the reason why there was so little controversy or commentary about it. 
To deal with the specifics provisions of the bill which I am sure the Chair is really keen I get on to one of the issues that the committee managed to do is update the legislation so that it speaks to the modern environment—the electronic environment—that we all operate in. We have recommended that clause 7 be amended to make it clear that the Motor Vehicle Sales Act requires motor vehicle traders to display a consumer information notice when displaying or offering for sale a used motor vehicle physically or when displaying or offering for sale a used motor vehicle over the Internet when a contract to buy the motor vehicle can be entered into online. That is the critical point that I want to emphasise; it is not a question of having a consumer information notice on every single page where a car is offered for sale on TradeMe or whatever website people are using but when people can enter into a contract to buy online that information needs to be made available. That is really important. Consumers need to have access to that information before they enter into the transaction itself. The purpose of the change that we made to the bill was to distinguish between Internet advertisements that offer the ability to enter into a contract to buy the vehicle online and therefore should display a consumer information notice and Internet advertisements that are effectively the same as classified advertisements in local newspapers for which the provision of a consumer information notice would be an unnecessary and onerous requirement. That is a very sensible arrangement that we have entered into. 
I personally would not buy a car on the Internet. I have bought other things on TradeMe but I certainly have not bought a car. 
Chris Hipkins 
: What other things? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I think the Chair might rule me out of order if I started talking about the lenses for my lovely Canon SLR camera. We will not talk about photography being my favourite hobby outside this place either. The point I am making is that the purpose of the legislation is to have a regulatory framework that is fit for purpose and we have to take into account the new environments within which people make purchases. It took me a long time to feel that I could make a secure purchase on the Internet. I have now managed to do that with DVDs— 
Grant Robertson 
: DVDs? Don’t try to table them! 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I will not try to table one as an example just in case I am told it is not a document. The point is if the wording in our legislation does not match the changes in technology then it will simply not be able to achieve its purpose. I am very pleased with the changes that have been made to make the Act modern. The previous Labour Government introduced the original legislation. This Government has managed to update it and I pay tribute to it for doing that. 
I also acknowledge the previous Minister of Consumer Affairs who played a very important role. I compliment her on her presentations to the Commerce Committee. I thought she was excellent. I want to put that on the record and I think I can rightfully use a bill that she introduced to this House to do so. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I want to talk a bit about the comments made by my colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel about people’s purchasing habits online. Although she may not yet have made her first online car purchase many many New Zealanders have. I do not have the statistics to hand but many New Zealanders are purchasing motor vehicles camera lenses and other things online. There is a growing trend whereby people are buying and selling houses online and as my colleague Carol Beaumont mentioned today these are major purchases and major decisions in their lives. When people enter into a contract to buy or sell those sorts of items it is absolutely critical that purchasers in particular can trust the process and trust that they are not being duped. That is one of the reasons why this bill is very important. 
I thank all my colleagues on the Commerce Committee for their work on this bill. I also thank Heather Roy the previous Minister of Consumer Affairs for her work on the bill and her work generally in that portfolio area. I congratulate the Minister in the chair the Hon John Boscawen the incoming Minister of Consumer Affairs on his new role. I really look forward to hearing his pronouncements and what he has to say on this bill and on future issues concerning consumers. 
One of the most important things about this bill is that it is very much a common-sense measure and a step in the right direction. That is why Labour is supporting it. The bill makes some quite important amendments to current law. As members have heard the bill was initiated under the previous Labour Government. Given New Zealanders’ high proportion of vehicle ownership the bill will make a difference for many consumers as other speakers have said. Members on this side of the Chamber certainly care about consumers and any legislation that protects consumers is important. 
As my colleague Lianne Dalziel also mentioned Labour is perplexed as to why this bill has come up again under urgency. I think this is the third time I have spoken on this bill and every single time I have spoken on it the House has I think been in urgency. Although the bill is obviously tremendously urgent it seems to have taken quite a long time in between the bits of urgency for it to come back to the House. I am a bit perplexed as to how something can be so urgent yet have a big pause until the next bit. I have been scratching my head about that given the important issues out there at the moment in terms of the number of New Zealanders who are out of work and the fact that the economy is trying to move out of a very bumpy recession. I would have thought that an important priority of the Government would be to try to create jobs and get people back into work. However this urgent bill must somehow fit into a wider plan that maybe we are not aware of at the moment. 
I have been thinking about the last time I spoke on this bill and I think it is worthwhile mentioning a few points again given the quite lively discussion that followed. We know that many people are struggling to afford to run a car let alone considering selling one and buying another because of the rising costs they are facing as a result of the emissions trading scheme. I am sure the new Minister of Consumer Affairs the Hon John Boscawen will have a number of things to say about the fact that those costs are being put on to ordinary consumers that they are facing rises in GST and that many of them are losing jobs and struggling to find new ones. 
The last time I spoke on this bill I reflected on the importance of the decision to buy a new car. I reflected on my first decision to buy a car. That car was a 1948 Morris Ten. It was kind of blue with runner boards and those little indicators that flick out. It had a crank thing in it although I did not have to use it very often. The car’s name was Maurice and he was a great car. I had him for about a year and a half and then I sold him. He cost $125 to buy and I sold him about a year and a half later for $125 which I thought was a pretty good deal. 
I asked other members who were speaking on this bill to reflect on their first cars. We on this side of the Chamber have a good outlet through which to express our views and get our thoughts out there. I am referring to our blog Red Alert. I am sure that a few members have heard of it and might even read it. I mentioned this issue on Red Alert and there has been an extraordinary number of responses right across the House and out in the community. Some people got quite emotional when they recalled their first cars and the importance of that purchasing decision which brings me back to the Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill. Consumers need to be protected. 
Today I put the same question to the incoming Minister of Consumer Affairs the Hon John Boscawen. He might like to share with us some of his purchasing decisions about cars. I am sure we would all be really interested to know what his first car was. I think that the decisions people make about important purchases say a lot about them. It would be really interesting to know about other members’ first cars. I wonder what Tony Ryall’s first car was. I know that the Speaker Dr The Rt Hon Lockwood Smith takes a great interest in car-purchasing decisions as I am sure does the presiding officer at the moment Eric Roy. 
I come back to the Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill and its importance. The bill amends the Motor Vehicle Sales Act which was passed by the previous Labour Government in December 2003. The bill is important because it brings the provisions in that legislation into the 21st century. It makes those consumer protections more transparent and it makes sure that the new technologies that have emerged since then and are being used in the sales of vehicles are robust. It would be interesting to do a search on TradeMe to see whether there are any 1948 Morris Ten cars for sale. TradeMe is where many people these days are looking for and purchasing vehicles. 
The bill introduces a new registration regime for motor vehicle traders and it also makes them more accountable to consumers. It will also offer some degree of flexibility in terms of participation in the motor vehicle industry. We have heard that the policy that underpins this legislation has several core elements that ensure accountability. They include the requirement for those who trade vehicles to be registered more disclosure concerning used motor vehicles and the provision for consumer remedies through the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal. I know that my colleague Carol Beaumont has quite a lot of good thoughts on that. The bill increases the financial limit on the jurisdiction of the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal from $50000 to $100000 which is very important given that consumers have avenues for recourse when it comes to trading. It also intends to reduce the compliance costs. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I will begin by offering my congratulations to the Minister in the chair John Boscawen. I understand that this is a very significant day for him because it is the first day that he is sitting in the chair as a Minister presiding over a bill. I also believe although I have not checked it out that it is the first day he has spoken in the House when he has not mentioned the emissions trading scheme. I am sure that is still to come. I looked through the Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill and I could not work out where he might be able to fit it in. We might get through a whole bill where we hear from Mr Boscawen but we do not hear about the emissions trading scheme. I appreciate that this is a very significant day for him. 
I also acknowledge the previous Minister of Consumer Affairs Heather Roy. I am sure that she presided over this legislation very conscientiously and very thoroughly during the time that she was a Minister as she was well known for doing. 
I want to talk primarily about the consumer information notices that are required to be displayed in vehicles. I want to ask some questions either of the Minister or of one of the other members of the Commerce Committee. I have read through the bill I have gone back to the principal Act and I have read some of the information provided by the Ministry of Consumer Affairs—I know I am a bit of a geek. It is not particularly easy to follow the impact that this change will make. As I read it it is about reducing the compliance cost for people who are privately trading in motor vehicles. They will not have to display a consumer information notice as they would if they were registered car dealers. 
As I read the principal Act one of the primary pieces of information supplied in that consumer information notice is a statement that the vehicle is being sold without any finance conditions attached to it. I want to know either from the Minister or from someone else who is on the select committee what protections if any somebody who trades a vehicle privately has. It could well be that even if a consumer information notice had to be displayed as was required previously there was no protection in terms of the financing provisions for someone involved in a private vehicle transaction. Maybe someone could purchase a vehicle from somebody else in a private transaction and find that money was still owed on that vehicle by the seller and therefore the vehicle could be taken off the buyer. I understand from my reading the Act that if a vehicle is purchased from a registered motor vehicle dealer the dealer has to provide a statement saying there are no financing conditions and therefore any liability for any previous financing conditions would actually rest with the vehicle dealer rather than with the person who purchases the vehicle. But I want to receive clarification of where people lie in terms of a private transaction in motor vehicle dealing. 
