Coddington Deborah: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Coddington Deborah: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4763] 
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.