Prebble Richard: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Prebble Richard: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4790] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 Let me make this statement. I say to the Committee— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Is the member raising a point of order? 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: No I am taking a call. I say to the Committee following that contribution from the Minister who said and I quote that she has a pile of letters from car dealers— 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: Messages I said. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: It has now become messages. She says she has a pile of messages from car dealers asking what on earth the ACT party is on about. I say to the Minister that I do not believe her. I do not think there is a member of the Committee who believes her. It is a question of credibility. The Minister can table them. Deborah Coddington has a pile of messages right here. Let me pull some of them out. I have just pulled some of those messages out and had a look and I shall read them to the Committee: “Dear Deborah Thank you for taking the time to contact me with the rather alarming news that a Supplementary Order Paper has been added to the impending Motor Vehicle Sales Bill.” Here is another one: “Attention Deborah Coddington: Any tax that Ms Tizard wants to slip into the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill will be most unwanted.” I am reading the messages straight out to the Minister. Here is another one: “Dear Deborah I think a tax or a levy stinks.” Here is another one: “We wish to thank you for your letter re the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill. It is very surprising that an MP can slip in a Supplementary Order Paper without those concerned having the opportunity to express opposition to the proposed levy.” 
I could read out another one. Here is the Minister who told the Committee that she has a pile of messages saying that the ACT party is wrong. I am saying that she does not have one. It is very very easy for the Minister to contradict me. I am reading out these messages to the Committee and I hope no one suggests that I am making them up: “Dear Deborah Thank you for your letter dated 19 March re Motor Vehicle Sales Bill. I am surprised and dismayed to hear Judith Tizard has slipped in a Supplementary Order Paper which allows a levy to be imposed on the vehicle industry.” Here is another one: “Dear Deborah We have just received your letter dated 19 March 2003 addressed to the motor vehicle dealers. Turner Fleet Ltd is a wholly owned subsidiary of Turners Auctions Ltd. My response like you I’m alarmed astonished and disturbed at what appears to be an underhanded attempt.” Here we are: “Dear Deborah re levy I would like to voice strong opposition to this open-ended levy. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. I am not in favour of any new taxes.” I could keep going. I ask the Minister whether anyone in the Chamber doubts that Deborah Coddington’s letters are genuine. 
Murray Smith 
: No. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I want to have this clear. Is Mr Smith saying that these letters are not genuine? 
Murray Smith 
: The ones she wrote might not be. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: That is very interesting. He is accusing an ACT member of not having written a genuine letter. It is interesting that all those people can reply to a letter that apparently Mr Smith said may not have been sent. I ask Mr Smith whether he believes that the Minister has a pile of messages. He is prepared to believe that. Has he seen them? 
Murray Smith 
: No. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: No he has not seen them. Does he think it is interesting that the Minister who has been challenged and basically told by me that what she is saying to the Committee is not true has not replied to that? Is the Minister’s behaviour the sort of behaviour that we want from a Minister of the Crown? Of course it is not. Do we as a Parliament want to support a Minister who is prepared to slip in a Supplementary Order Paper and then say that clause 7(b)(ii) had a little sentence in it and two car dealers in the country saw it 2 years ago? I say to the Minister that if she intended to have a levy why was it not in the original bill? 
I believe that we as a Parliament should vote against this bill to indicate our strong opposition to this Minister’s style. I have contempt for MPs who get up in the Chamber and claim that they have a pile of messages but when they are challenged cannot produce that pile. I say to the Minister that her credibility is zilch anyway but if she wants to protect it at all she ought to be able to produce at least 100 messages from 100 different car dealers.