Goodhew Jo: Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Goodhew Jo: Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:655;Page:4693] 
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise today to speak on the first reading of the Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill. The first thing I would like to do is to thank the Hon Heather Roy for the work she has put into bringing this bill to the House today. But I think it is probably timely that I also acknowledge some of the comments that have been made by the Opposition member who has just resumed his seat. This Government is focused on making business happen in a smarter way on cutting compliance costs on making sure loopholes are closed and on doing things that really matter to New Zealanders. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Where’s the plan to create jobs? 
JO GOODHEW 
: It seems that the Opposition simply does not get it. This bill is about a number of things. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Where’s the plan to create jobs? No plans to create jobs. 
JO GOODHEW 
: I will get to those soon. Underpinning the bill is a sense of reducing the compliance costs closing loopholes—otherwise called “unintended consequences”—and making the law better and smarter. Who can seriously contend that that is not a good thing to do? 
This bill is a real priority for this National-led Government and we are joined with our partner the ACT Party in bringing the bill to the House after some considerable time has been spent on its genesis. At this time of recession and of having to focus on fiscal prudence it is important that we display a determination to get rid of unnecessary compliance costs loopholes and laws that do not achieve what they set out to achieve and hence we have this amendment bill. 
The purpose of the bill is to amend the Motor Vehicle Sales Act 2003 and to improve its effective operation. The bill is all about promoting and protecting consumers’ interests. It seeks to create an environment that is about informed choice about confidence and about being able to do the things one intends to do when they relate to motor vehicles. It makes vehicle traders accountable and that is truly a worthy purpose of the bill. It also provides consumers with redress through the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal and slightly alters the range of that tribunal. The bill enhances those functions. The Minister when she introduced this bill told us that the legislation should be achieving its stated intention and that there should not be what she described as “unforeseen side effects” or “unintended consequences”. National members certainly agree with her here. 
Following a review of the principal Act in 2003 by the Ministry of Consumer Affairs this amendment bill suggests changes to the registration procedure for motor vehicle traders. The issue is about information disclosure and again as I have already said about the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal. The review of the Act was tabled in the House in March 2006 and more than 3 years later we finally have the opportunity to address the bill and in doing so to amend to the Act. Again I say the core elements of the principal Act are a requirement for those who trade in motor vehicles to be registered requirements for information disclosure around used motor vehicles and the provision for consumer redress through the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal. 
The bill makes some specific changes to the Act. They include amending the process for traders who are renewing their annual registration. You see traders have to do that every single year which is an unnecessary compliance cost for them when there have been no changes to their original registration. So it seems absolutely appropriate that we require those annual statutory declarations as part of registration renewal only when there are changes to the details. There is also a loophole that needs closing which is about preventing the automatic banning of traders whose registration has lapsed but who are subsequently convicted under the Act for conduct while they were registered. 
As well there is an opportunity to remove the requirement for private sellers at car markets to display a consumer information notice. This is about eliminating unnecessary compliance costs and that also applies to removing the requirement to display those same notices the consumer information notices where the transactions are between traders or between traders and wreckers. 
This bill increases the financial limit at which cases will be heard by the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal and the limit takes quite a substantial rise from $50000 to $100000. Another part of the bill allows the tribunal to award costs for the non-attendance of either party to the dispute and allows the publishing of tribunal decisions. This is all good smart stuff when it comes to giving consumers confidence because right now we want anyone who is buying a used car to have consumer confidence and to know that the rules are wrapped around by this legislation. This amendment bill certainly brings them to Parliament for discussion. They are rules that allow consumers to have confidence. 
In relation to motor vehicle trader registration I tell members that at present after supplying the statutory declaration with the initial application to become a director of a motor vehicle trading company as I have already said the director has to keep on supplying an annual declaration. Why would directors need to do that unless something has changed? That increases costs. What is the purpose? It seems to me that there is no clear purpose for that. It is unnecessary so in fact it will be dealt to in this bill. The registrar has the information on the register and it is important that we know that that information is up-to-date and correct. But it is also useful to know that a person does not just have to keep on unnecessarily filling out forms at a cost to that person or that director. That provision will be useful to those directors who currently live overseas because they will have reduced compliance costs as a result of this bill. 
There is also an issue at present about the fact that people can currently be appointed directors between annual registrations. That can happen without any check on their suitability. Of course we do not consider that to be suitable and this bill amends the Act so that when a new director or another person involved in the management of the company is appointed then that person’s notification has to be accompanied by a statutory declaration. That declaration is about that person’s suitability for registration. Once again we are talking about consumer confidence which is very important. It is only a small change but it really is an additional protection that we believe consumers will welcome. 
There is also a loophole in the current Act regarding automatic banning and it currently prevents the automatic banning of traders from future trading as motor vehicle dealers if those people are unregistered or have lapsed registration at the time of their conviction for certain offences or of their entry into bankruptcy. Currently such people can continue to trade in motor vehicles until the registrar can take a case to court to have them banned. That can actually take some months comes at a cost to the Government and of course does not create consumer confidence. Once again we get back to the issue of consumer confidence. So the bill proposes that those people can be automatically banned without being registered under the Act if they meet specific criteria. Those criteria I am sure will be discussed at the select committee but it is proposed in the bill that traders can be banned for convictions for crimes of dishonesty or for a second bankruptcy within 10 years of the first. 
Another aspect of the bill is around sales information disclosure which is about the consumer information notice or window card when sales are being made through a car market. These notices display a consumer’s rights when purchasing from a trader not a private seller. So the bill removes the requirement in respect of private sellers at a car market as it is confusing for consumers and can result in them thinking they have more rights than they actually do. The bill also removes the requirement to display consumer information notices where transactions are taking place between traders or between traders and wreckers because that is an unnecessary compliance cost. 
In relation to disputes resolution as I have said the financial limit for the operation of the tribunal will be increased from $50000 to $100000 which reflects the increased value of new and used cars. 
I will wind up my address this afternoon by reiterating that the core elements of the bill and the Act should be about the requirement of those who are trading in motor vehicles to be registered the requirement for information disclosure regarding used motor vehicles and the provision of consumer redress through the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal. I am sure that this bill will be well debated in the select committee process and I commend it to the House.