Brown Peter: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Brown Peter: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4797] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I have to express real concern about much of that member’s speech. The Minister complimented him on his advocacy of the motor vehicle dealers industry and he referred to two standards of dealers. He recognised that the threshold will become lower and that more unscrupulous dealers will come into the market but the purpose of this bill is to promote and protect the interests of consumers in relation to motor vehicle sales. What has United Future done for them? Nothing. 
New Zealand First supports the intent of this bill but we could support little more than the title. At one point we supported only the title until the Hon Harry Duynhoven at least gave reasonable explanations of some of the content of the bill and tied together some of the thought processes that went into it. The bill is not well set out. One part refers to odometer tampering but the penalties associated with that are somewhere else. Unless one scrutinises the whole bill one misses them quite easily because there are no cross-references. That is not the way to pass legislation. Only one speech from a Government member carried any merit and weight at all and that was from the Hon Harry Duynhoven. The Minister made one short call towards the end and added more confusion than clarification to the whole debate. Very few people spoke in defence of the bill. Even the National Party which is supporting the bill spent most of its time ripping it apart. 
This bill misses the mark by a long way. The legislation will open the door for the public to be ripped off by whoever wants to call himself a motor vehicle dealer. In many cases it will be a case of buyer be very very aware. I put a scenario to the Minister and she refused to answer it. I think that Mr Duynhoven will take a call shortly and perhaps he will answer it. I understand that some importers go to Japan to buy an allocation—a block—of first-rate cars and they are given second-grade cars which are known I understand as “sewer cars”. They are virtually given away. Far too frequently the odometers of those “sewer cars” are wound back and they are sold to the unsuspecting public in this country. Because Harry Duynhoven is an expert in vehicles and vehicle sales matters I would appreciate him telling me whether I am correct in my assertions whether this bill will address that issue and how. 
As I said we wanted to support the intent of this bill but we believe that it has missed the mark considerably. The question that comes to our minds is: does the public need protection from motor vehicle dealers from time to time if at all? The answer to that question is generally yes because a car is the second-largest expense that most people incur. 
David Benson-Pope 
: The member should be supporting the bill. 
PETER BROWN 
: The member says I should be supporting the bill but this bill does not protect consumers. You have heard Paul Adams— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have not heard it. 
PETER BROWN 
: Oh you missed a good speech. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes I know but it is a Standing Order. 
PETER BROWN 
: Mr Adams has been a very good advocate for motor vehicle traders but he has said nothing in favour of consumers. If we believe that the public needs protection does this bill deliver that protection? No it does not. It will allow unscrupulous people to enter the industry and somebody will suffer either financially or by buying a car that is less than safe. They might even pay for it with their lives. When the Government reviews this legislation in 2 years’ time I hope Mr Paul Adams takes a close look at what has happened in that 2 years because he has been a firm advocate for the motor vehicle industry. 
I believe that this bill will to some extent result in fewer safe cars coming on to our roads. Will greater numbers of the public pay more than is fair and reasonable for a car as a result of this legislation? I believe they will. Is that compatible with the purpose of this bill? The answer must be no. New Zealand First was not represented on the Commerce Committee but we approached this bill with an open mind. We believe it to be flawed and therefore we will not be supporting it.