Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4751] 
Motor Vehicle Sales Bill 
Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
Clause 1 Title 
SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 At first glance the title of this bill may seem to be unimportant but there is quite a big difference between this and the original 1998 Motor Vehicle Dealers Bill—and the Minister will no doubt be keen to take a call on this. As we progress through the legislation part by part this evening and well into tomorrow evening it will be clear from the contributions from the National benches that there is a big difference between the prospect of a Motor Vehicle Dealers Bill as was previously the case and this bill. As I said at first glance it may not appear significant but this bill wraps up a whole lot of different environments where sales may occur when under previous legislation legislation of this type would relate only to registered motor vehicle dealers. The issue that leaps to mind relates to car fairs—and I say that quite seriously because in that type of environment there is usually a series of private sellers who bring their goods to the site— 
Hon David Carter 
: By car. 
SIMON POWER 
: They often drive there and trade motor vehicles freely between themselves. That type of activity was not previously caught by any motor vehicle dealers legislation unless the number of cars that were traded came into question. Under this legislation that type of selling will be caught so there is quite a subtle difference between the 1998 National legislation and the current legislation. 
During the discussion this evening members on this side of the Chamber will be tying back many questions and other parts of the bill to the title and explaining why it is that although at first glance the title may seem to be pretty inoffensive it is actually reflective of a different type of legislation to that which we have seen in this country until this date. I look forward to the contribution from my colleague the Hon David Carter who I know has spent some time looking at the title to this bill and who has very strong personal views about how the title relates to legislation that was before this House under a previous National Government. The differences between that legislation and the current legislation will no doubt become apparent as the parts pan out. 
 I just return to my theme that the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill is a different piece of legislation entirely and the title as my colleague points out is different from the title of the previous legislation. I could not be more to the point in saying that despite the previous bill being called the Motor Vehicle Dealers Bill the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill is a wider net cast into an industry that up until now has been governed by very specific legislation relating to licensed motor vehicle dealers and to private dealers who were trading from memory six vehicles or more in the course of one calendar year. What this bill does through the reflection of the title that we have been talking about for what seems some time now is to extend wider than that initial definition to include as I have said issues like car fairs and a more communal way of selling and buying motor vehicles than that which previous legislation covered. 
At this early stage I want to talk briefly about the other interesting point worth making—that is how this name came about given that the aim of the bill is to repeal the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act and to overtake the Motor Vehicle Dealers Bill of 1998. Perhaps the title including “sales” rather than “dealers”— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member’s time has expired. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: It is clear that the member on his feet has a lot of new information and I seek leave of the Committee that he be given a 2-minute extension of time. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Leave has been sought. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is no objection. I call the member. 
SIMON POWER 
: Clearly I should have objected myself but I thank my colleague. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The honourable member did not hear us but we did object down this end of the Chamber. We did so quite clearly. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I did not hear the member call. 
Gordon Copeland 
: We did very clearly indeed. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry I missed hearing the member but I have already given the call. 
SIMON POWER 
: I am not sure whether to thank my colleagues from the United Future party. Nevertheless I return to what is a complex area of this bill—the title. I will continue with what I was saying before I was interrupted by the bell and I thank my colleague the Hon Roger Sowry for allowing me to continue on this important road of discovery as I find myself more interested in this issue as time passes. Before my colleague granted me an extension—and I thank the United Future party for that with the benefit of hindsight—I was talking briefly about the fact that when the original Motor Vehicle Dealers Act of 1975 was repealed the then National Government decided in 1998 to introduce the Motor Vehicles Dealers Bill—again a completely different title from the one currently under consideration. That bill would have been apparently a very good bill although we have seen some differences through the proposal and comparison documents and my colleague will refer to those in his contribution to the title debate. We now find ourselves dealing with a bill called the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill. 
As I said earlier that at first glance may seem to be a title that we could probably not spend very much time discussing. Having said that I point out that this bill with its ranging five parts and two schedules will allow colleagues on this side of the Chamber to spend some time looking at those parts in detail in a way that reflects the title of the bill and its now quite expansive nature. The interesting thing about the term “sale” is that it immediately throws up ideas relating to a contract. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party to address the title. The ACT party was going to support this legislation when it came back from the Commerce Committee but we are not now prepared to do so unless at least one of our amendments is passed. I have tabled an amendment to change the title from the “Motor Vehicle Sales Bill” to the “Motor Vehicles Dealers (Regulation and Taxation) Bill”. That in effect is what it is now because the Minister has sneaked in a Supplementary Order Paper after the bill has been to the Commerce Committee and after public consultation has taken place. It is not just an innocuous Supplementary Order Paper; it is a Supplementary Order Paper that introduces a tax a levy on all motor vehicle dealers. That definition is expanded under this legislation. 
Motor vehicle dealers will be taxed to fund the disputes tribunal. Before I go on I say that there are still some good aspects to this bill such as getting rid of compulsory registration with the Motor Vehicle Dealers Institute. But the Supplementary Order Paper now wipes out all the things that the industry wanted. It is just another way for this Government to introduce a tax. The title oflegislation is really important because it signifies the purpose of that legislation. It is important that this bill now have in its title that it is a motor vehicle dealers regulation and taxation bill because that is what the legislation is being used to do. It is being used to tax the industry to fund the disputes tribunal. 
Motor vehicle dealers already pay a huge number of taxes including GST levies and other things so why should the disputes tribunal not be funded out of that in the same way that other court systems are funded? Why punish the good dealers who very rarely if ever get taken to the disputes tribunal? Many never get taken to the disputes tribunal—or to the fidelity fund as it was before—which is to go. Why should they be punished because of the few bad dealers who do need to be taken before some form of justice and sorted out? It is so unfair and it is just another compliance cost on working New Zealanders. They are the people that this Government just loves to tax again and again and again. 
When we had the second reading of this legislation I was told that the industry supported it so I decided to do a little exercise. I knew that the industry had not been consulted about the new Supplementary Order Paper that introduces this tax so I wrote to 2250 motor vehicle dealers. I told them about the tax the levy on the Supplementary Order Paper and asked them what they thought about it. I received masses of replies. They have been flowing in although I wrote to them only last week. I would like to read some of them. They demonstrate why I think the title should be changed to include the word “taxation”. 
One reply was: “We would regard this as the death knell to our continuing to hold a licence as such. These days the used-car business is as sick as ever and we have all but stopped the practice and are now concentrating on our core activity of earthmoving machine trading.” These are the sorts of people that this legislation will catch. It is all very well to pass legislation or to sneak through Supplementary Order Papers that impose specific taxes on specific industries because the public’s perception of used-car dealers is that they are not quite nice or that they are indulging in activities we do not quite approve of. But many people will be caught by this legislation who are not used-car dealers who do not even sell cars and who as this guy said sell farm machinery. 
He said: “The business of running a used-car yard and complying with the necessary regulations must be a nightmare for those actively involved.” My personal observation is that once I could spot car dealers a mile off with their loud dress and non-stop usually cheerful patter. These days those same people look like hunted deer and I do not think it is because they are worried about running into a customer. Is there any objections to calling the bill the “Motor Vehicle Dealers (Regulation and Taxation) Bill”? I think we are getting closer to why it should be called that. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 Like my colleague Simon Power and Deborah Coddington I too want to express concern about the title of this bill and the sneaky Supplementary Order Paper that has been tabled by the Minister. Is it not interesting that this is a process around motor vehicle sales that is now 9 years old? For 9 years there have been discussions about changing the rules around motor vehicle sales and updating that 1975 Act. We then get to the last hurdle and under urgency this sneaky Government wants to clip an extra tax on to honest enterprising New Zealanders. I ask Mr Benson-Pope how many of his Dunedin car sales people have been consulted about this new tax? [ 
Interruption 
] He tells me. I would love to make contact because it will be just like the Minister in the chair the Hon Steve Maharey on the Tertiary Education Bill. At the last moment he snuck into the House a dirty little levy on all sorts of education providers. I suspect that that is why he is in the chair. He will do the same trick again and this time to the motor vehicle dealers. 
I ask the Minister in the chair what level of consultation there has been with the motor vehicle industry about this Supplementary Order Paper. I seek any answer from any member of the Government. I note that United Future supports the bill and the Supplementary Order Paper. Can its members advise me what level of consultation with the motor vehicle industry there has been on this bill? Can any member of the Government advise the Committee as to whether there has been a process of consultation with motor vehicle dealers about this new tax? 
Helen Duncan 
: Concentrate on the new leader! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I can see that Helen Duncan does not want to talk about the bill before the Committee. She is more interested in playing some silly political game than she is about the extra tax that will be imposed. This title is not particularly appropriate. If we are to have a bill that will impose a new tax that has been added through the Supplementary Order Paper on those people in the motor vehicle industry then members on this side will say what they mean. If that tax is to be imposed then let us call it a tax bill. If that is what the Government is to do with legislation of this sort let us truly describe what it is all about and describe this as a special tax bill for the latest group of entrepreneurs to be hammered by this Labour Government. 