I was quite surprised when I looked up the information required on a consumer information notice to find that the notice did not necessarily need to supply all of the information that I thought it would. I had always thought of a consumer information notice being a little thing that hangs in the window of the car when I go to a car dealer to buy a car and that therefore everything that was on that notice was required by the law. I understand now having read the information that that is not the case. Not all of the information supplied on the notice has to be supplied; it is supplied simply for ease of reference by motor vehicle dealers. Some clarification of that from the Minister would be quite useful. 
The reason I am particularly interested in the private transactions is that a significant amount of car trading happens over forums like TradeMe or through private vehicle sales and I think that will increasingly become the case. We are seeing it even in housing sales. People are increasingly trading their houses over the Internet through TradeMe without any involvement of real estate agents. Increasingly we will see more cars being traded without the involvement of car dealers. We need to make sure that we get this law really clear and that people are clear on their rights and obligations. That is quite important. 
While I was listening to Clare Curran speaking before me I reflected on the number of cars that I have owned. I have owned five cars. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: You’re not old enough! 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: I have owned five cars. My first car was a Mitsubishi Lancer which was older than I am. It was a 1977 Mitsubishi Lancer; I was born in 1978. I purchased that one privately. The next car that I owned was a Mitsubishi Starion. That was my favourite car. 
Grant Robertson 
: Are you sponsored by them? 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Not quite; just hang on a minute. That was also purchased through a private sale. The next car that I owned was a Nissan Terrano. I still own it; that car is good fun. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I’ve got to hear the end of this! 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: That is right; it is good—it is worth it. I purchased that car from a licensed motor vehicle dealer. The Nissan Terrano is the only car that I have ever purchased from a licensed motor vehicle dealer and I still own it. I then bought a big Ford Transit van for the last election campaign. I bought it from a private trader and that was a very unsuccessful transaction. The van had my face painted all over the side of it; the only problem was that it did not go. We had to tow it everywhere so it was not a particularly useful addition to my election campaign. That van went by the wayside not long after the election campaign. 
Jo Goodhew 
: A non-starter. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: It was a non-starter but I still won. I then traded that van down for a little Nissan S-Cargo which is one of those little bubble cars. It is down in the basement quite often; people will see it down there. The bigger van would not have fitted in the basement so it was a good trade because it means that I can drive it to work. That was also purchased through a private transaction. 
I am probably not atypical of somebody my age: I have owned five cars in the 15 years that I have been driving. I got my driver’s licence when I was 15—16 years actually; I just did the maths which has never been a strong point for me. Of the five cars that I have owned four have been purchased through private arrangements. So to some extent the removal of the consumer information notice would have an impact on me. I am willing to throw the comment out there—I have no absolutely no evidence for it but that is all right; I have not had much evidence for anything else that I have said today—that younger people are probably more likely to purchase motor vehicles in private transactions rather than through motor vehicle dealers. As we go through the debate on this bill I think we will see that the lower-value vehicles tend to be exchanged through private sales—through classified advertising like TradeMe or whatever means. People who go to a car yard will typically spend five grand or more. Those who buy a vehicle for 500 bucks will do so through a private sale and younger people are more likely to be in that category. This legislation is very important for them as they will maybe be purchasing their first cars. It is important that they are aware of all of their rights and obligations through that process. 
I hope the Minister of Consumer Affairs will be able to take a call and clear up what is probably quite a simple matter around these consumer information notices in terms of what they need to contain and where people are left in respect of previous financing arrangements when there is a private sale of a motor vehicle. Thank you very much. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I am pleased to be able to take a call on the Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill and I join with other colleagues in acknowledging the presence of the new Minister in the chair John Boscawen. I have been waiting for the Minister of Consumer Affairs to tell us what his first car was. Someone cruelly suggested that it was a “Lamington 3000”. I do not know whether that is true but it would be interesting to hear from the Minister on that. 
I also acknowledge my colleague in the Wellington central area Heather Roy the previous Minister of Consumer Affairs. I know that she as a Minister took that job particularly seriously including the area of motor vehicle sales where a lot of consumers make what is perhaps one of their larger purchases. I know that she took her responsibilities seriously and it is very good to see her back in the House today. 
I will focus my first contribution today on a couple of sections in this bill—in particular new section 40A to be inserted by clause 12 about the requirements for people to notify the registrar if a new person becomes involved in the management of a company that is selling motor vehicles. On reflection I think that is something the new Minister might be interested in in another part of his life because the requirement is in relation to a new person becoming concerned with the management of a company. The Minister himself has just recently become concerned about the management of an organisation and I am not sure whether he has notified all of the appropriate people about that. But if the Minister were a motor vehicle trader—actually in the bill it is extended to a licensed car wrecker and perhaps some people could suggest that Mr Boscawen has been involved in the wrecking and dismantling of something this week if not a motor vehicle—he would be interested that new section 40A requires that all people who are doing that give notification about their change of arrangements. 
The Chairperson will have to indulge me a little on this but it is relevant; the purchase of the second car I owned had some relevance to this new section. I purchased a particularly poorly running Nissan Sunny station wagon. That was about 20 years ago; I know that the Hon Judith Collins was somewhat alarmed to learn that she had been driving for 5 years longer than Mr Hipkins had been alive. That is probably alarming for all of us actually but particularly— 
Hon Judith Collins 
: Oh no—that was legally. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Oh right. So the member was legal when she was driving. That is excellent and important to know. I purchased my second car the Nissan Sunny station wagon from a used-car salesman in Invercargill. That probably should have been my first warning—that I was both in Invercargill and in the presence of a used-car salesman—not that I am making any reflection on Invercargill— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I just caution the member to be relevant to the bill. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Thank you very much Mr Chairperson. I was in Invercargill purchasing this car and it was purchased from the father of a friend of mine who was involved in the firm. Some time had elapsed and I had to drive from Dunedin to Invercargill with friends to purchase that car. But when I finally got around to purchasing it the ownership of the dealership had changed and my friend’s father was no longer involved. It would be fair to say that as I drove back from Invercargill to Dunedin—and the Chairperson may be familiar with the part of the road that I am talking about there; there are some quite good straight stretches as one leaves Invercargill—I noticed the car had a distinct wobble. I almost made it to Clinton which the Chairperson will know well before we discovered that the crossmember was completely rusted all the way through. That caused me a bit of drama but had new section 40A under clause 12 been in place at that time I would have at least been able to know there were some changes in the ownership of the company. I think that is important because as we all know used-car sales folk rank somewhere about where we do in terms of trustworthiness. In the last survey politicians were still beating used-car salespeople but prostitution had moved above us in terms of being a trusted profession. 
Chris Hipkins 
: It is legal. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: That is right; Mr Hipkins seems well informed on that subject. It is important now that we— 
Moana Mackey 
: He keeps a close eye on what’s legal and what’s not. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: —ha ha—have within this amendment legislation new obligations on people to register a change in ownership. As with all professions it is important that the motor vehicle sales industry improves its credibility and its performance. Cars are a very important part of people’s purchasing lives and anything we can do in this bill—and we are doing some good things in this bill to improve that—is great. New section 40A requires people to notify the registrar if a new person becomes concerned in the management of that company. 
Later on in clause 14 it is stated that it is an offence to fail to notify the registrar of a change and failure to comply with the provision will see the person banned from trading motor vehicles. That is a very strong punishment and a very good one because it means that it is an effective tool; people will want to register the changes if they want to carry on being motor vehicle salespeople. I believe that that is a very useful advance in this bill. 
I refer back to the process for renewing annual registration which is provided for in clause 9. Again this is a balance as in all consumer legislation between compliance and the rights and needs of the consumer. In respect of the process that Mr Boscawen will follow as he moves through his time as the Minister of Consumer Affairs in the next 18 months—sadly for him that time will end next year when the Government changes—I say that it is important that that balance is right. Here in this bill we are making certain new obligations for motor vehicle salespeople—in particular we are making sure that they register and that they notify any change in the ownership of a company—and there are now penalties in place for not doing that. I think that can be only good for the consumer. 
As earlier colleagues have mentioned a lot of people purchase cars—cars are required by most people in their daily lives—but a lot of the people who are purchasing cars are perhaps not familiar with all aspects of consumer law. Therefore we need tight protections in this area of consumer law. Someone like Mr Hipkins who purchased a car when he was about 12 years old by the sounds of it— 
Chris Hipkins 
: I was 15. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: —he was 15 years old so that was last year—was obviously somebody who like a lot of people would have been in need of greater consumer protection. Young people purchasing what for them is perhaps their major asset at that time need the improved and enhanced rules in relation to motor vehicle sales that we see in the bill in front of us today. 
