Coddington Deborah: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Coddington Deborah: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4780] 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ) 
: 
 It is interesting that this bill is described as something that will protect consumers. I see that the National and ACT members of the select committee which I was not a part of made the comment that the registrar should have the power to require audits of motor vehicle traders especially when he or she believes that a motor vehicle trader may be insolvent. It could stop an insolvent trader carrying on business losing more and more for his or her creditors. When that was rejected it was one of the things that could have protected consumers. Government members rejected that recommendation. That would have been a way in which they could have been protected. Currently this legislation has virtually no teeth. 
I turn to clause 29. It is here that we are first introducing the reference in the Supplementary Order Paper to section 130A which relates to somebody applying for registration as a motor vehicle trader or he or she has to pay this levy. Nothing in section 130A says that if one trader is taken to the disputes tribunal more often than another trader the levy will go up or down commensurately with how good or bad a trader he or she is. It prescribes different levies for different classes of motor vehicle traders not for different levels of integrity of motor vehicle traders. 
I come back to my point that it is absolutely despicable that this Government—and it should be ashamed of itself—is passing yet more taxes for businesses out there. Why does it keep singling out the poor old motorists and whacking them every time? We have had petrol tax go up and road-user charges go up. We have had accident compensation levies go up and licensing costs go up. The member from United Future talked about a level playing field. What is “level playing field” about socking it to the poor old motorist or the car dealer? It is easy to sock car dealers because everybody holds them in contempt anyway—or that is what this elitist spa-pool neo-socialist Government thinks. 
The other point about this Supplementary Order Paper is the fact that it is being sneaked through. It never went to a select committee; motor vehicle dealers were never given a chance to have their input. They are writing back to me and I got another letter this morning that said: “Thank you for your advice regarding Ms Tizard’s clever little stab in our sides. Nothing the Labour Government does surprises me any more. Their electorate seems to be lower-income people and beneficiaries so the only way to keep themselves in office is to tax their perceived rich taxpayers to keep the poorer voters happy. As a motor vehicle importer and retailer I feel we have had enough. The cost of compliance in order to bring a vehicle into the country has risen dramatically over the last 4 years. I wish you well fighting this tax. Your yells will no doubt fall on deaf ears because the ones that vote these wankers into power have an insatiable appetite for taxpayer money and they have got to get it from somewhere.” It is a matter of tax and spend and I come back to the latest OECD report— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member used an unparliamentary term. Would she please withdraw. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: Yes I withdraw and apologise. But to help me can you tell me what that was? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is well aware of what was said. Please continue. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: I come back to what taxing and spending does. The latest OECD survey shows that the average tax bill for the average worker with a spouse and two children in New Zealand makes that worker the second-worst-off in the world—in just one place above the Czech Republic. That is shameful and this new tax on motor vehicle dealers will put us probably below the Czech Republic. The average working couple now is $1400 worse off a year in real terms. I say to this Government that that is shameful and I say to United Future that if it would support my Supplementary Order Paper which deletes this reference to section 130A from this bill then we would be left with legislation that vehicle dealers do want and that would clean up the system a bit for them. I think it is far too regulatory and singles them out for issues like: why have a disputes tribunal anyway for motor vehicle dealers when they can go through the ordinary courts? 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 30 in the name of the Hon Judith Tizard to Part 3 be agreed to.