John Carter 
: With additional compliance costs. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: That is right. I remember reading in Labour’s manifesto that it was to reduce compliance costs. I would be interested to know how— 
John Carter 
: What does the chair think of the tax? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I have to advise my chief whip that we must not bring the Chair into the debate. However I would like to know from the Minister in the chair how this bill contributes to reducing compliance costs. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Did they run it through the compliance cost report? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: There is a good question from my colleague the very capable MP for Coromandel. It is interesting that every bill that comes before the House has to have a compliance cost report but not for the Supplementary Order Paper that this Minister has now brought into the Committee stage not once but twice under urgency in terms of amendments to this bill. Members on this side of the Chamber tell the Government to be honest about what it is doing and to be honest about the fact that it is introducing a new tax on motor vehicle dealers. Let us call this bill what it is. The Minister may prefer to call it a levy. I notice that when Dr Cullen was in Opposition he said that a levy was just another name for a tax but if he had preferred to call it the “Motor Vehicle Sales Tax Bill” or the “Motor Vehicle Sales Levy Bill” we could live with either of those. I invite any member opposite to get to his or her feet and to justify the significant way in which this Supplementary Order Paper changes the bill and also to justify the fact that this bill has been around for a very very long time. Why are we under urgency rushing this bill through when there has not been consultation on the key changes with the dealers and those who are involved in the industry? Again I say let us change the title and say what it means. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (NZ National) 
: 
 I suspect that this is a sneaky piece of work by the Labour Government. I hoped to be able to stand up here and support the title. 
David Benson-Pope 
: Speaking of sneaky where is the numbers man? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Does that member want to take a call? If he does I will cede and let him have a call then start when he is ready. 
Before being interrupted by Mr Benson-Pope I was saying that I was hopeful of standing in the Committee tonight and being able to support the title of this bill. At first glance it actually is a fair prescription of what this legislation attempts to do. But as my colleagues Simon Power and Deborah Coddington pointed out sneaky little Supplementary Order Paper 30 has been tabled. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Why isn’t the rest of the National Party here? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Rick Barker clearly does not even know that it has been tabled. He would not be worried about compliance costs; he would not know what compliance costs were. 
This sneaky little Supplementary Order Paper dramatically changes the tone of the bill and talks about regulations to impose a levy. Even Mr Benson-Pope knows that is another word for tax. Mr Benson-Pope has just spelt the word levy and he got that right. He should now have a go at spelling the word tax. He could not manage that one but it is “t-a-x.” Deborah Coddington had it right—this legislation is no longer appropriately named at all. It should no longer be called the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill but the “Motor Vehicle Dealers Regulation and Taxation Bill”. That is what this bill proposes to do. There was no mention of a levy before the bill went through the select committee process. The Government was too sneaky to do that. 
David Benson-Pope 
: That is uncharitable. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: It is not uncharitable; it is a fact. If Mr Benson-Pope is so proud of loading another tax on to a very entrepreneurial sector of the New Zealand business community put it in the principle legislation give it an appropriate name and let people make submissions. But no he would not do it that way. Mr Benson-Pope is wrong when he argues that we should be calling this legislation the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill. That no longer adequately describes it and Mr Maharey knows that. Therefore I now completely support Deborah Coddington’s superb work in pointing out that this is no longer a bill just to facilitate the sales of motor vehicles; it is now a bill about how to levy another tax on a particular industry. That means that we have a duty in the Committee stage to give this legislation an appropriate title. 
I note that Mr Chairman agrees with that. He acknowledges that we have a duty to make sure that at this stage of the proceedings we give this legislation an appropriate title. I say to you Mr Chairman— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member cannot bring the Chairman into the debate. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The title of the bill is no longer appropriate at all. We need to make sure that the name is changed so that people know that although this legislation talks about facilitating the sales of motor vehicles it also talks about imposing yet another tax and compliance cost on an industry— 
Sandra Goudie 
: What about the compliance cost reports? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The Minister can take a call and tell us whether he has done any work on compliance cost but he will not have done. That is the sort of thing one talks about when in Opposition. It is the “Maharey principle”. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member must use a member’s full name and title. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I have been talking to the title of the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: If the member wishes to address another member in Committee he must use that member’s full name and title. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I was not talking about the Minister. I was talking about the “Maharey principle”. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Customs) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 As a transport spokesperson I am very concerned about this legislation. The title of this bill certainly does not now reflect what we have before the Committee. It is important to say that the National Party supports this legislation and along with interested groups has supported it right through the process. We worked with those groups and the Motor Vehicle Dealers Institute to make sure that we had legislation that was non-controversial and able to pass through Parliament with relative ease. 
I am disappointed that the Government has decided—for the second time with this bill—to debate it under the urgency motion because I do not think that is appropriate. What we have now is a bill that the Government has titled the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill which is the bill the industry has been consulted on and the title that everybody is comfortable with. We all know what we are talking about when we talk about the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill. The bill of this title was first referred to a select committee on 5 December 2001 and reported back in 2002 so it has had a long period of time in the House. Now we find that the title of this bill suddenly does not reflect what is in it. Suddenly the bill is changed. 
This is a large bill. Radio listeners cannot tell how big it is but I can tell them that the title of the bill— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No the member must not refer to radio listeners. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: For those people who are interested out there the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill covers 96 pages. Then a little wee amendment—about three or four pages—is put in— 
Steve Chadwick 
: It is a tidy bill. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: The member says it is a tidy amendment. Perhaps she will tell us whether she has consulted the motor vehicle dealers in Rotorua on the new levy that is being put into this bill—the so-called Motor Vehicle Sales Bill. The title does not reflect that this bill has new compliance costs and the member supports new compliance costs and new taxes. This bill is now an extra imposition on motor vehicle dealers and the people who sell cars. Instead of being the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill this bill should now be the “Motor Vehicle Sales and New Tax Bill”. Why would anyone take something as important as a new tax not put it in the main bill not have it as part of the submission process and then just sneak it in at the end but keep the title the same? That is so that Labour members can say that everyone supported the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill. They want to be able to say: “We had submissions on it. It was all OK.” But the real part of the bill—the sneaky little part of the bill—is not reflected in the title at all. We are very disappointed that under urgency the Government has decided to do that. We know— 
Steve Chadwick 
: Does the member not want a disputes tribunal for consumers? 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: The member interjects and asks whether we want a disputes tribunal in the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill. Of course we do. A disputes tribunal was in the bill and we voted for it. The Labour Party voted for it and that party did not put the tax provision into the bill in the select committee—so what changed? What changed between the Labour Party reporting back the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill and titling it that and going along to its caucus and deciding to put in this Supplementary Order Paper with the extra tax in it? Why was that done?[ 
Interruption 
] Well Helen Duncan says that was a clever cunning move. It’s as cunning as a— 
HELEN DUNCAN (NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No. 
JOHN KEY (NZ National—Helensville) 
: 
 It is my great pleasure to engage in this Motor Vehicle Sales Bill title debate. I want to take up the challenge that the Minister gave in her second reading speech when she said: “There are several issues that the select committee could not agree on ...That will provide an opportunity for the House to debate these issues.” So they certainly will because this is a Minister who could not help herself. At the last minute she has snuck into this bill which had all the hallmarks of being potentially a very good bill this Supplementary Order Paper and by that the whole flavour of the bill has changed. The Minister could have stuck to the very guts of the bill. It was titled the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill for a very good reason because it— 
Hon David Carter 
: Would you buy a used car from that person? 
JOHN KEY 
: No I would not buy a used car from that person. One of the very reasons this bill was named so appropriately the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill was that it covered things the industry really cared about. It simplified a whole wide range of issues for the industry. It covered those issues for people who cared about the motor vehicle sales business. It covered people who operated as car market operators as auctioneers as vehicle traders and those who traded on the Internet. All of those people involved in the motor vehicle sales industry thought that this bill was appropriately titled. They were happy with it and National was happy to support it. But lo and behold in the Supplementary Order Paper has come a levy—a tax—that is not in the title of this bill. Nowhere in the title of this bill do I see the word “tax” yet in the Supplementary Order Paper is a tax that was not on the “credit card” and is not in the title of the bill but it is there for everybody to see. It is there to drag down the industry and add another cost. 