There is within this bill the ability for the registrar to cancel the registrations of motor vehicle salespeople if the registrar is satisfied that their company is one that people should not be buying cars from. But as is good in any consumer legislation there is another stage in the legislation for motor vehicle salespeople themselves if they feel they have been hard done by. That route to redress in this bill is by the disputes tribunal; clearly it is important for that to be covered. I see that the committee in its process of working through the bill made some changes in that area. Perhaps a member of the committee or the Minister might like to clarify what those were. Essentially the disputes tribunal has jurisdiction over that matter and it is important that there is a place where any dispute on such matters can be resolved. As motor vehicle salespeople have a fairly bad name in the community it is possible that they would want the ability to be able to show to people that they had been unfairly dealt with. Clauses 16 and 17 go through and make clear where people will have to go if they are dealing with the disputes tribunal what the fines are and where the process will lead them. 
I think the bill in general and Part 1 in particular contain some very good things. I am pleased that Mr Boscawen is here. Most vehicles I know of have four wheels; five wheels is perhaps the preferred option for Mr Boscawen and his party although it was touch-and-go this week as to whether 4 wheels would be viable. But it seems that the spare wheel is back and hopefully will be able to be used frequently because I think most of us who have driven cars over a period of time know that the spare wheel can sometimes be the most important wheel on a car. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 Let me start by taking up the challenge that my colleagues have given the House. I say that my first vehicle was a baby-blue Mini with a fibreglass clubman front. 
Darien Fenton 
: Blue? 
CAROL BEAUMONT 
: I know I know; I was quite young at the time. I have to say that it was a very cute little car. I thought it suited me very well. I look forward to hearing what the honourable Minister John Boscawen’s car was when he gets up to speak. I acknowledged our new Minister in my previous contribution but I also acknowledge Heather Roy. It is great to see her back here. That is wonderful. 
I will talk specifically about the provisions in the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill about the disputes tribunal. My colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel went through a bit of the background on process. Although it is fair to say that this has taken quite a long time it has been a reasonably effective review process. The matters that were raised have been dealt with in this bill. I think it is a very good thing for this House that we have a robust process where we review things we get people’s input we then translate that into a bill and it comes before the House albeit perhaps somewhat slowly except for the final bit which is being forced through under urgency. That seems a little strange. 
I will talk specifically about the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal. There are changes in this bill to the jurisdiction of the tribunal and also around decisions being publicly available. The tribunal established by the Motor Vehicle Sales Act was brought into effect in December 2003. It can hear claims under the Consumer Guarantees Act the Fair Trading Act and the Sale of Goods Act. It can decide claims only when one party is a motor-vehicle trader and the other party is not. Currently it can decide claims of up to $50000. This bill amends that by increasing the jurisdiction to $100000. 
I took the time to have a look at what was suggested in the part of the process where the discussion document went out after the review. The review had 12 recommendations. There were two that I could see that related to the tribunal. One was the extension of the jurisdiction that I have just mentioned. The other was the publication of the decisions of the tribunal. Both of those recommendations have been picked up in this bill. I looked with interest at the annual report of the tribunal. I have to say that it looks like the tribunal is a fairly effective body. In the last year the tribunal reported to—the year ending June 2010—it had 266 applications. That number was up on the previous year. I am unclear whether that is because there are more difficulties or because of a greater understanding of the process. 
The tribunal reports that 93 percent of all applications heard had a decision issued within 2 months of the date of filing. Ninety-five percent of all applications were heard and a written decision given within 3 months of the date that the application was filed. That seems a reasonable process. What is interesting is that in its annual report it provides examples of cases that in the adjudicator’s opinion required special mention. They are quite interesting. The ones that were raised in the annual report of the Auckland tribunal talked about a car-fair trader. The purchaser was a young Spanish holidaymaker who went to the Auckland Carfair at Ellerslie Racecourse which is very close to the part of Auckland where I work the Maungakiekie electorate. 
The example was about the car that he purchased and the issues that went on as a result of that. The second example that the tribunal drew attention to was interesting as well. It was about a faulty transmission in a 6-year-old vehicle that had travelled only 34000 kilometres. As the daughter of a mechanic it does seem to me to be a bit out of order that such a thing would happen. That was the second case that the tribunal drew to attention to. The third case considered whether a problem was caused by contaminated diesel or a faulty fuel-injection system. 
I think that it is useful for tribunals like this to do that. I am not saying that just to fill up time. It is useful for tribunals to draw to our attention these sorts of cases so that consumers can be informed and that we can look for trends and so on. Interestingly enough in its annual report the tribunal made some recommendations for amendments to the Motor Vehicle Sales Act that the adjudicator thinks desirable on the experience of the tribunal. We are looking at amendments to the Motor Vehicle Sales Act in relation to the tribunal. I think this is an example of good practice: that we have a tribunal that is identifying where it finds issues that are worthy of further attention. I think that that is a very good process. In this document I have it makes recommendations which I would also like to make to amend the Act. It concerns section 94(1)(b). It is the provision that requires the tribunal for the purpose of protecting the public—which should be a fundamental part of consumer legislation—to direct the chief executive of the Ministry of Justice to publish a notice in the  
Gazette  
if the tribunal in determining an application decides against a motor vehicle trader. This section appears not to impose such requirements on the tribunal when it determines an application against a manufacturer—a manufacturer of a vehicle as opposed to a trader. 
In the last case that I told members about—on whether the problem was with contaminated diesel or a faulty fuel-injection system—the manufacturer was found to have breached the Consumer Guarantees Act. But because of the wording of section 94(1)(b) of the Motor Vehicle Sales Act the tribunal was unable to direct the publication of the manufacturer’s name in the  
Gazette 
. That may be considered a gap that the Minister of Consumer Affairs may wish to close by amendment. 
I was pleased to see that obviously ministry officials have briefed the Minister well. In a recent media comment Mr Boscawen referred to this very matter that was suggested about allowing the manufacturer’s details to be published as well as those of the trader. He has acknowledged the point raised by the tribunal and I think that is fantastic. This is based on the real world: here is the problem the problem is identified and the ministry picks up the issue. 
What interests me though a little I say to the honourable Minister is what it says and I would like the Minister to answer a question on it. It says: “ ‘These issues are being considered as part of the “One Law” 
review of consumer legislation currently being undertaken by the Ministry of Consumer Affairs’ Mr Boscawen said.” The One Law—One Door review—which I will talk more about later everybody will be pleased to know—is a consumer law reform discussion paper and submissions on it have closed. It is looking at the identification of updates and principle-based legislation and it is looking at seven pieces of legislation. It specifically does not include the Motor Vehicle Sales Act. I am aware that the tribunal deals with other Acts as I have just said dealing with consumer guarantees fair trading and the like but I worry a little bit because at the time of my loan sharks bill the then Minister Heather Roy said that some of the concerns we were raising around extortionate interest rates and irresponsible lending would also be covered by the One Law process. 
Again I think that that was a marginal call. It was convenient to be able to say that so that it looked as though the Government actually cared about this issue—an issue that is harming many in our community. In the area where I live and work it harms many people. There was evidence recently for those who saw the  
Campbell Live 
 programme about a young man looking for loans in Onehunga and Panmure who was offered all sorts of interest rates. But going back to the point at the time the Minister said that that issue was covered by the One Law review process. I hear now that the new Minister says that this issue around vehicle manufacturers as opposed to traders can also be covered by that. 
I am a little worried about what I call review creep. There is a bit of review creep going on here in terms of the consumer law reform process; any issue that is raised in terms of problems for consumer law is somehow we are told packaged up in this. When people take time to look at the document it certainly does not seem immediately clear how the issues of excessive interest rates in particular are a central point of it. They were marginal. There was a separate review of that process going on. In looking at in relation to the Motor Vehicle Sales Act I cannot necessarily see how the matter that the Minister has said would be dealt with will be dealt with. I urge the Minister to answer that question. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 I know Mr Chairperson had a range of speakers available so it is a pleasure to have been chosen amongst those options. 
Hon Member 
: A stellar field! 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: That is right. I add my congratulations to the Minister in the chair John Boscawen. It is fantastic to see one of the wider class of ’08 promoted to such a prestigious position. Minister Joyce jumped the gun on all of us and got straight into the Cabinet but I congratulate Mr Boscawen for the achievement of being the second in the class of ’08 to hold a ministerial warrant. It is also fantastic to see Heather Roy in the Chamber. I know that she was a passionate Minister and she was very keen on driving this legislation through the House. She also took her role as Associate Minister of Defence very seriously and as the Opposition’s associate defence spokesperson I enjoyed some of the exchanges we had and some of the opportunities we had to meet on some of the bases. I know that she was very well respected in the Territorial Force and in the wider forces for the role that she played. So it is great to see her here; she is not a spare wheel by any stretch of the imagination and certainly not a retread. It is great to see her in the Chamber. 
The Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill is good solid technical legislation that will make all New Zealanders better off. Probably everybody at some point in time has to purchase a vehicle whether it be a new vehicle or a second-hand vehicle through a licensed trader or just casually often through TradeMe these days. It is something that most people do so to know that the rules and the protections around that activity are being tightened up in this way will be important for everybody. Although it will probably sail under the radar I think that everybody will appreciate the changes. 
Members have been reflecting on their first vehicle purchase. Mine was a 1979 Honda Civic so the vehicle was a little younger than I am. Like Mr Hipkins I am rapidly approaching my 32nd birthday. I went for a vehicle slightly younger than I was but I have to say that I learnt a lot about doing bodywork on a vehicle with that car because it was an absolute rust magnet. How it managed to pass warrants of fitness each time I am not quite sure but I learnt a lot about how to deal with rust how to reattach the exhaust pipe and all that sort of thing just to make sure it passed the warrant of fitness test each time. If I had had to display any details about that car when I sold it I think I would have been in a bit of trouble. Nobody would have wanted to purchase it but that was probably right because it was not too flash by the time I got rid of it. I traded it in and I really hope that the person who took it off my hands crushed it immediately. It would have been quite easy to crush— 
Chris Hipkins 
: Judith Collins knows. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Judith Collins would have known how to do it. It would have been quite an easy job; there was not a heck of a lot of metal left in it. It was all bogged by the time I had finished with it. Then I was able to get something that was a little bit better. Clearly if the kinds of protections for consumers in this bill had been around when I got rid of that car I would have found it very difficult to sell in that environment. 
The bill amends the Motor Vehicle Sales Act 2003 which was designed to protect consumers in relation to motor vehicle sales. It is not the most stunning legislation and it will not make the headlines but people will find it important to know that they have those protections in place. The Commerce Committee noted that it was important to distinguish between Internet advertisements that offer the ability to enter into a contract to buy a vehicle i.e. a more formal purchasing contract and the online advertisements that are effectively classified advertisements of the TradeMe style which is so popular these days. That is a very important distinction to make. We support that distinction. We do not want to make a casual car sale too onerous with too many hoops for the person trying to sell a car. That is a good recommendation coming back from the select committee. 
I go back to the issue of crushing and the removal of the requirement for transactions between traders and wreckers to display a consumer information notice. Maybe that is what happened to my 1979 Honda Civic. The purpose here is to display information to consumers; it is not necessary for trader-to-trader or trader-to-wrecker transactions. Again this provision removes unnecessary compliance costs and makes life easier for traders working in this environment. It is really good to see that the bill increases the financial limit on the jurisdiction of the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal from $50000 to $100000. Again this is an area where I have a little experience— 
Moana Mackey 
: Aaron Gilmore? 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: I do not have the kind of experience that members might expect from Aaron Gilmore as I did not invent the process nor did I invent the car and I certainly did not lecture in the field but I say to Ms Mackey that I will come back to that. 
I have been on the receiving end of what I thought was a pretty dodgy transaction from a motor vehicle trader and we ended up in the disputes tribunal. Luckily my dispute involved a figure small enough to go to the disputes tribunal. I know that there are plenty of people who would prefer to take that option rather than the more formal and complex option of going through the courts to resolve a dispute that would easily fit into this $100000 realm so it is great to see that extension. It will make things a lot easier for people who feel as though they have been hard done by. It means that both the trader and the consumer can get a reasonable outcome that determines where the responsibility lay. That is good news for both parties. 
This legislation is an improvement on the Motor Vehicle Sales Act 2003. The Act came into force in December 2003 and introduced a new regime for motor vehicle traders which served to make traders more accountable and offered more flexibility to participate in the industry. New information disclosure requirements for used motor vehicles were introduced back then and the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal was established. It was good legislation that was introduced in response to the needs at the time and it is great to see this process which was started of course by a Labour Government finally progressing under this Government. It has taken a bit of time for the Government to get around to it but it is good to see it progressing now under urgency in a way that will see it concluded in due course. Perhaps it will not be long before we run out of Labour bills and— 
Moana Mackey 
: Then we’d have another Labour Government. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Yes by that stage there would probably be another Labour Government and good legislation that protects consumers’ rights will be back in play and progression on that work will be under way. This bill is good legislation and I think consumers around New Zealand will be very pleased to see it pass through the House. It has been a pleasure to speak on it. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am so pleased to see that Jo Goodhew is looking forward to my speech. Her expression of joy makes me want to speak for 10 minutes instead of 5. I did not realise how much National members wanted to hear from me. 
I was in my office listening to the debate on the Motor Vehicles Sales Amendment Bill and I felt I needed to come down to the Chamber for Minister’s Boscawen’s first piece of legislation. Like other members I congratulate the Minister on his appointment. But I was a little bit disappointed. When Mr Boscawen was on the backbench he was a lion on many issues and here he is the Minister of Consumer Affairs with his first piece of legislation. He has been released on the Chamber. He can say what he wants. He has the power in his hands. What does he do? Nothing. He has been muzzled. He has been curtailed. It is incredibly disappointing. 
This bill deals with motor vehicle sales. Motor vehicles produce emissions. Emissions cause climate change. Climate change has resulted in an emissions trading scheme. Mr Boscawen feels very strongly about the emissions trading scheme and about emissions that come from motor vehicles and this bill was an opportunity for the Minister to take a call. Finally he is in a position to do something about it but he has not. That is a bit disappointing but the Committee stage is not over yet so we do look forward to the Minister taking a call in that regard. 
This bill is another piece of legislation that started under the previous Labour Government as many other pieces of Government legislation have. I wonder when we will stop passing Labour legislation. But if we are going to have a National Government then I prefer it to be one that passes Labour legislation. So I will not complain about that too much. 
This bill is very important. Consumer protection is one of the critical roles of this Parliament and a vehicle purchase is one of the biggest purchases that New Zealand families will make. I am a case in point as to why we need consumer protection legislation. Everyone has been talking about their first cars. Mine was black and it did not have a cup holder and that is about all I can tell members about it. My current car is white and it does have a cup holder. Ergo by the very complex Moana Mackey vehicle-rating system my current car is better than my previous car. It has a cup holder and my previous car did not. I am one of those people who do not know what to look for. Mr Chair you do not need to regard me in such a disappointed fashion. I am being honest. I know nothing about cars except that they are useful and I have to have one and a cup holder is incredibly important to me personally. 
There are other people who may be too ashamed to admit that they did not know the bit of the car that Mr Robertson talked about—the bit that rusted through. I had never heard of it. I did not even know it existed until today. I thank Mr Gary Bates from Gary Bates LMVD in Gisborne who was incredibly helpful to me when I had to purchase a car. He explained to me that there were probably other functions and attributes of a car beyond the cup holder that I should probably be asking about. When he asked me what I wanted I said “My mother said it has to be white or silver because I drive a lot so visibility is important and it has to have a cup holder. And that is pretty much it.” So he went through the process with me and this is an example of why consumer protection law is very important. 
A car is a major purchase and many many people know nothing about vehicles or the questions they should be asking or the problems they should be looking out for. We know what happens in private sales. In our electorate offices we see people who have been burnt by these sales because they did not know the questions to ask—that protection is not in place. That is why it is so important for people to go through licensed dealers who can make sure that they are getting what they think they are getting and that they are getting value for money. 
I have to say that this is one of these bills that I feel if a Labour Government was passing it then we would be told that we were being too nanny State that too many rules were in place and that people should be able to buy a dog of car if they want to. We would be told it is their right as free individuals of this country that the free market will provide and the invisible hand of the market will make sure that that the car goes properly. That is not the reality and there are people out there who will take advantage of ignorance. People are very busy. The often do not have time to do all the things they should and look up all the things they need to know. They do not have time to make sure that they are prepared when they are buying something as important as a car and that is why it is important to have these protections in place. It is also very pleasing to see the role of the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal beefed up because tribunals are a much easier way of dealing with things. If we can keep things out of the courts as much as possible it is absolutely desirable—and I say happy birthday to Aaron Gilmore— 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 161 in the name of the Hon John Boscawen to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 agreed to.  
Schedule 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 161 in the name of the Hon John Boscawen to the schedule be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Schedule as amended agreed to. 
Clauses 1 to 3 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to stand again and speak on the Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill. I have thought about whether the title is a good title and I think it is a reasonably accurate reflection of what the bill contains. It is clearly a bill that is designed to amend the existing Motor Vehicle Sales Act and generally speaking the amendments although positive are not life-shattering or anything like that. They are all relatively small amendments so I do not think the bill warrants a grander title than the one it has—the Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill. 
As I said the changes are positive and they follow what has been a reasonable process. The changes are primarily around the renewal of annual registration for motor vehicle traders. There is a very good amendment that closes a loophole that prevented the automatic banning of traders whose registration has lapsed. That is positive. It is not huge in the grand scheme of life but it is a very positive change. There is the requirement in terms of the consumer information notice which we have discussed and which my colleague Mr Hipkins outlined so well. 
