Duynhoven Harry: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Duynhoven Harry: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4798] 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I want to comment on a few things that have been said during the course of this bill’s passage and the first thing I will comment on is Deborah Coddington who accused me of all people of hating cars. Perhaps she does not know me very well yet. Cars have been my life-long interest and I guess my wife is occasionally annoyed at the number of them that we have at home. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: That happens! 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: Yes it is called an addiction. My interest has always been with the buyers—the consumers. There is clearly not an even playing field between buyer and seller. I really became interested in this issue when New Plymouth Women’s Refuge was ripped off defrauded and cheated by Saevue Autos in New Plymouth a company that operated in a way that led everyone to believe it was extremely trustworthy and very sadly it was not. 
The Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal which for the benefit of Mr Key who spoke about it earlier but clearly has never been to a dispute and admitted such recognised that that vehicle had been “clocked” and that that was a considerable cost to the women’s refuge. The issue is whether people could have faith in the Motor Vehicle Dealers Institute and the conflict that the institute found itself in when those importing cars and wanting to make a quick buck by clocking them began to get more and more control of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Institute. The vast number of dealers in this country were appalled at what happened over the running of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Institute in recent years. Honest dealers tried very hard not to be members of that compulsory organisation and not pay the levies. 
Mr Prebble commented on the levies and this new $127 levy to fund the disputes tribunal. He ranted about the new levy. I tell him that currently the licence fee just to belong to the compulsory Motor Vehicle Dealers Institute is $140. On top of that there are various occasional amounts that have to be paid to the motor vehicle dealers levy fund. The last amount paid in February this year was $506 but it has been $675 an occasional $500 and so on. 
I have probably been personally responsible for some of the reasons that that money had to be forked out because of the court cases I have taken against crooks in the motor vehicle industry. I think I am the only member of Parliament ever to have taken a constituent through that process. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: What about the sales tax? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: It would be very helpful if Mr Brownlee were to keep his mouth shut and listen for a while. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Some comment can be made but that is out of order. The member will withdraw that comment and carry on with the debate. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: I withdraw the comment. I tell Mr Brownlee that it might help him if he were to be quiet and to listen. The original motor vehicle dealers legislation set a dual responsibility for the Motor Vehicle Dealers Institute. The original 1975 Act was to make better provision for the licensing and disciplining of motor vehicle dealers and their staff and to reform the law relating to contracts for the sale of motor vehicles by dealers—and here is the key point—in order to promote and protect the interests of consumers. The Motor Vehicle Dealers Institute was charged with the statutory duty of operating in the interests of consumers and of disciplining dealers but at the same time it was shanghaied and derailed into protecting the interests of motor vehicle dealers even when they were committing fraud. 
One of the reasons that the levy from the fidelity fund has been so high in recent years is that on some occasions the Motor Vehicle Dealers Institute has applied to the licensing board to have a dealer struck off on the basis of evidence provided. In cases where the struck-off dealer has been smart enough to have all of his or her assets in trusts and everything else the money cannot be clawed back and the dealer has been able to avoid paying. It is then that the fidelity fund becomes responsible and the lawyers in the Motor Vehicle Dealers Institute then object to the same evidence they used to take the licence in the court to try to avoid a payment being made from the fidelity fund. If members look at the expenses of the fidelity fund in recent years I am sure they will find that most of the fund has been spent on legal fees. 
The original Act had a very powerful section which was section 42(3). Notwithstanding any other law that section enabled a crooked dealer to be pursued. I am very pleased that this bill gives the registrar the right to strike off crooked dealers and provides that there will be a review in 2 years to see whether this bill is working well. I am looking forward to that review. I am pleased to have played a part in this. I know I have not been terribly popular with my colleagues but I can tell from the number of good honest dealers who have come up to me and said “Harry good on you for keeping on this because these “clocked” cars are killing us.” that they really appreciate the work that has been done to try to make this legislation work. 
Finally for the benefit of those who do not believe that “clocked” cars are still a problem I suggest that they look at a Japanese website to see what the average mileage there is and then compare that with the average mileage on cars at their local car yard. I think people will be amazed by the difference between those figures. We still seem to have a problem with the reduction of mileage in vehicles crossing the sea particularly with regard to diesel vehicles. There are many good dealers and I want to see them protected. 
Debate interrupted.