I want to draw to the attention of the Committee comments that the Minister also made in her speech as it relates to the title. She said that in designing this bill there had been a great deal of consultation and input from stakeholders and experts. In terms of the title they may have been experts in motor vehicle sales. I am well and truly prepared to accept that the Minister went out and spoke to a great many people that submissions were taken from all sorts of motor vehicle dealers across the country and that that was aptly put together into the title. I am not happy to accept that the consultation process that took place in the industry was reflected in the Supplementary Order Paper. Therefore I am not convinced that the title adequately reflects it. 
Simon Power 
: Tax! 
JOHN KEY 
: Where is the word “tax”? Where is the word “levy”? If the Minister had gone out and undertaken extensive consultation had asked for submissions and had included in the earlier bill the levy that she intends to put on the industry—not snuck it in some time later on; not snuck the bill through urgency but had done that in the consultation process—I am prepared to wager in this Parliament that those submissions would have clearly come back saying that this title is completely inappropriate. It should not be the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill; it should be the “Motor Vehicle Sales and Revenue Collecting Tax Bill”. It should be the “Motor Vehicle Sales and Tax Bill”— 
Simon Power 
: Motor Vehicle Sales Tax Bill. 
JOHN KEY 
: Absolutely Mr Power! Many submissions would have come back to the Minister and the first thing they would have drawn to her attention is that this title is completely inappropriate and misleading. That is a great tragedy because it is a bill that has great hallmarks—a bill that really claims to do many of the things that National supports. One of the reasons that National has been supporting this legislation is that the industry requires reform. It is an industry that needs simplification. Just as the title is very simple with those four very plain and simple words—Motor Vehicle Sales Bill—so easily was that reflected in the bill until the Minister could not help herself and did that little sneaky deal to raise taxation. 
MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (NZ National—North Shore) 
: 
 I take particular interest in this bill and the reason is that many years ago when I used to practice law on a regular basis the members of this industry were a major sector of my clientele. I can tell members my having applied for numerous motor vehicle dealer licences registration for salespeople and all of that that it was a really complicated difficult and demanding system. I tell members there was a great deal of expectation of expectancy that this bill would reduce costs and generally speaking it does. 
What alarms me when I look at the title is that it does not make sufficient reference to the secret plans of the Government on the one hand to take and on the other hand stealthily to reregulate. The Government has come up with what is actually a quite credible bill I would have to concede—and National is voting for the principle of the bill generally—but what greatly concerns me is Supplementary Order Paper 30 which includes the amendment that was accurately described by Deborah Coddington of the ACT party as the reintroduction by the Government of a tax on thousands of entrepreneurs up and down this country. The Government may just toss this off to one side as being of no particular account but if it looked at the bill it would understand the serious injury it is doing to New Zealand entrepreneurs—hard-working small-business people by and large. They are the sorts of people who Labour is wont to say these days are its supporters. So what does it do to those people? It gives them a hard kick up the butt. 
John Carter 
: Shove them right up. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Well there you are! Those are not the sorts of words I would use I hasten to add but that is the reality. 
This is my concern. Under the bill which is intended to be a deregulatory bill there is only one charge and that is at the time of the initial registration. By and large thereafter we would have light-handed regulation—something that the industry could live with. I imagine the ACT party would probably say that was still going too far but nevertheless it is something the industry could live with. What is of particular concern however is that under the Supplementary Order Paper there is now an annual levy based on classes of trader based on the types of vehicles and it has to be applied to thousands of people. It is allegedly to pay for the disputes tribunal. But what the Government is doing is actually adding cost after cost on an annual basis to these hard-working people. 
Two problems exist. First is the cost of administration which is very significant indeed when one considers that those businesses will have to employ special staff develop a computer system track records and so forth. Secondly how do we ensure that everyone actually pays? What do we do about the people who do not pay? Do we have a special regulatory regime that hunts down those people? That is the kind of approach that this leads to. We cannot I presume pass a legislative measure then have no enforcement mechanism. That would be illogical. 
So I would say this to the Government. It had a choice: it could have had a modest imposition for the cost of the disputes tribunal to be charged to those who actually use it—and that may be the appropriate mechanism—or it could have funded it out of general taxation. Both those choices would have been simple. 
Simon Power 
: Like courts. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: “Like courts” as my colleague the former justice spokesperson says. What an excellent example! But instead the Government has gone for a blunt and crude instrument of a generalised levy which has to be collected each and every year with all the range of draconian apparatuses to punish those who do not pay it. So under the guise of deregulation we now have a completely new and demanding regulatory regime. 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (NZ National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I am very pleased to be able to speak to the title. I would like to congratulate my colleagues. I think they have done a magnificent presentation of their concerns about the title. The title is “Motor Vehicle Sales Bill” and some concern has already been expressed about the intentions of this bill particularly since the arrival of the Supplementary Order Paper. I would like to acknowledge Deborah Coddington’s great contribution in bringing Supplementary Order Paper 30 to our attention more forcefully and suggesting another title “Motor Vehicle Dealers (Regulation and Taxation) Bill” which is much more satisfactory. 
This Supplementary Order Paper is about introducing a levy to help fund the disputes tribunal. I go further. Members will recall that when this bill was last discussed in the House the Hon Judith Tizard—who sat here knitting during debate on a quite significant aspect of the bill so she may have forgotten what she said—said: “The restrictions cost and procedures of working within the current law are considered to be too onerous by many motor vehicle businesses”. Now the Government is putting forward a Supplementary Order Paper that introduces a levy that I suggest adds to that cost and totally goes against what the Minister considers to be the original intention of this bill—that is to help reduce costs. 
This Government is introducing a levy without a compliance cost report. The Government makes a big deal about the need to have a compliance cost report but then does not even have one. The Supplementary Order Paper should have had a compliance cost report but clearly the Government did not want to go down that path. We are debating the title “Motor Vehicle Sales Bill” but it should be “Motor Vehicle Dealers (Regulation and Taxation) Bill” as suggested by Deborah Coddington and supported by my very able colleagues. 
I also draw the Committee’s attention to some other aspects of the Hon Judith Tizard’s speech. She said: “The purpose of this bill is to promote and protect the interests of consumers when buying a motor vehicle.” I have to say I do not believe she is looking after the interests of consumers at all because she has not included the fund that was there as a back-up for those who could not be reimbursed for bad trading. I do not believe she is looking at looking after consumers. She just wants to put in place a little bit of extra funding for this disputes tribunal. 
If I draw members’ attention to some other provisions in her speech they will understand why she wants to do that. She said: “Effective enforcement is fundamental to this bill. Enforcement will be carried out by the Registrar of Motor Vehicle Dealers located within the Ministry of Economic Development.” She said further: “The registrar will have a dedicated enforcement team.” Of course that will take some funding hence the suggested title “Motor Vehicle Dealers (Regulation and Taxation) Bill” to provide for a levy to pay for all this enforcement and regulatory control and for the disputes tribunal as well. 
But that is just one aspect. It has been stated that a great deal of consultation occurred with the stakeholders to seek their input but I suggest that it has been very limited in the extreme because how many of them actually knew about this Supplementary Order Paper and approved the levy. I say to Government members opposite: “Hands up anybody who spoke to any motor vehicle dealers about the levy?”. I cannot see any of them paying any attention so I say that none of them spoke to the motor vehicle dealers about the levy and asked whether it was acceptable to them. [ 
Interruption 
] Did they say yes? I suggest that they are going to be really bitten in the arse by this levy. We are talking about the need for rigid enforcement as stated by the Hon Judith Tizard; she said it quite clearly in her second reading speech on this bill. [ 
Interruption 
] I would not mind a little bit of quiet if members would like to pay attention. The enforcement that will be required under this bill will require a lot more funding so I suggest that a quite substantial levy will be put in place. There is no control of how far this levy can go and as we know this Government does not understand compliance costs. It did not put in a compliance cost report. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 77 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Green Party 4 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Deborah Coddington to clause 1 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “Motor Vehicle Sales Act” and substitute the words “Motor Vehicle Dealers Regulation and Taxation Act”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 77 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Green Party 4. 
Amendment not agreed to and clause 1 agreed to. 
Part 1 Preliminary provisons 
SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 We are now starting to get to what is often seen as a pedestrian part of a bill which is largely the definitions of various terms contained in it. But it is actually worth raising some questions in relation to some of the terms in this bill. The Minister may like to take an interest in this because there are some odd definitions in the bill. I know that Mark Peck who has told this House that he has consulted one dealer in his electorate on this bill would be interested in this. 
In clause 6 “Interpretation” in subclause (1)—this is the Parekura Horomia clause—the term “actual distance” is defined as: “in relation to a motor vehicle’s odometer means the actual distance that would otherwise have been recorded on an odometer had it not been tampered with”. How is that supposed to work? That would be the “odometer of dysfunction.” I just cannot understand that. 
John Carter 
: Ask Paul Swain. 
