Roy Heather: Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Roy Heather: Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13636] 
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.