The legislation removes car market operators from the definition of motor vehicle trader. There is the removal of the requirement to display the consumer information notice for transactions between traders or between traders and wreckers and of course the bill increases the jurisdiction of the Motor Vehicles Disputes Tribunal and there is the ability for the tribunal to publicise its decisions. So there are a number of good solid amendments to the Act; probably the Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill as a title reflects pretty accurately what it is. 
There was a process around that bill which my colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel outlined. Of course the Motor Vehicle Sales Act was good legislation brought in by the previous Labour Government. It put in place things like the disputes tribunal and it required good solid consumer information and registration of motor vehicle traders. It was good legislation with pretty chunky requirements. As others have said motor vehicles are very important in New Zealand life and for many the most significant purchase they are likely to make. 
In the legislative process there was an automatic requirement of a 2-year review there was a discussion process and 12 areas were identified and they carried through into this bill mainly. As my colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel said the bill was considered by the Commerce Committee—a committee that she does an extremely good job of chairing; we are all very proud of the Hon Lianne Dalziel and the work that she does. She is extremely well qualified for that role with a very incisive mind and a good ability I think to deal with the issues. 
The process is reflective of what the Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill is called. I thought about whether we could call it something else that would be better than that. Although it is a very accurate reflection of both the process and what is contained in it and its relative importance it occurred to me that we could call this bill the “Not the Most Important Issue Facing the Country Today Bill”. I think that is a very important point. As we are debating this bill under urgency—a nice solid bill as we have all identified—out there people are struggling. They are struggling to make ends meet. Unemployment is at a very high level. There is no approach to bring greater jobs or skills into our economy. So calling the Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill the “Not the Most Important Issue Facing the Country Today Bill” would have been more accurate and reflective of what is going on in the wider community. As I say people are struggling to make ends meet. 
To link that issue to the motor vehicle area I noticed when my colleague Chris Hipkins a very fine member of Parliament gave his first reading speech he talked about the implications of the recession on the motor vehicle industry and the job losses in that particular industry. He noted that a survey carried out by the Motor Trade Association in January showed that over 200 people in the motor vehicle industry had lost their jobs. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 Thank you very much Mr Chairperson. Once again it is great to have your enthusiastic support for giving me the call. I will pick up where my colleague Carol Beaumont left off on some potential alternative titles for the Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill. Obviously that title is one option because the bill amends the Motor Vehicle Sales Act so that would be traditional. 
Moana Mackey 
: It’s not very original. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: It is not terribly creative and I think it is important that in this Committee we try to make sure that our laws are contemporary that they stay in touch with what is happening in the world and that they are relevant. 
One title that I considered was the “Motor Vehicle Sales (ACT Party Shuffling the Deckchairs on the  
Titanic 
) Bill”. That is one way of looking at it. Mr Boscawen has found himself in the chair and— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: How many knives could they melt down from a car to put into Heather Roy’s back? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Mr Mallard has a suggestion which is interesting coming from him as he has just re-entered the Chamber after having been out of it for some time. Mr Mallard might want to reflect further on that. The ACT Party has obviously reshuffled the deck and Mr Boscawen has found himself in the chair. He is obviously concerned about consumers—it is in the name of the party—so he is concerned about those who buy and sell motor vehicles. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: ACT—consumers and taxpayers? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Yes that is right. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Surely you can do something— 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: No we will come back to that soon. But the “Motor Vehicle Sales (ACT Party Shuffling the Deckchairs on the  
Titanic 
) Bill” is one alternative title that we have thought of. 
I actually think Ms Beaumont was on to a particularly good point around alternative titles given that we are yet again here in urgency to debate the Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill which has been taken through most of its stages under urgency. Perhaps the “Motor Vehicle Sales (Go Stop Go Stop Go) Amendment Bill” might have been a more appropriate title because it is hard to understand why a bill that was brought in by the previous Labour Government and was wending its way through its processes—and that National occasionally believes is an urgent bill—occasionally merits the title of urgency and then stops for a long period of time. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Lada-Ferrari. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Yes perhaps it is going from being a Ferrari of a bill to a Lada of a bill; we are not getting much in between that from this Government. 
The Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill is the title that the Government has come up with. It is probably a fair enough title. Mr Boscawen has been strangely silent during the Committee stage of this debate; he made an early contribution although signs of life have been rare since then. But I hope that we will hear from him again in the further stages. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Heather Roy would have spoken on it. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Heather Roy has had a lot of references made to her in this Committee stage. She took the consumer affairs role seriously and I am sure she would have taken several calls in fact and answered Mr Hipkins’ very useful questions that were raised earlier in the Committee stage about the consumer information notices. I think on balance the Labour Party can support this title. We perhaps would have preferred something that was more creative. We could have injected other words into the title like “lamington” for instance—that is one potential word that could have found its way into the title—but I think on balance we will be able to support the title being the Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill. However we would obviously welcome a contribution from the Minister in the chair to this particular part of the debate. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 161 in the name of the Hon John Boscawen to clause 2 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
Clause 3 agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Third Reading 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. The bill introduces changes to the Motor Vehicle Sales Act to provide for its more effective operation and to ensure that consumers’ interests continue to be protected in relation to motor vehicle sales. It ensures that consumers have access to good information that allows them to make informed purchasing decisions. 
The Motor Vehicle Sales Act came into force in December 2003. It introduced a new registration regime for motor vehicle traders that served to make traders more accountable. It also offered more flexibility to participate in the industry introduced new information disclosure requirements for used motor vehicles and established the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal which offered consumers a forum in which complaints against traders could be heard. 
The bill is the result of a review of the operation of the Motor Vehicle Sales Act conducted by the Ministry of Consumer Affairs. I endorse the review of legislation 2 to 3 years after enactment. This allows assessment as to whether legislation is bedding in as intended and it provides for any operational problems to be addressed. 
I thank the members of the Commerce Committee for their consideration of this bill. I also thank those who made submissions on the bill to the select committee and throughout the initial review of the operation of the Motor Vehicle Sales Act. Many of the issues raised in those submissions have been addressed in this bill. I also thank the previous Minister of Consumer Affairs officials from the Ministry of Consumer Affairs and parliamentary counsel for their work on the bill. 
As an ACT Minister in the National-led Government I am pleased that this bill not only includes benefits for consumers who buy motor vehicles but also removes some compliance costs and red tape for motor vehicle traders private sellers of motor vehicles and motor vehicle buyers. The bill tidies up the processes related to motor vehicle trader registration renewal and the registration process for overseas directors. It removes the requirements for a consumer information notice if selling a car privately at a car market and also in sales made between motor vehicle traders and motor vehicle traders and wreckers. Car market operators those offering premises for an Internet site or for vehicle sales but not actually selling vehicles themselves will no longer be required to register as motor vehicle traders. 
A key function of the Motor Vehicle Sales Act is to protect consumer interests and I am pleased to highlight to the House that the bill raises the limit to which the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal may hear claims. It has been increased from $50000 to $100000. This will allow better access to the tribunal and will also future-proof the limit. The bill also includes some amendments to allow for the more efficient functioning of the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal and it provides for all decisions of the tribunal to be published which will provide more transparency and allow traders and consumers alike to learn how best to adjudicate disputes between themselves and resolve them. 
In terms of positive outcomes for both consumers and motor vehicle traders the success of the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal highlights how well these kinds of dispute resolution entities work in providing low-cost efficient and fair outcomes for all New Zealanders. I encourage consumers to take advantage of their existence if in a dispute about a motor vehicle and a trader. 
The changes I have outlined are designed to strengthen the operation of the Motor Vehicle Sales Act. They are designed to improve consumer outcomes when purchasing motor vehicles and to remove unnecessary regulatory requirements and the associated compliance costs. I commend this bill to the House. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 It is my pleasure as Labour’s consumer affairs spokesperson to speak on the third reading of the Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill. As Labour members have noted previously we support this bill. It has a number of very sensible amendments. It is not a bill that will set the world on fire or indeed a bill that it is necessary to deal with under urgency but it is a good solid piece of work. 
I want to talk first about why legislation in the consumer affairs area is important. This bill is part of our consumer legislation. Motor vehicles are significant items for many New Zealanders. For the many New Zealanders who can no longer afford to buy houses—and that is an increasing number of New Zealanders—a motor vehicle may well be the biggest single purchase they make. Consumer legislation on motor vehicle sales is important. The motor vehicle industry employs a number of people. We have seen many people in that industry lose their jobs as a result of the recession. In tough economic times New Zealanders are reliant on cars. In most places in New Zealand people are reliant on cars because they do not have an alternative; public transport is not the way in which people get to work. They require a car to get around to get to work to take the kids to school or whatever so a car is often not an optional purchase for New Zealanders. I think we would all accept that. Although some of us are probably more committed to changing that situation and having alternatives the reality is that buying a car is very significant. I just want to put this in context. 
The Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill deals with an issue that is important to us—that is the sale of motor vehicles. As has been outlined this legislation was brought in by the previous Labour Government. The Motor Vehicle Sales Act which was significant legislation came into effect in December 2003 and provided for some very important things. It provided for the registration of motor vehicle traders. Used-car salesmen are not seen as the most honest and reliable people in the world; I cannot remember whether politicians are ranked above or below them at the moment. There was a need to tighten up that industry and so another part of the legislation set up the disputes tribunal so that people had somewhere to go to deal with any disputes they might have. I have previously noted that the disputes tribunal seems to be working very effectively. It also legislated around the issue of consumer information—the sorts of things one might expect to know when one is purchasing a vehicle. 
That legislation was set up in December 2003 with a requirement that the Act be reviewed after 2 years in operation. I think that is important especially in an area like consumer law where things change. Even in 2003 who would have thought that the amount of buying and selling that takes place in the online trading area would be the case? The fact is that consumer law is an area that we need to review fairly regularly. That process led to a review and 12 areas in the Motor Vehicle Sales Act were identified as possibly needing amendment. A discussion document went out a number of people commented on it and that fed into a process whereby a bill was put before the House. That bill was introduced in May 2009—so it has not had a speedy track through the House since that time. The bill was referred to the Commerce Committee and I am pleased to note that my colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel is the chair of that committee and provides very good leadership in it. It was important that this bill went to that committee. It has had good thorough scrutiny and by all accounts it has had good assistance from officials. The bill was reported back in December 2009. The second reading occurred in June 2010. So after a slow start we are dealing with the Committee stage and the third reading under urgency. It is a little unclear to me what is so urgent about the Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill that warrants us being here in urgency to deal with it. That is not to say that the amendments are not useful and helpful amendments but it does seem a little strange given the pressing issues facing New Zealand at the moment—such as high unemployment lack of an economic plan and New Zealanders struggling to make ends meet—that we are dealing under urgency with what are effectively fairly minor changes to the Motor Vehicle Sales Act. 
Just what are those amendments? As has been outlined the amendments include changes to the process whereby motor vehicle traders renew their annual registration. This change was partly driven by a desire to reduce compliance costs on traders. One change that is really important and which should be valued by all of us is the closing of a loophole that prevents the automatic banning of traders whose registration has lapsed following conviction under this Act. That is important. It is what should happen and it has been fixed up by this bill. The bill also deals with a set of changes around consumer information notices primarily around the use of those notices in car markets. It essentially recognises the fact that people operating a car market are not by definition motor vehicle traders themselves. They provide a space where people buy and sell cars. It also removes the requirement for transactions between traders or traders and wreckers to display a consumer information notice. That is probably OK. We would expect that those people would be aware of their rights and aware of the information they need to decide on whether to purchase a motor vehicle. 
The third area is around the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal and the bill increases the financial limit for claims it hears from $50000 to $100000. I have already said that we think the disputes tribunal appears to work well that it is effective in its decision making that it is dealing with an increasing number of cases and that it draws to our attention matters that are of interest or indeed matters for further law change. So that is all positive. We have no issue with extending the financial limit for claims from $50000 to $100000 but it would be fair to say that this change will not affect most New Zealanders. Most New Zealanders are not in the market for a vehicle that is worth more than $50000; we have to accept that. In tough economic times people are holding on to their old vehicles and they are looking at downsizing often especially with fuel prices being what they are and little or no wage increases. That provision is not exactly something that will affect the majority of struggling New Zealanders but certainly Labour does not have a problem with it being in the bill. Again I say that it is not the key issue facing this Parliament at the moment. 
I want to put this bill into the context of consumer affairs generally. We could judge this bill in light of a framework. I mentioned previously to the new Minister of Consumer Affairs that we are looking at a framework around consumer affairs and I seek to meet him to discuss this. Firstly it would look at things like improving consumer knowledge and protection so we could say that to a degree this bill is part of that. Secondly it needs to take account of the needs of vulnerable consumers. I am not sure that this bill touches particularly on that area although the Motor Vehicle Sales Act is important because as I said cars are one of the biggest single items that consumers may purchase. The Government has failed to show much leadership in the area of vulnerable consumers. The fact that National and ACT MPs voted against the loan shark legislation not long ago shows a lack of interest in the interests of vulnerable consumers. I know that the Hon John Boscawen has a concern about vulnerable consumers and I will be seeing whether he wants to change tack on that issue. As for targeting exploitation I think we need to look at what we are doing in the area of the motor vehicle market at the bottom end if you like. I identified one part of Auckland where it is particularly an issue and that is Otahuhu. Again this bill in itself is not in that space but there is enforcement work particularly that could help. Updating consumer law is clearly part of our framework and we see this sits within the bill. It takes account of changed circumstances and that is important. Greater regulation is something we will probably debate as is increasing consumer awareness. I will end there. Thank you. 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I rise to take a short call on the Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill. Firstly I acknowledge the previous Minister of Consumer Affairs Heather Roy for the work that she did—not just in this portfolio of consumer affairs but also as Associate Minister of Defence and Associate Minister of Education. I know that she was a strong advocate for those portfolios. I also acknowledge my colleague and friend Mr Boscawen who has just left the Chamber for his work on this bill as a member of the Commerce Committee. He is now the Minister of Consumer Affairs and has moved the bill’s third reading. He is a hard-working MP and will be a very good addition to the ministry of this Government and future National Governments. 
I acknowledge the members of the Commerce Committee. I thought we worked well as a committee. The committee was well chaired of course. I also acknowledge the submitters who put forward the very few submissions that were heard orally and the officials for the work that they did in bringing this bill through the select committee process. 
The Minister has already alluded to the main components of the bill but I say this bill promotes and protects consumer interests. In the tough times that we have been through in the recession consumer protection legislation is particularly important and a number of speakers have alluded to that. The issue is about creating an environment of confidence and choice—choice in that consumers want to rely on the information produced by the vendors of motor vehicles and choice in that that they can make their decisions by relying on that information. 
This bill is about the reform of regulation. This National Government is cutting red tape reducing compliance costs and pushing through— 
Carol Beaumont 
: This was a Labour bill. 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: No this is actually a National bill which has been moved by an ACT member. The bill is about cutting red tape and the previous Labour Government had no idea about how to do that. One of the policy reform areas is to cut red tape in order to improve the long-term performance of the economy lift our living standards and create jobs. This bill is part of a series of reforms that we have brought to the House. It is being considered under urgency. National is a Government of action. This bill is part of that reform and I commend it to the House. Thank you. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak in the third reading of the Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill. This bill has had quite a long history in terms of its gestation and its traverse through the House and I want to comment on all of those points as we did in the Committee stage. First I want to again comment on the history of the bill and how we have arrived at this position today. I think it is important that we have very good regulatory processes in order to assess the operation of a regulatory framework after it has been in place for a certain period of time. The Motor Vehicle Sales Act 2003 which this bill amends had within it a review after 2 years. There are those who would consider a 2-year review as too short and there are those who would consider a 10-year review as too long. I am probably of the view that the 2-year review is too short. 
Although I think this process was robust in that it involved the review that had a number of recommendations coming out of it it then led to the development of a discussion paper that proposed amendments to the Motor Vehicle Sales Act. There were 18 submissions on the discussion paper and there was an open forum with industry and consumer representative organisations. It engaged with the major stakeholders that one would expect to see involved such as the Motor Trade Association the Independent Motor Vehicle Dealers Association the Motor Industry Association the New Zealand Automobile Association and Consumer New Zealand amongst many others. 
I think the importance of the process was that those particular major stakeholders were able to engage quite fully in the process. If it was a 2-year review after legislation that had come into force in 2003 the discussion document came out in 2007 and the legislation was introduced in 2009 I am starting to get a picture of things having probably moved on during the period. I personally think that 2 years is too short. Just for future reference—and we all learn as we go along in this particular role—I think that a review of this nature should have been 5 years unless there were circumstances that required the urgent attention of the Government that would bring it forward. 
We also need to consider truncating the process because I think we have doubled up here. There were 18 submissions on the discussion paper and at the Commerce Committee we received eight submissions on the bill and we heard two submissions. Again one of the concerns I have is that although it is a robust process and I again place on record our thanks to the Ministry of Consumer Affairs which gave us very good support when dealing with this bill it possibly could have been dealt with a lot sooner if we had managed to get the bill before the House a bit sooner than we did. Be that as it may we got the bill in front of the House last year in about May we reported it back from the select committee in December last year and now we are in urgency finishing off the final reading. It is actually— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I was a member of the select committee way back then. It was when Chris Carter was our education spokesperson I think. I sat on the committee. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: No I do not think so because it was my select committee and I do not think I have ever had the pleasure of having Trevor Mallard on my select committee. I kind of hope that— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It never happens? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: —it stays that way. Oh it is nothing personal. 
Hon Members 
: Poor Trevor! 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Well I do not think I could compete with that degree of testosterone but there we go! We were speaking on the Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill I say to Mr Mallard. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Right—wrong bill. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I thought we were speaking at cross purposes. 
The Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill was reported back to this House on 14 December last year but the bill was not read a second time until June this year. I went back and had a quick look at that second reading and it was dealt with under urgency as well. Now here we are completing the final stages of the bill under urgency. I made the point during the Committee stage that although the calendar on the wall says that it is 24 August it is in fact 26 August. Although time may have stood still as far as the urgency motion goes we are debating this bill now when our select committee should actually be meeting and dealing with other legislation. But here we are in the House dealing with this bill. If this really was a matter of urgency then it ought to have been dealt with some time sooner. 
The main issue that I focused on when we were in the Committee stage on this bill was the question of the display of a consumer information notice. I will comment on one of the submissions that we received in the select committee because I thought it was the most appropriate submission to refer to in respect of e-commerce and the advent of TradeMe into the car market as it were through online car market operators. According to the submission the theory of the current situation prior to this bill coming in is that each of the 175000 motor vehicle auctions on TradeMe in the past year would have had to include a consumer information notice and TradeMe provides advice to the sellers in the car listing process that they must do that. But as the submission said the reality was quite different. It said that the Commerce Commission had advised in 2006 that it would enforce this requirement only against motor vehicle traders and the Ministry of Consumer Affairs recommended in 2007 that the law be changed to remove this requirement on private sellers. I guess that in the meantime generally only motor vehicle traders have been displaying the consumer information notices. 
The point made in the submission—and I guess that this backs up the point that I was trying to make before about the time frame for review and action on those reviews—is that the amendment simply changes the law to catch up with the reality of what people are doing and with what everyone seems to agree makes sense. That is why when the previous speaker said that our Government did not address red tape and compliance costs I would make the point that I was the Minister who developed the model of the Regulatory Improvement Bill. Something like this does not need to be separate legislation. This could have been dealt with by way of making amendments under the Regulatory Improvement Bill. 
I think that one of the things we need to also contemplate as a Parliament is having a much more open approach towards an omnibus bill or generic legislation that is able to pick up a range of compliance-reducing initiatives that do not always get the priority of the department the Minister or the Leader of the House in terms of the process that will be adopted for ensuring that legislation can be updated in a timely fashion. The sequence of events that I have spelt out in terms of the timing of the review the discussion document getting it to a bill stage and getting priority in terms of the House means that something that was identified in 2006—according to this submission from TradeMe—is being fixed in 2010. That to me is the fundamental flaw we have in our parliamentary system. 
This bill has had to compete against changes to “three strikes” legislation and with other things that the Government might think are a priority but most New Zealanders do not. Bills have to compete on that basis. I would certainly recommend that we ensure these things are kept up to date with sensible review periods and also take an action approach to implementing those changes. I commend the bill to the House in its third reading. 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora koutou Mr Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to take a call on the Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill. It has been interesting to hear both during the earlier reading and the during the Committee stage earlier today the extent of the peculiar love-hate relationship we have with motor vehicles in this country. It is probably not unique to us but it is certainly a characteristic and it is another reason why this market needs to have some regulation on it and some attention paid to it. 
The lower end of the market has not been characterised by a high level of integrity I have to say. Clearly new car sellers franchise holders and for the most part secondhand-car dealers operate with some degree of integrity but there is a minority whose reputation probably equates to our reputation as politicians and it is not a particularly high level of trust that is shown by the public in that market. So it is important that we are seen to apply consumer protection provisions in this bill. 
Given the economic and apparently the cultural importance of motor vehicles in New Zealand I think it is probably unfortunate and a bit odd that this bill has languished for nearly 18 months since its first reading. I was interested in the comments made by the previous speaker Lianne Dalziel about the necessity of perhaps looking at a more regular review a more timely review of what is quite a significant market. 
The numbers are interesting. There are over 4 million vehicles currently registered in New Zealand. Looking at the population we see that that equals roughly one car each which puts us on the top tier certainly in terms of per capita ownership of vehicles. That number is also fairly stable. The number of new vehicles coming on the market more or less balances those that get trashed each year and it is interesting that we do seem to maintain this very very high level of vehicle ownership despite the fact that clearly vehicles are a liability. 
Vehicles are often perceived as being an asset but they are a liability to own and operate. New vehicle sales hit a peak in 2007—something like 100000 vehicles were newly registered in that year—and that figure dropped substantially during the recession down to a low last year of fewer than 70000-odd vehicles. But that figure is clearly on the way up. There is something like a 15 percent increase in new vehicle sales this year and something like a 43 percent increase in the sale of imported second-hand vehicles and again it reflects the need for some constant attention to regulate and ensure that consumers are getting a good deal in this market. 
The most popular vehicle segment is mini and small vehicles. But there have been major drops in sales as more people think very hard about the purchasing of large investments like cars and of course the collapse of finance companies also discourages people from getting involved in anything that commits them to debt. It is interesting that the hardest-hit segment of the market is large cars People are turning away from large sedans and moving more towards the sport utility vehicles in spite the fact that the particular qualities or characteristics of those vehicles really only meet the needs of a relatively small number of people. 
All this information leads us to reflect and to acknowledge that the purchase of a motor vehicle is often a very emotive rather than a wholly rational decision. There may be a degree of rationality about it but people often buy vehicles on quite an irrational basis. In a market like that it is important that we have appropriate regulation and without wishing to sound patronising that we apply some protection for consumers in an area where they are very easily ripped off and cheated. 
The age of the New Zealand vehicle fleet is hovering at about 12 years to 13 years particularly the light vehicle fleet which is the largest component of the overall fleet. It is about 90 percent of the total. About half of that fleet is made up of used imports—vehicles that have come in as second-hand vehicles. Something like 78 percent of total vehicle kilometres travelled in New Zealand are in the light passenger vehicle category which indicates that most of the kilometres travelled in New Zealand are travelled in cars and very light commercials. Again all those figures tell us that the buying and selling of vehicles is a very busy very complex market and any steps to better inform and protect consumers in that market place is to be welcomed. There are provisions in this bill that seek to do that. The numbers also point to the need for developing much more coherent and much more appropriate strategies for incentivising customers to make purchases that will meet their needs and reduce the adverse environmental impact of motor vehicle use. 
Over time the Greens have put up a number of propositions aimed at increasing in particular fuel efficiency standards across the whole vehicle fleet. We have proposed a system of tradable credits that would give importers absolute discretion in terms of what vehicles they choose to import. But clearly that would incentivise a mix that favours the most fuel-efficient vehicles coming into this country which would not only meet the needs of consumers to the extent that it would reduce the overall running cost to vehicles but also would reduce the significant negative environmental impact of our vehicle use. 
The Greens have proposed a “feebate” system—that is a differential in registration fees—to advantage and incentivise the purchase and use of smaller more fuel-efficient vehicles rather than the larger less fuel-efficient vehicles. This would give consumers maximum information and maximum choice so that they can reduce their overall cost of ownership of vehicles over time. It is true that this amendment to the Act will provide more consumer protection. The Internet has also been pointed out as a factor. It is not a new phenomenon but certainly the number of vehicles that are bought and sold through Internet sales and auctions now makes up a significant part of the total. When I checked a few days ago there were something like 32000 motor vehicles advertised for sale on the web mostly on TradeMe and some 25000 of those were private sales. Again that points towards the need for ensuring that private and indeed commercial sellers are obliged to give consumers information that is as appropriate accurate and honest as possible. 
The Greens will be supporting this bill. It enhances the degree of consumer protection. We do regret that much more fundamental coherent and broad-based attention is not being paid to how we buy sell and incentivise the importing and the purchasing patterns of motor vehicles in New Zealand. We will continue to advocate for an approach that leads us to a more sustainable low-carbon economy which is the way we need to go. Thank you. 
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak on behalf of the ACT Party in the third reading of the Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill. It is very pleasing to see support from across the House for this bill. The bill makes a good deal of sense. It came together as the result of the review that was done. A car is a large purchase for most people but it is most important for consumers that those protections exist. It is also very important and we should not forget this that a fair environment exists for sellers. I would like to say that the consultation process from within the motor vehicle industry itself was conducted very well and I think very fair and reasonable conclusions have been arrived at as a result of that process. In light of that I would like to compliment the consumer affairs officials who were responsible for conducting that very professionally. 
I also would like to mention the Commerce Committee. We have heard about the submission process through the Commerce Committee and the amendments that came forward as a result of that work. That was also done very well. Having been involved in the introduction of this bill in my former capacity I am pleased to see that we have reached this conclusion. 
It is a little mischievous of Labour to talk about this bill being heard under urgency. Labour of course originated this process. The review happened pretty slowly in some respects. Had Labour been really committed to pushing this through much faster it could have done so when it was in Government. I have to say that it is very pleasing as the Minister who introduced this bill to the House to be able to speak in the third reading and see that it is about to reach its conclusion today. 
Section 163 of the Act required a review within 2 years of the bill’s commencement in 2003 so we are going back quite some way. That review was undertaken by the Ministry of Consumer Affairs as I have mentioned and it identified areas where the Act’s operation would benefit from amendment. Some gaps become apparent over time and those have been dealt with in a rigorous and thorough way as part of the review process. The review report which was tabled in the House in March 2006 was followed by further consultation on the review’s recommendations. That process has led to the amendments we see before us in this bill today. 