SIMON POWER 
: Where is the Minister of Transport? He is in the Chamber. The actual distance is defined in relation to a motor vehicle’s odometer as: “the distance that would otherwise have been recorded on an odometer had it not been tampered with”. What on earth does that mean? In terms of a definition of actual distance how on earth is this legislation supposed to work when actual distance is defined as the distance that would otherwise have been recorded had the odometer not been tampered with? Who knows the answer to that? Which person is able to track that? 
That definition is absolutely impossible. It will take us nowhere and I would be very interested if the Minister or somebody else with a transport background would rise and take a call to help us out with that. [ 
Interruption 
] I ask Mr Peck to help us out. What is the distance that would otherwise have been recorded on an odometer had it not been tampered with? I fail to understand how we will be able to track anything in respect of that. 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: We are on your side. 
SIMON POWER 
: It is just not the same down here. I ask the Minister to come over here. [ 
Interruption 
] Madam Chairperson I have a loud voice but even I cannot compete with this noise. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: There is banter coming from both sides of the Chamber. 
SIMON POWER 
: The other thing that I do not understand is why on earth when we are talking about motor vehicle sales we now have terms like “car consultant” and “car market operator”. Those people are not hairdressers. They sell motor vehicles and we are now to call them “car consultants” and “car market operators”. 
I have a question. I can see Russell Fairbrother sitting back there; this is a question for a legal mind. Actually Deborah Coddington the ACT member might be interested in this as well. I refer to the definition “sale in relation to any motor vehicle—(a) means the sale or lease or exchange or any other disposition of that motor vehicle …” That would imply to me that a contract has been formed between buyer and seller for the disposition of that motor vehicle. Let me ask this question. We know and Wayne Mapp knows from his legal training that for a contract to be valid there must be consideration. There must be a buyer a seller and consideration. I ask where in an exchange of motor vehicles is the consideration that allows a contract to be formed? I ask the Minister to take a call and help me out on that. What is the consideration in the contract when a sale of exchange occurs—in other words a swap? Where does the consideration lie? 
This legislation is very confusing. Not only do we have a definition of who is treated as a motor vehicle trader in clause 8 but for the purposes of getting it absolutely right we also have in clause 9 a definition of who is not treated as a motor vehicle trader. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I want to start my address by imploring somebody from the Government to stand up and tell us what this bill is about. New Zealand First was not on the Commerce Committee. I heard my good colleagues from the National Party—I think Simon Power said so when he started his speech—say that they are to support this bill but they have not found a thing that is right with it yet. 
Simon Power 
: No I didn’t say that. 
PETER BROWN 
: I was almost certain that the member said he would support this bill. 
I must be a bit more serious. Clause 3 outlines the purpose of the bill. It states: “The purpose of this Act is to promote and protect the interests of consumers in relation to motor vehicle sales.” This bill falls well short of that. We need a Government member to stand up and explain how this legislation will deliver on that. The bill removes the fidelity fund. If members talk to members of the public who buy cars they will hear that the public is concerned about that. Maybe the dealers are not very concerned about it but members of the public who buy cars— 
Hon David Carter 
: Name one. 
PETER BROWN 
: The list would be so long that it would take me all night and half of tomorrow to read it. 
Hon David Carter 
: I will get you an extension of time—until 1 o’clock in the morning if you like. 
PETER BROWN 
: Oh yeah. 
Rodney Hide 
: I don’t think there’s any. 
PETER BROWN 
: Mr Hide should read the report. The select committee said it had looked at a number of alternatives to the fidelity fund including indemnity insurance but it put that in the too-hard basket. It looked at a bond system and again it put that in the too-hard basket. It looked at insurance schemes with ministerial approval and they were most definitely in the too-hard basket. Nevertheless the fidelity fund is to go. 
Another question that should arise is who will police this system? The Government is setting up a structure but who will police it? And if that is too tough a question Government members should answer this one which may be even harder: how will they police it? By reading Supplementary Order Paper 30 in the name of the Minister which is nearly a tenth of the size of the bill—a Supplementary Order Paper that will not be scrutinised by the select committee—we see towards the end Clause 146 “Review of operation of Act”. Not that ACT I hope. Clause 146 states “(1) The Ministry must no later than 2 years from the date of commencement of this Act— (a) review the operation of this Act since its commencement; and (b) prepare for the Minister a report of the review that includes recommendations on whether any amendments to this Act are necessary or desirable.” That really sounds like a Government that has confidence in this legislation! 
I know the Minister in the chair is a sound-thinking member and I invite her to stand up and tell us what this bill is all about and whether it will be to the benefit of the consumers as the purpose clause illustrates it is meant to be. There is some real concern out there on the part of the public. To my mind and I might be totally wrong on this this legislation opens the door to any unscrupulous person who wants to get involved in selling cars—anybody at all. The policing of that is vague to say the least. The bill states somewhere that a car salesperson is someone who sells more than six cars a year. Who will keep a check on that? How will a check be kept on that? I understand it will be administered from a central office in Auckland and I want to know how that will work. 
As I said New Zealand First was not on the select committee at the time of its consideration of this bill so we did not play any role at all in the way that it has been compiled. We are concerned to see a Supplementary Order Paper of significant size relative to that of the bill coming to the Committee and further a one-page proposed amendment from the Minister. We believe there are some genuine questions to be answered and we believe this Committee should be entitled to the answers before this bill progresses too much further down the track. 
Hon David Carter 
: You won’t be able to go to one o’clock if you can’t do better than that. 
PETER BROWN 
: I do not intend to go to 1 o’clock for the information of the good member. I am trying to raise the seriousness of this debate. We have a bill here— 
John Carter 
: When are you going to start? 
PETER BROWN 
: I have been trying to do so for 5 minutes. I thought I was doing very well. We have a bill here that really opens the door to people who are prepared to be unscrupulous in selling vehicles. I think the intention of this bill is admirable but the Government has not made it a reality. 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 United Future is pleased to support this legislation. As the holder of two motor vehicle dealer’s licences I am affected by it. I notice in the part we are dealing with the question of who is treated as a motor vehicle trader. Each of the licences that I currently hold has cost me between $15000 and $20000 to obtain under the present regime. 
Much has been said about the levy on traders. As I understand it the levy will be $127 per trader. I find that most motor vehicle dealers are very pleased to get any dispute sorted out quickly because we have found in our industry that the longer something goes on the more it will cost us. Therefore if I have to contribute $127 per year per licence towards a tribunal that will sort out disputes fairly quickly I personally am very happy to do that. To say that provision has just been thrown into this legislation is not correct. As I understand it that proposal was in a discussion document that was before the industry in January 2001 which the majority of the industry supported. The motor vehicle dealers have had to operate for many years on what is a very unequal playing field. 
I have concerns about various parts of this bill that I will discuss at the appropriate points but maybe this bill should be called the “Thank Goodness it’s Here” bill. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I rise to speak to Part 1 of this bill. Clause 2 is where we come to the introduction of Supplementary Order Paper 30 which refers to clause 130A. Clause 130A deals with the imposition of levies and I would just like to come back to what the member over there on the Government benches Steve Chadwick said. She is a very honourable and lovely person and I do not mean to cast any aspersions on her but she said she had consulted with dealers in her area. I would like to ask her whether she has consulted Honda Motorcycles Rotorua which asked me why it was being singled out and why we are not levying all supermarkets and grocery stores. I quote: “If such a levy were imposed the repercussions further down the line would end up affecting none other than the man in the street the very person this Government is supposedly working for. In an age where business is difficult at the best of times and margins are constantly being squeezed it seems ludicrous to be entertaining such a proposal.” 
Again from Rotorua when consulted about clause 130A in the Supplementary Order Paper referred to in Part 1 Nigel’s Cars a car dealer for 16 years wrote: “I think we pay enough levies as it is now and with the change to the motor vehicle sales Act it is supposed to be better for all concerned. But reading your letter it seems this is not the case and that we as car dealers will again be paying for the privilege to sell cars when there are lots of unlicensed people out there selling cars at car fairs and in our case in Rotorua where the local council have created a car yard.” It will be interesting to see whether that business comes under this legislation too. 
Clause 3 sets out the purpose of this bill and it is just more self-congratulatory nonsense from this Government about protecting the interests of consumers. I can see I am keeping the Minister of Finance up again. If the Government is to impose costs on business those costs will be passed on to consumers; there is absolutely no doubt about that. This Government just does not seem to get that. We are not opposed to a tribunal. There are members over there on the Government benches who seem to think we are opposed to a tribunal but I say we are not. I have said before that we were going to support this bill until this sneaky Supplementary Order Paper which has not been consulted on came through. 
