Goudie Sandra: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Goudie Sandra: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4759] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (NZ National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I am very pleased to be able to speak to the title. I would like to congratulate my colleagues. I think they have done a magnificent presentation of their concerns about the title. The title is “Motor Vehicle Sales Bill” and some concern has already been expressed about the intentions of this bill particularly since the arrival of the Supplementary Order Paper. I would like to acknowledge Deborah Coddington’s great contribution in bringing Supplementary Order Paper 30 to our attention more forcefully and suggesting another title “Motor Vehicle Dealers (Regulation and Taxation) Bill” which is much more satisfactory. 
This Supplementary Order Paper is about introducing a levy to help fund the disputes tribunal. I go further. Members will recall that when this bill was last discussed in the House the Hon Judith Tizard—who sat here knitting during debate on a quite significant aspect of the bill so she may have forgotten what she said—said: “The restrictions cost and procedures of working within the current law are considered to be too onerous by many motor vehicle businesses”. Now the Government is putting forward a Supplementary Order Paper that introduces a levy that I suggest adds to that cost and totally goes against what the Minister considers to be the original intention of this bill—that is to help reduce costs. 
This Government is introducing a levy without a compliance cost report. The Government makes a big deal about the need to have a compliance cost report but then does not even have one. The Supplementary Order Paper should have had a compliance cost report but clearly the Government did not want to go down that path. We are debating the title “Motor Vehicle Sales Bill” but it should be “Motor Vehicle Dealers (Regulation and Taxation) Bill” as suggested by Deborah Coddington and supported by my very able colleagues. 
I also draw the Committee’s attention to some other aspects of the Hon Judith Tizard’s speech. She said: “The purpose of this bill is to promote and protect the interests of consumers when buying a motor vehicle.” I have to say I do not believe she is looking after the interests of consumers at all because she has not included the fund that was there as a back-up for those who could not be reimbursed for bad trading. I do not believe she is looking at looking after consumers. She just wants to put in place a little bit of extra funding for this disputes tribunal. 
If I draw members’ attention to some other provisions in her speech they will understand why she wants to do that. She said: “Effective enforcement is fundamental to this bill. Enforcement will be carried out by the Registrar of Motor Vehicle Dealers located within the Ministry of Economic Development.” She said further: “The registrar will have a dedicated enforcement team.” Of course that will take some funding hence the suggested title “Motor Vehicle Dealers (Regulation and Taxation) Bill” to provide for a levy to pay for all this enforcement and regulatory control and for the disputes tribunal as well. 
But that is just one aspect. It has been stated that a great deal of consultation occurred with the stakeholders to seek their input but I suggest that it has been very limited in the extreme because how many of them actually knew about this Supplementary Order Paper and approved the levy. I say to Government members opposite: “Hands up anybody who spoke to any motor vehicle dealers about the levy?”. I cannot see any of them paying any attention so I say that none of them spoke to the motor vehicle dealers about the levy and asked whether it was acceptable to them. [ 
Interruption 
] Did they say yes? I suggest that they are going to be really bitten in the arse by this levy. We are talking about the need for rigid enforcement as stated by the Hon Judith Tizard; she said it quite clearly in her second reading speech on this bill. [ 
Interruption 
] I would not mind a little bit of quiet if members would like to pay attention. The enforcement that will be required under this bill will require a lot more funding so I suggest that a quite substantial levy will be put in place. There is no control of how far this levy can go and as we know this Government does not understand compliance costs. It did not put in a compliance cost report.