I am very pleased to see that the bill will remove several unnecessary compliance costs for motor vehicle traders and consumers. The amendment is in line with the Government tackling regulatory obstacles as promoted by both ACT and the National. 
The issues in the bill have been pretty much traversed by all members who have spoken on this bill both at the Committee stage and by those who have preceded me in this third reading. But I will briefly go over those that I see as priorities that will improve things for consumers. The bill removes the requirements for private sellers at car markets to display a consumer information notice. That amendment will reduce risk of confusion between private sellers and buyers as to their responsibilities and rights. I think it makes a good deal of sense. Certainly it was a compliance that was unnecessary in that particular circumstance and it has very sensibly been removed. 
The other thing I previously promoted heavily was that the bill offers increased consumer protections particularly with regard to the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal. The protections offered to consumers here include increasing the financial limit at which consumer claims may be heard by the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal. It has increased from $50000 to $100000 and it is a very sensible move. This increase means that the majority of consumers can now have their issues heard in the expert forum that the tribunal offers. This change will also assist in the future-proofing of claims limits and provide protection to consumers who purchase high-end vehicles. Previously some of those consumers were not able to take their case genuine though it might have been to the disputes tribunal. Currently regardless of their financial means consumers can still have difficulty in gaining redress from a specific motor vehicle trader. The increasing of the limit to $100000 should help in this regard. 
The bill allows the tribunal to award costs for non-attendance of either party to the dispute. This creates the right incentive for both parties to turn up to hearings which has been something of a problem. Currently costs can be awarded against the consumer when he or she does not attend but the amendment bill will enable the ability for costs to also be awarded against the trader so we have a much more level playing field with the amendment before the House at the moment. For a consumer considerable compliance costs may be associated with attending a hearing that has to be postponed because of a trader’s non-attendance so from a purely practical perspective this amendment makes a good deal of sense. 
The bill also closes a loophole where the automatic banning of a trader from future trading as a motor vehicle dealer cannot be applied to a person who is unregistered or has a lapsed registration at the time of his or her conviction or bankruptcy. Currently such people can continue to trade in motor vehicles until the registrar can take a case to court to ban them which may take some months. The Motor Vehicle Sales Act is predicated on a fairly light-handed registration regime and that is as it should be in my view and it is supported by enforcement. Effective banning provisions are an important element of this enforcement. 
It gives me a great deal of delight to see the completion of this bill today and I am very pleased to see that it has cross-party support. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to stand and speak on the third reading of the Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill and especially to follow the previous Minister of Consumer of Affairs Heather Roy and hear the details that she was able to give. The purpose of the bill is pretty straightforward: to promote and protect car buyers. That is an honourable goal and is consistent with that of other bills that have gone through the House under urgency such as the bill to protect the rights of investors by focusing on standards for financial advisers. 
The bill amends the process for motor vehicle traders to renew their annual registration and it also extends the range of people banned from car trading. It makes pretty good sense to the Maori Party that those who stoop to give false registration information or those who have lapsed registrations should not be rewarded for that with opportunities to trade. So we are pleased to support this bill all the way through the House and will continue to do so. 
However I have a couple of concerns. The bill promotes and protects car buyers but unfortunately it has a huge gap in that it does not protect car drivers from people like Ms Mackey’s mother who feel that the only thing they need is that a car be white and have a cup holder. I think that my son before he bought his last car must have been speaking to her mother because he bought a white one as well. It had more than a cup holder though. Since then he has spent more money on upgrading his car than he did on buying it. Since he bought it he has lowered it and he has put mag wheels on it. I recognise the mag wheels because when one takes the car out on a bright Wellington day one is blinded by all the bling. But the thing that he spent most of his money on was the sound system and because of the amount of bass one can hear that car coming for miles around. I do not know whether my son was talking to Ms Mackey’s mother when he put all of that into his car but we really need to be looking for things other than whether cars make the right sound and are the right colour—those sorts of things. Maybe we need to think about making some amendments to the bill to make sure that car buyers buy a car and not a sound system on mag wheels. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Support New Zealand music not overseas cars. 
RAHUI KATENE 
: It is a bit late now; next time! 
I also cannot leave this debate without making the connection to some of the other policy priorities that have been impacting on Parliament during this last week. The first is to raise public awareness of young drivers’ crash risk. The statistics for the years 2006 to 2008 show that of all the drivers involved in fatal crashes the 20 to 24-year-old and the 25 to 29-year-old age groups were the most likely to be affected by alcohol/drugs. To that end we support the need to improve the road safety education available to young people and to increase access to it. Somewhere hopefully we will be able to deal with that issue. 
The Maori Party supports this bill. We support the decision for tribunal findings to be made available on the Internet and the focus on greater transparency and accountability. The issue is about providing a better deal for consumers and keeping the traders honest. This bill will help consumers in disputes that relate to misrepresentation about the condition of vehicles for sale and it will provide some protection from unsafe traders. We are particularly aware of the requirement for traders to display a consumer information notice on vehicles. That is a positive move and it will add to the general safety and protection of the New Zealand consumer. We congratulate the previous Minister of Consumer Affairs and the current Minister on their initiatives in that regard. We are supportive of the bill and its consumer focus and make the point that of course there are many other initiatives that we must promote and uphold as part of any approach to keeping New Zealanders safe on the road. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to take a call on the Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill this morning. I firstly acknowledge the previous Minister of Consumer Affairs Heather Roy for her commitment to getting this bill through the House and her commitment to the consumer affairs portfolio. I also thank her and the officials for the support and guidance they gave the Commerce Committee which helped the legislation get to its third reading in the House today. 
The Motor Vehicle Sales Act promotes and protects consumer interests. It is obvious that all members agree with the purpose of this bill which is to protect consumer interests especially consumers who are more vulnerable. We want to create an environment of confidence and informed choice. This bill is aligned with the National-led Government’s efforts to reform regulations cut red tape and reduce compliance costs. It is also obvious from the debate that the House agrees with what the National-led Government is trying to do currently in those areas. 
I want to touch quickly on just a couple of things in the bill because there already has been a long debate on the bill this morning. Some of the changes include amending the process for traders renewing their annual registration. These amendments reduce the compliance costs associated with traders’ making annual statutory declarations as part of registration renewal. The legislation also closes a loophole preventing the automatic banning of traders whose registration has lapsed but who are subsequently convicted under the Act for misconduct while registered. It removes the requirement for private sellers at car markets to display a consumer information notice. It eliminates unnecessary compliance costs by removing the requirement for transactions between traders or between traders and wreckers to include display of a consumer information notice. It increases the financial limit at which cases may be heard by the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal from $50000 to $100000. And it allows the tribunal to award costs for non-attendance of either party to the dispute and allows the tribunal to publish its decisions. 
I commend the bill to the House. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I am very happy to take a call in the final reading of the Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill. I want to respond initially to some of the comments Rahui Katene made. I can say only that I hope the Minister of Police was not listening to the description of her son’s car because it could end up being crushed given the description she just gave. 
David Bennett 
: You’re allowed a bit of sound mate. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: I can just see David Bennett driving down the streets of Hamilton with his boom box on the back of his car. I want to— 
Jacinda Ardern 
: It’s compulsory with your warrant of fitness. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Apparently it is compulsory in Hamilton. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Along with the dice. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Along with the fluffy dice that is right. 
David Bennett 
: Only one though. You are not allowed two. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Only one? That is a very revealing comment. I want to acknowledge once again the previous Minister of Consumer Affairs Heather Roy. I am glad she took a call in this final reading because it is nice to hear somebody on the Government side speak with some knowledge about what the bill actually is and what it does. I was pretty disappointed during the Committee stage that not a single Government member spoke after Mr Boscawen spoke first in the Committee stage. Not a single Government member spoke. Government members did not respond to any of the questions or issues raised by the Opposition. As a result many of those questions still remain unanswered. In fact the only knowledgable speech we got from that side was from the previous Minister who spoke with some knowledge of the bill. Mr Boscawen departed not a jot from the notes his officials provided to him. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I think that Heather wrote that speech. It was actually quite a good speech. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Heather Roy may well have written the speech that John Boscawen then had the opportunity to deliver. He certainly did not demonstrate that he had any knowledge of the legislation we were debating. 
Despite the lack of participation from Government members or perhaps because of it the Committee stage was quite interesting and lively. We heard from Moana Mackey about her car selection criteria which tend to involve the number of cup holders that it has. She did not mention although she mentioned to me afterwards the fact that in selecting her car she did not bother to check whether it had a petrol light. In fact she discovered the hard way that the car did not have a petrol light because it ran out. 
We heard from Grant Robertson about the crossbar rusting issue that he had with his first vehicle that he purchased in Invercargill and about some of the issues he encountered there in respect of change of ownership involving the motor vehicle dealer that he purchased it from. I talked about the five cars I have owned in my period of driving. 
Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.