I am very disappointed in the member for United Future Paul Adams. United Future’s website says it supports lower flatter taxes and fewer compliance costs. Now Paul Adams thinks that because he has been a car dealer for 30 years he is an expert. I have been a mother for 28 years and a lover for a little bit longer than that yet I am not an expert on mothering or on sex. So how can Paul Adams be an expert on car dealing just because he has been a car dealer for 30 years? It is a non sequitur. 
Turning over to the next page of the bill I note that clause 5 states that this Act binds the Crown. That is a really interesting situation; it will be really interesting to see what happens. At the moment the Customs Service can seize imported vehicles that it suspects have dodgy odometers that might have been wound back. The Customs Service seizes those cars because they are deemed to be unsafe. But what does it do with those cars? It then sells them to the consumer through the auction system. The first consumer is forewarned that the odometer might have been wound back but subsequent customers who buy the cars after that are not warned. They have no idea of that yet the Government is acting as a car dealer. So will the Government now have to pay these levies to itself if it gets taken to the disputes tribunal because someone has bought a car that has had its odometer wound back and that person did not know that? 
I wonder why the Minister of Transport is not in the chair. 
Hon David Carter 
: He doesn’t understand the bill. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: Oh OK. Well someone else from the Government might be able to answer these questions. As I said the purpose of this bill the Government says is to protect consumers. I will tell members what raising taxes does for consumers. An international report has just confirmed that workers in New Zealand—who are consumers—are now worse off on average than they were 2 years ago. Since Labour’s election inflation and increased taxes and charges mean that a working couple is $1400 worse off than previously. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (NZ National) 
: 
 The question I ask the Minister in the chair the Hon Margaret Wilson is whether she could answer the question raised by the Hon Paul Swain the Minister who is actually in charge of this legislation. The Hon Paul Swain interjected during Mr Peter Brown’s contribution and asked: “Is this better than what exists now?” One would think that the Minister in charge of the legislation would have bothered to get hold of his own officials and find out the answer to that question rather than expect a member of the Opposition to answer it for him. The Motor Vehicle Sales Bill is before the House we are just embarking on the Committee stage and the poor hapless Minister of Transport has to ask Peter Brown whether this bill will be better than what exists at present. I hope that Margaret Wilson will take a call and answer that question for the Hon Paul Swain. 
While she is on her feet I also hope that she will clarify clause 6—the Parekura Horomia clause as it has been named tonight—and the definition of actual distance. This legislation records that actual distance in relation to a motor vehicle odometer “means the distance that would otherwise have been recorded on an odometer had it not been tampered with”. Even Dr Cullen is now expressing amazement at that definition. My simple question to the Minister is: when one comes across a vehicle with a tampered odometer and one needs to determine the actual distance how does she propose to do that? I ask the Minister to spend a bit of time talking to the officials because I think that she will need a bit of time doing that. 
I then move to yet another definition and on this occasion I have to congratulate the select committee on the good work it has done. The definition of a new motor vehicle is as follows: “new motor vehicle means a motor vehicle that is not a used motor vehicle”. I think that is reasonable. I congratulate the select committee under the chairmanship of David Cunliffe on getting that one right. But another definition worries me and I am hoping that the Minister will help me with it. It is where we define a motor cycle. A motor cycle means “a motor vehicle running on 2 wheels”. That is quite serious because we have just had all these problems in relation to the boy racer bill. I ask Clayton Cosgrove what happens when a motor vehicle goes around a corner too fast and suddenly it is on two wheels? It is a motor cycle! 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: We’re OK! 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Clayton Cosgrove has answered that question so I do not need the Minister to answer it. Clayton Cosgrove has acknowledged that if a motor vehicle goes around a corner too fast and is on two wheels it becomes a motor cycle. But I have another definition that worries me from the Greens’ point of view. Again it is the definition of a motor vehicle: “motor vehicle—(a) means any of the following: (i) a road vehicle that is drawn or propelled by mechanical power”. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Solar power? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Exactly what about solar power electric power or wind-powered vehicles? We hear a lot from the Greens about the future of wind in energy. In future we might have vehicles with sails and all sorts of things. I am concerned about whether that issue has been addressed. 
John Carter 
: Horse power? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: No I do not think that we will head back to the days of horse power but it is a possibility with the Greens anywhere near the Government. I think that gives the Minister a certain number of questions— 
John Carter 
: You could thaw a lot of things out. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I will not comment on that interjection but I thank John Carter very much for his contribution. I ask the Minister to help us with those definitions. The ones we want clarification on are how actual distance will be estimated when an odometer has been tampered with and there is the issue of motor vehicle definition as well. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First has supported the title of this bill but that is as far as we will go because this bill will not work. The comment made by the Minister Paul Swain when he asked Peter Brown whether this bill would work indicates that he has no confidence in this bill whatsoever. I draw the Committee’s attention to clause 146 in the Supplementary Order Paper which states that the Government wants to review the legislation in 2 years. Clause 146 indicates that the Minister has no confidence whatsoever in the bill because he has suddenly realised that it will not work. 
There is a simple description in the bill for interpreting “actual distance”. I cannot believe that it means “the distance that would otherwise have been recorded on an odometer had it not been tampered with”. 
Hon David Carter 
: That’s going to be a curly one but the Minister will be able to answer it—she is getting advice from Parekura Horomia. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: Parekura Horomia is giving her his advice right at this very moment. 
Hon David Carter 
: Seek leave for Parekura Horomia to answer it now! 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: I seek leave for Parekura Horomia to give us the answer right now—he is obviously giving advice to the Minister. 
It is impossible to detect when somebody has tampered with an odometer disconnected it or even put undersized or oversized wheels or tyres on to a vehicle which throws the odometer completely out. So how on earth can one decide whether an odometer has been tampered with? 
Clause 8 “Who is treated as a motor vehicle trader” states: “(1) A person is treated as carrying on the business of motor vehicle trading for the purposes of this Act if—... (b) in any specified period the person sells more than 6 motor vehicles”. They could be two-wheelers too. Backyard operators operating with or without a licence—usually without a licence—or under somebody else’s licence; in other words harbouring are not going to report the number of sales they have had. How will the Minister police that part of the bill? Whether or not he is harbouring a backyard operator will not report the number of sales he has had. He will not report that he has bought and sold more than 6 vehicles. This bill will not work; it has no possibility of working. [ 
Interruption 
] I have heard a lot of noise from the other side and it just indicates to me that Government members do not have confidence in this bill. They have realised that it will not work. Government members cannot give an interpretation of “tampering”. They cannot give a genuine interpretation of how they will police whether this bill can pick up backyard operators. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: It’s not intended to. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: It is not intended to I have heard. Perhaps that is the answer: the Government is putting in a bill just to tamper with the system. 
STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 When Opposition members go through this bill they have one overwhelming question in their minds and it is this one: “How come Harry Duynhoven is not the Minister of Transport?” That is a question that everyone over here has asked. At least Harry Duynhoven understands how motorcars work knows how to lift the bonnet and look inside a car and would not be messing around with a bill like this. Harry Duynhoven knows how the motor vehicle industry works. 
Dianne Yates 
: What do you know? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Somebody asked me what I know. I will go through the bill and point a few things out. We are very interested on this side of the Chamber to see that Mr David Cunliffe chaired the select committee. [ 
Interruption 
] We try to give David Cunliffe a trial; his nickname over on the Labour Party side is “fast track”. I am not sure whether that relates to the meteoric rise of his career or his ability to get legislation through. Only David Cunliffe would see the need to define some of the things that are defined in there. 
I ask members to consider whether they know what a trailer is. Does David Cunliffe know what a trailer is? We were driving along in our car or truck and the question to David Cunliffe and the Minister of Transport—who is not Harry Duynhoven—was: “What is a trailer?” They came up with this: “trailer—(a) means a vehicle without motive power that is drawn or propelled or is capable of being drawn or propelled by a motor vehicle from which it is readily detachable.” That is a long way of saying it. Every human being knows what a trailer is but David Cunliffe felt the need to put it in this bill. But then he goes further: “trailer—(b) includes a sidecar for a motor cycle.” How in the world can this Government think that a sidecar is a trailer and that by passing a Motor Vehicle Sales Bill under urgency we will somehow make a sidecar a trailer? 
I see Parekura Horomia having a yawn because it is past his bedtime but next time he is coming down to Wellington in a sidecar I ask him to contemplate that under this bill he is passing under urgency he is actually in a trailer not a sidecar and ask himself why that would be. Only David Cunliffe who is nicknamed “fast track” would see the need to define a motor vehicle in this bill. I am trying to find this bit because I know Government members have an interest in it. A motor vehicle is defined and then it goes like this— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: It could be a tractor. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: It could not be a tractor but the Governor-General could come along and declare a tractor to be a motor vehicle and then it would be. The Governor-General could declare a giraffe to be a motor vehicle and under this bill it would be a motor vehicle. Why on earth is David Cunliffe giving the Governor-General—late one night after a Labour Party booze-up—the power to decide what a motor vehicle is? I have not heard David Cunliffe or the Minister in the chair take a call to explain why we are having this sort of thing. 
Let us get to ACT’s objection. I know David Cunliffe is suffering from a lack of attention and he will just have to work harder and do the job more. When we look at Labour there is one solution to every problem is there not? Paul Adams of United Future has bought into it and the solution always is—more taxes. 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: Get your hand out of your pocket! 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Dover Samuels says I should get my hand out of my pocket. He should get his snout out of the trough. That would be a good start instead of going around eating at Te Puni Kokiri—eating and drinking away in an election year. I am quite happy to take my hand out of my pocket if he takes his snout out of the trough. 
DAVID PARKER (NZ Labour—Otago) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (NZ National—North Shore) 
: 
 I want to take up a particular point that has been raised with me—that a tractor is not a motor vehicle. I was reading the purpose provision months ago and it said that this bill would protect the interests of consumers. Why does the Government not want to protect the interests of farmers? Do members know how much a tractor costs? Mr Carter tells me that a tractor costs half a million dollars—an amazingly huge sum of money. Yet we are more concerned about $2000 cars. This bill is huge. It has many parts hundreds of clauses many schedules to protect consumers of $2000 cars but no protection whatsoever for $500000 tractors. Tractor owners are just stuck with the Sale of Goods Act and the Fair Trading Act—which are pretty good Acts. 
This is what I think. National has a policy of supporting this bill. When I think about it why would we support a bill that cannot even support the farming community? They are consumers they spend hundreds of thousands of dollars but they do not get the sympathy the empathy or the legislation. This Government just washes them aside. [ 
Interruption 
] It does not care about the rural sector. Does this Government even know what it is doing? Does it have legislation that is consistent logical concise and protects the consumer? It seems to me that the honest purchaser of a tractor should be protected. 
The other thing that strikes me as rather odd is that the Government does not trust itself. Clause 5 states: “This Act binds the Crown.” Normally that is seen as a good thing—the law should cover the Crown. But in this instance it is based upon a presumption that the Crown is dishonest that it will try to con consumers that consumers need hundreds of pages of legislation to protect them from the voraciousness of the Crown. 
Sandra Goudie 
: They have given themselves an exemption. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: So the Government is covered and exempted all at once. It is unbelievable. Why would it do that? 
The underlying premise says that the public cannot trust the Crown; that when the Crown disposes of vehicles—through the Government stores board I guess—when it sells those gold limousines that those members all so desire the public is likely to be sold a pup. They will have hundreds of thousands of kilometres on the clock they will have been thrashed and the motors will be about to bust and the public will have to have recourse to all these provisions. 
The other thing is this. We have heard today that the Government has put in a sneaky Supplementary Order Paper to have annual fees for the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal. I have to ask the Minister of Finance who must be concerned about the Government finances whether it is the intention that the Government will each and every year pay fees to the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal. Alternatively will it be making a special allocation of tax funds to the tribunal? One of those things must be true and the Minister should be able to answer that. Why should we be punishing honest hard-working entrepreneurs and small-business people—men and women—with special fees but exempting the Crown? This just loads it all on to the customer even though the Crown is in this legislation at least potentially so dishonest that it would sell vehicles that are faulty to the public. 
MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (NZ National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I would like to support my colleagues in their wonderful presentations in the Chamber tonight. I see that their presentations have been so good that we have the majority of the Labour Party out there to listen. I congratulate my colleagues on doing such a wonderful job on this bill. It is a fantastic job. Look at that! Labour is cheering their wonderful presentations to the Chamber tonight. It is a tribute to them. Labour is acknowledging their great contribution to this debate. 
I want to talk to members about the purpose of this bill and read a few words from one of our colleagues who said: “Wonders will never cease in this House when it comes to where Labour Governments come from when they want to regulate and to increase the costs of people in our society.” The Government has done that magnificently in this bill. The purpose of this bill is “to promote and protect the interests of consumers in relation to motor vehicle sales.” What has the Government done? It has released a Supplementary Order Paper that introduces a levy without having a compliance cost report. I support my colleague’s call for the Minister of Finance to make a response to the lack of a compliance cost report in relation to the Supplementary Order Paper given that this legislation is meant to be all about protecting the interests of consumers but is actually more about imposing a levy. 
The bill states as mentioned earlier by a colleague that it binds the Crown yet we see in clause 24 that the Crown has given itself an exemption from the requirement to register. Instead of the Crown going through the same process as everybody else in accordance with the bill the Government has said that the bill binds the Crown but has turned round and given the Crown an exemption from registering. So it does not really bind the Crown even though the bill states that it does. 
I also draw members’ attention as a number of colleagues have done to the actual distance in relation to a motor vehicle’s odometer. One cannot actually tell if it has been tampered with and if it has been tampered with before— 
Hon David Carter 
: You don’t know where it’s been tampered with. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: That is right. When a vehicle comes in from overseas how would anybody know if it were tampered with overseas and how can a motor vehicle dealer be held to account? [ 
Interruption 
] That is it. Government members do not actually understand the trade. They have not consulted very well or gone to any great lengths to understand the trade. Do they realise that if one is going to calculate the distance travelled and the odometer is faulty there is a problem? And one needs to know whether the tyre size was large or small because that has an influence upon the distance travelled. Government members might not be aware of that of course but we do not expect them to know because we know they do not really understand vehicles. 
I now take members to “car consultant”. That is a really interesting definition. I will read it out so that members know. 
Hon David Carter 
: Sounds like a Cunliffe special. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: Yes it does sound like a “Cunliffe special”. He was saying on the telly that he wanted a little bit of extra fun and I wonder whether he was referring to the definition of a car consultant. It states: “car consultant means a person who for rent fee commission or other valuable consideration”. We have to wonder what “other valuable consideration” might mean. Given the recent debate on the Prostitution Reform Bill is Mr Cunliffe envisaging this as being an element of fun that he was looking for in Government and in Government legislation? I just draw members’ attention to those words in the definition of “car consultant” and wonder what “other valuable consideration” means. The payment in kind or whatever it is that is being looked for is rather questionable indeed. 
I also draw members’ attention to other words spoken previously by colleagues about this bill supposedly meeting consumer interests yet having a heavy emphasis on compliance costs. That is a major concern for us. We are talking about covering only about 27 percent of car sale transactions. Most transactions happen outside the orbit of licensed dealers. So here we are winding back the restrictions and prescriptions of the past in this bill. It will increase the taxpayers’ costs on an ongoing basis. Are we really expecting that all the dispute tribunal costs and all the enforcement costs will come out— 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 66 
Labour 52; Green Party 4; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 30 in the name of the Hon Judith Tizard to Part 1 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to 
Ayes 93 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 4; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 21 
New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 93 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 4; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 21 
New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Motor vehicle trading 
SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I am still struggling to recover given that the only part of the bill that one can agree with is the title. I learn something every day that I am here in Parliament. [ 
Interruption 
] Are the members sure about that? 
Peter Brown 
: Absolutely! The title is the only good part about it. 
SIMON POWER 
: OK. Part 2 relating to motor vehicle trading contains a number of prohibitive clauses initially clauses 11 through to 13 which I will deal with briefly. I will then talk about car fairs which are caught up in clause 14(2) and then the old bona fide purchaser and clear title issue in clause 15(1). That is the sort of stuff that haunts third-year law students dealing with security interests as to whether dealers are registered or not. Clause 15(1)(b) is a very interesting clause which we will look at in the next 4 minutes and 30 seconds. 
Clauses 11 12 and 13 deal with persons banned from participating in the business of motor vehicle trading. I put this issue to my ACT colleagues. Clause 11 states: “A person must not participate in the business of motor vehicle trading if that person is a banned person.”—or what? What is the fine for doing that? What happens if a person is a banned person and he or she does participate in the business of motor vehicle trading? 
This legislation is appallingly drafted. We have four-wheel drive vehicles going around corners too quickly and turning into motorbikes. We have odometers being tampered with and we know that the actual distance in relation to a motor vehicle’s odometer means the distance that would otherwise have been recorded had the odometer not been tampered with. That will go down well in court! Clause 13 is my favourite though. It is headed “Tampering with odometers prohibited” and it states: “A person must not tamper with a motor vehicle’s odometer.”—or what? There is no clause in the bill that states what will happen. There is no clause stating what penalty will be incurred for that. There is no clause stating what that person will face. That clause states that a person must not tamper with a motor vehicle’s odometer—or what? [ 
Interruption 
] That is very good Minister! People should not do that—or what? What sort of clause is that? How can anybody take that provision or those preceding it seriously? We are told that we are not allowed to do that. That is fine; we are quite happy with that. But what happens if we do so? We are not sure of that; one just has to take that chance at the time that one does it. That is really poor slack drafting. 
I will move on now because I know my colleague David Carter intends to dwell on clauses 11 through to 13 in his 5-minute contribution. However I do want to raise the question that I raised in my contribution on the title about the difference between the sale of a motor vehicle and its trade. Clause 14(2) captures the car fair—the good old car fair on the side of the road where one used to be able to bowl up park one’s car on the road slap a notice on the front and say one was keen to sell it to anyone for $1500—to any buyer or the best bidder in the room. Now that particular activity is caught under clause 14(2) where a motor vehicle trader who is a car market operator—not a car consultant but a car market operator—must ensure that a consumer selling a vehicle through that trader attaches the notice to the vehicle. When we look at the provisions of the notice we see it is regulation gone mad. That is a situation where a person wakes up on a Saturday and says he or she needs a quick $1000 so he or she will go down to the car fair sell a car and be on his or her way. That person will not be able to do that because under clause 15(1) a person has to attach a notice pursuant to section 58 of the Personal Property Securities Act in a prominent place. 
Sandra Goudie 
: I have many in my kitchen drawer. 
SIMON POWER 
: That is right. The buyer or lessee of a motor vehicle only takes the vehicle free of a security interest in the event that subparagraphs (a) through to (c)(i) of that section are passed. We know how difficult legal transactions are when a security interest attaches to a motor vehicle. 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I do not intend to take a long call on this issue. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Good. 
PETER BROWN 
: I am glad that I please some members over there on the Government benches. I want to touch on clause 13 “Tampering with odometers prohibited”. 
Simon Power 
: Or what? 
PETER BROWN 
: That is exactly the issue. Right now if an importer brings a car into this country from Japan or somewhere else and the odometer is tampered with he or she loses that car and it is sold by the Customs Department. The department has to put a notice on the motorcar stating that the odometer has been tampered with and the first buyer—and I think Deborah Coddington has touched on this already—knows full well what has happened. There is some doubt as to whether that extends to the second or any subsequent buyers. 
If a car is brought into this country and a person tampers with the odometer I want to know what happens if that person puts in the details of the vehicle that are required under clause 14 that he or she has tampered with the odometer which is the thing that measures the distance. I think there is a clause in there from Mr Clayton Cosgrove—[ 
Interruption 
] Clearly the member over there on the Government benches has not read the bill which is a bit of a worry. [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Power is exactly right. He has summed that up far better than I could have. Nothing seems to happen to anybody who does tamper with an odometer. I cannot find any reference to that. 
Simon Power 
: I looked. 
PETER BROWN 
: Mr Power who is a lawyer has looked and he cannot find anything. Nothing seems to happen to those people. If those people put in the notice that they have to display that the odometer has been tampered with will that be good enough? If it is good enough why is that not good enough for an importer who brings in a car from Japan and has it taken from him and sold by the Customs Department? 
Simon Power 
: Good question. 
PETER BROWN 
: It is a good question and the Minister should answer it. Why is it not good enough for a person to tamper with the odometer and to put that on the notice that must be displayed? Why is that not good enough? 
This bill is flawed. We have said so. The only thing that the Government has got right about the bill is the title. That is the only correct thing in this bill. The sentiments behind the bill are admirable but the bill itself is flawed and that surprises me. Our colleagues in the National Party have recognised that this bill is not up to standard— 
Simon Power 
: Constructive criticism. 
PETER BROWN 
: And I am really surprised that the National Party is voting for it. 
Simon Power 
: We were surprised that you voted for the title. 
PETER BROWN 
: I will answer that question. We felt a little benevolent. We realised a lot of work had gone into this bill and we did not want the Government to feel totally downhearted at producing legislation like this bill and Supplementary Order Paper 30. We thought that we had to find something positive about the bill and the title was all that we could find. 
I come back to the odometer issue which is quite a serious question. Nothing seems to happen to a person who tampers with an odometer. Mr Duynhoven would like something to happen and I would like something to happen. But I ask Mr Duynhoven to tell us where in the bill it states that something will happen. All that it will do is to make the car look as though it has been used less than it actually has. If the person puts a statement on the notice in the window that the odometer has been tampered with he or she is complying with the regulation and is selling a car that looks newer than it actually is. But the extent of that tampering we do not know and that person does not seem to be breaking the law. 
Steve Chadwick who is on the Commerce Committee is taking a keen interest in this issue. Would she please explain whether such a person is outside the law under this legislation and if he or she is would she tell us which clauses put that person outside the law? 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Read the bill. 
PETER BROWN 
: Clayton Cosgrove is making a lot of noise back there. Maybe he will take a call and tell us exactly where that is in the bill. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Read the bill. 
PETER BROWN 
: I have read the bill inside out and Supplementary Order Paper 30. If Mr Cosgrove knows the answer to that question he should stand up and explain that to this House. I do not think he does know; I am certain he does not know. 
This is a serious question. Could we have people tampering with odometers to make cars look to all intents and purposes as though they have had less use than they actually have putting that on the notice that is displayed and making those cars more attractive to a buyer without disclosing how much the odometers have been wound back? I invite the Minister or indeed anybody else to say whether that is ethical. I invite the Minister or anybody else to say that is against the law. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (NZ National) 
: 
 I want to start by moving through to Subpart 3 clause 21 etc. and taking an opportunity to wade through this legislation which is becoming more and more alarming by the minute. We note the Minister of Transport Paul Swain is not allowed to speak on this bill at all. He is the member who asked the House earlier whether this legislation was better than what exists now so that shows how much knowledge he has about it. 
I want to move to the issue of the qualifications of motor vehicle traders and the registration process. I say that this provision appears to be a vast improvement on the current situation. It appears to me that with this bill we are about to remove the very old-fashioned regimented way by which people had to go before a board and prove they were of suitable character etc. 
Peter Brown 
: Why not explain the point I raised? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: No no that is not my job. The member should call on Paul Swain to answer his question. 
Peter Brown 
: You are defending the legislation. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: No I am saying that after pages and pages of it I have actually found one little bit that I quite like. 
Brent Catchpole 
: It is the title! 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: No it is not the title; the member has that wrong. But anyway the member can have another go at speaking later. 
The point that I think is a lot tidier is that the registration process will now be effectively automatic with a number of exemptions for people who are disqualified from registering—the issues about whether one is under the age of 18 which seems fair enough and about whether one is a person who has been banned or is an undischarged bankrupt etc. I just say that amongst this dreadfully drafted— 
Simon Power 
: Banned from rugby service! 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: That is a good point—[ 
Interruption 
] I think we had better get Paul Swain back. In all this dreadfully drafted bill which we are appropriately debating on 1 April—April Fool’s Day—I think I have actually found something that has some merit. So I congratulate the Government on at least getting a small part of the bill possibly right. 
But I want to get back to the point that has been raised by other members about tampering with odometers. There is an issue whereby clause 13 states that tampering with odometers is prohibited. That clause states: “A person must not tamper with”—[ 
Interruption 
] Mark Burton gave an interjection of about four words but by the time he had finished he had forgotten what he said. Now I know it is late at night for the Minister but one would really expect him to recall— 
Hon Mark Burton 
: I did not want to embarrass the member. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: He did not want to embarrass me. I assure Mark Burton that when I interject three words I can remember them. But I ask some honourable member from the Government to explain clause 13— 
Simon Power 
: Harry is getting ready! 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Oh great! The real Minister of Transport will take a call! That would be great. I want to know what happens to a person if he or she tampers with a motor vehicle’s odometer. I remember Harry Duynhoven putting in hours and hours of debate in this House about the issue of people tampering with odometers. That was a big issue a couple of years ago. In fact Mr Harry Duynhoven made his name on that issue. 
Simon Power 
: “Harry Odometer Duynhoven”. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: That sounds quite good; it has a nice ring about it. Everybody expected that Harry Duynhoven would be the real Minister and after the remark earlier by Paul Swain maybe Harry Duynhoven should be the real Minister. So Harry Duynhoven can take a call and explain to us what happens to a person who is caught tampering with an odometer. What is the penalty for that? [ 
Interruption 
] Helen Duncan can tell us what the penalty is. No she puts her glasses on now hides her head in a book and wishes that she had not interjected. 
Brent Catchpole 
: She is knitting. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Oh is it knitting? 
Helen Duncan 
: It is the National Party that is responsible for the legislation. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I do not think that is the case at all. This bill has the Hon Judith Tizard’s name on it. She is a member of the caucus that that member belongs to not a member of our caucus. The member should not blame me. 
Helen Duncan 
: We know you are taking the numbers for the leadership. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: No I am trying to get some honourable member from the Government to explain to us what happens when one finds someone tampering with an odometer. It is a simple question. Not even Parekura Horomia knows the answer to that. Nobody on the Government side of the Chamber can answer that question. 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 I hope not too many of my friends in the motor industry are listening to this tonight because many of them were concerned at my level of intelligence when I said that I was going to become an MP. They said to me: “Paul they’ll run rings around you.” Well hearing the debate tonight I think many of them would be sadly disappointed. I did like Wayne Mapp’s description of car salesmen; I had never heard it before—honest hard working entrepreneurs. The National Party has got something right; they are. 
But if my car salesmen described a car—and members should listen to this carefully—with the same accuracy as my parliamentary colleagues are describing this bill they would have to lose their jobs. Under the Fair Trading Act and the consumer protection bill their descriptions would be so inaccurate that they would probably lose their jobs. There is one word that we need to see come back in every industry in this country and I think the motor industry largely runs on this word and it is “integrity”. One cannot legislate for every situation that one has in business. I am surprised when I see some of my parliamentary colleagues who talk about less legislation bringing in more legislation. I scratch my head and as just a poor car salesman I wonder where they are coming from. 
Let us have a look at clause 13 “Tampering with odometers prohibited”. That is fine but if one is without integrity one can change the speedometer in a car without tampering with it. There is plenty of wreckers’ yards in New Zealand or overseas. Without integrity one cannot write legislation that will cover every situation. 
I would also like to touch on—[ 
Interruption 
] That is not tampering; it is changing. One thing about this legislation is that the motor industry does welcome it but my concern about it is that we are lowering the bar. In other words up until now motor vehicle dealers have had to invest a large amount of money in their motor vehicle businesses. They need a site which they have either had to purchase or had to lease to operate from. All of that is changing. Many of the calculations that have been done have been done on the existing regime of the car industry which to be honest—but people do not like me using that saying. The figures show that for example there has been very little call on the fidelity fund. Unfortunately with the lowering of the bar under this bill I think that we will have greater challenges unless the industry is policed correctly and really dealt with. It will be very easy now to enter the motor industry. 
Many people have also talked about motor vehicles being a high-ticket item. But in reality today that is not the case. One can buy a very good motor vehicle for say $3000 $5000 or $7000 which will serve one well. One can buy a spa pool for $15000 $25000 or $30000 or one can buy a television set. So members should not say that the motor industry has big-ticket items; yes it can have big-ticket items but it can also have very good items. 
I also see in clause 15 problems for the finance industry. I have concerns about the security interest having to be covered in what we call the current motor vehicle dealers window card. If a finance company has a security interest in a vehicle and if that vehicle is sold by a less-than-desirable motor vehicle trader who has entered this industry and who has disclosed in the window card that the vehicle has finance on it then yes the member of the public who purchases the vehicle will have clear title to it but the finance company will lose its right to the security on that vehicle. Its only right of redress to get its funds back will be through the trader. Under this legislation the standard required of the trader is far less than what we currently have. I can see that that may possibly cause a problem down the line. 
Nevertheless I welcome the 2-year review of this bill. I think that is absolutely necessary. 
Simon Power 
: Why? 
PAUL ADAMS 
: If National members are quiet I will tell them why. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Transport) 
: 
 This bill has a large number of issues in it and it is hard to know where to start in a 5-minute speech. [ 
Interruption 
] For the benefit of the Hon David Carter I will start with clause 89 which is about the offence of tampering with odometers. I suggest that the member read it; it is in large print so he should be able to find it. It has reference to clause 106 which is about penalties. 
I have had some misgivings about this legislation and that would be no secret to anyone in this Committee. I am pleased that in the process the bill has been improved somewhat. I share some of the concerns of my United Future colleague Paul Adams who spoke about the entry level. But it has been deemed that those over the age of 18 who have no criminal convictions should be able to enter into the motor vehicle dealer business. That is outlined in the bill in such a way as to say: “We have faith that the registrar will be able to ensure that those persons who are suitable remain in the industry and that those who are not suitable exit from it by being banned.” 
I am very pleased that this bill is removing the statutory authority given to the Motor Vehicle Dealers Institute. It takes away the institute’s respectability which in my view—and I am not talking about the motor vehicle dealers themselves but about the organisation—has been used fraudulently for a long time. That may seem a very strong comment but in the interests of the consumers who have bought clocked cars over the last decade and a bit I have to say that very few motor vehicle dealers have been imprisoned or indeed taken to the cleaners by the Motor Vehicle Dealers Institute. I imagine that it will now rapidly go out of existence. I see the Motor Trade Association and perhaps even what used to be known as the Imported Motor Vehicle Dealers Association and is now the Independent Motor Vehicle Dealers Association taking over those roles. 
I have a little question about the definition of “motor cycle” in clause 6 not including a moped. The definition of “motor vehicle” states in paragraph (b)(iii) that “a motor cycle the total cylinder capacity of which does not exceed 60 cubic centimetres:” is not included as a motor vehicle. There are lots of motorcycles that go fairly quickly even though they are classified as mopeds. I am surprised by that definition. However there might be a good reason for it which someone might enlighten us about later. 
I am pleased with clause 14 which is about the particulars that must be displayed. I have never ever seen a vehicle with “This vehicle is clocked.” displayed on it despite Mr Delamere assuring us when he was a Minister that that would happen. If members compare—and I have done this; I have been there—the deregistration data in Japan including the mileage by just walking down the lines at any auction and looking at the registration data and the original mileage recorded at the time of the first inspection of the vehicle on its coming to New Zealand they will find that there seems to be a huge disparity. One has only to look at the price of diesel in Japan to start asking: “Why would people buy a diesel vehicle in Japan where petrol and diesel are more or less the same price unless they were doing very high mileage?” and to wonder at the failure rate of Japanese diesel vehicles in New Zealand to conclude that clocking is still with us and is an issue. I am pleased that it is addressed in clauses 89 and 106 of the bill. 
I have some concern about one aspect which I hope will be rigorously policed and that is the idea of travelling door-to-door salespeople. How can people believe that pressure will not be exerted in that situation? For example if an elderly person has an older car that breaks down and that will cost a lot to repair a motor vehicle dealer who knows the person may notice that the car has broken down and may shoot around with a flash Japanese used-car import and say: “This is a marvellous little car. We will give you a good trade-in on your old car.” The dealer would see the person alone in his or her own home where the person could be convinced by offers of finance and by lines like: “We can do the deal right here in your lounge.” Motor vehicle salespeople are excellent at psychology: they know how to close deals. We will see that happen. I hope that is an aspect of the bill that the registrar will rigorously follow up. 
I am pleased with clause 22(ea) which is the new bit that has been added and is about one of the concerns I raise. I have to say though that anyone who investigates that will be very disappointed with the very low number of disqualified dealers. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ) 
: 
 The whole point about this legislation is that it is not necessary. It is specialist industry legislation and there is nothing new in that. There are always certain industry sectors that lobby for specialist legislation. [ 
Interruption 
] That is the whole point. When we ran this country like a Polish shipyard only the wealthy could afford to buy cars but those days have long gone and now cars are accessible to a lot more people. Families do not have just one car; they can buy two or three cars. My car is worth about $500 and that is fine. It has done 220000 kilometres but it gets me from A to B. I am going to keep driving it to see how long it lasts. It is a Subaru and it is a wonderful little car. 
The point I am making is that when cars were out of the reach of most people and they had to go on to a list to get a new one and they had to give the dealer a bottle of whiskey to have themselves put further up the list the family car was often the second-most-expensive possession that people owned after their houses. That was why we needed legislation to protect people in the industry. There was a huge amount of money at stake. These days we need regulation that is a lot lighter but that is not what we have with this bill. The neo-socialists always fall for this. They see a problem and they think they can solve it by passing more law. We end up with legislation that is cumbersome and fraught with difficulty. 
I noticed that Harry Duynhoven said he welcomed the end of the fidelity fund— 
Hon Member 
: No he certainly did not. The member spoke of the end of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Association. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: I do not welcome the end of that but I welcome the end of its compulsory membership. If an organisation is good then people will join it voluntarily—just like unions. If unions are good people will join them voluntarily. It is the same with students’ associations. We can get rid of the compulsory membership of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Association but we cannot apply that to students’ associations! Never mind there is hope; we are the party of influence and we will keep working. We will influence both sides of the Committee but it is very difficult when there is a concrete-bound mentality. 
I return to Part 2 of this legislation. It deals with exemptions from registration. First of all the Crown is exempt from registration so it will not have to be policed or pay levies when the Customs Service seizes cars that it suspects have had their odometers tampered with and sells them. The Customs Service is exempt from registration. That involves something like a thousand cars a year. 
Debate interrupted. 
Sitting suspended from 12 midnightto 9 a.m. (Thursday)