Dalziel Lianne: Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
Dalziel Lianne: Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill — In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:666;Page:13613] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I am very pleased to follow on from my colleague Carol Beaumont and to pick up where she left off—that is to reinforce the view on this side of the Chamber that vulnerable consumers are those who require our protection. I also want to talk a little bit about regulation. 
I know I bang on about regulation and people get sick of the fact that I am really interested in it but the process that has been adopted is really good and I want to commend it. Carol Beaumont mentioned in her contribution that the Motor Vehicle Sales Act which was passed in 2003 had a 2-year review built into it. I quite like that concept. Sometimes 2 years is too soon; actually given how long it has taken for that 2-year review to turn into something practical—the Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill which is before the Committee today—maybe 2 years is a good time to get things cracking. That process enabled the new regulatory framework that had been put in place to be subject to the test of time and experience and the contribution of major—I was going to say “key” but I have stopped using that word—stakeholders. I shall identify the ones consulted: the Motor Trade Association the Independent Motor Vehicle Dealers Association the Motor Industry Association the New Zealand Automobile Association and Consumer New Zealand. That is not a full list but it shows us the degree of stakeholder engagement in a really good process of review. So I commend the process to Parliament and to the new Minister who has taken up the role of champion of consumers. I hope that is how he sees his role as Minister of Consumer Affairs; certainly that has been my experience from working with him on the Commerce Committee. He was probably a member of the select committee when the Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill came before us and he will recall the work we put into it. 
Another thing that I thought was useful was that the review process picked up a number of recommendations. I think there were a dozen in total many of which are picked up in this bill now. Post the review a discussion document was produced that set out the proposed amendments to the Act. It was released in March 2007 for discussion. Then there is a little gap in time; I know that a general election intervened and that may have had something to do with it but the bill was introduced into Parliament on 26 May last year and it came to the very efficient and excellent Commerce Committee which reported back on 14 December 2009. So I ask why we are dealing with it under urgency on a Thursday morning when the Commerce Committee would normally be undertaking its very important work. Instead we are in the Chamber sitting under urgency. The calendar on the wall says 24 August but I know that it is not really 24 August; it is 26 August. Under urgency in this place alone time stands still. We are still on Tuesday because that was when we entered urgency. 
I notice that the Government has used the expression “extended sitting hours” and I want to put on record that I am really supportive of the change of name from “urgency” to “extended sitting hours”. The use of the word “urgency” indicates that things are urgent but if this bill was urgent it would have been dealt with before Christmas last year. It is definitely not urgent. I support the idea of asking the Standing Orders Committee to change the Standing Orders so that the expression “urgency” would be used for what is generally referred to now as “extraordinary urgency” which is when the House has to immediately take a matter through all its stages. Usually it happens post Budget but there are other occasions as well—often when we find some fault with the law that we have to correct very quickly. Those sorts of cases are genuine urgency but I think extended sitting hours of House like this should be called extended sitting hours. I know that I am slipping away from the topic but I am allowed to refer to the context of the discussion we are having at 11 o’clock on a Tuesday morning— 
Hon Paula Bennett 
: Thursday. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: It is Thursday morning but the calendar on the wall says Tuesday morning. 
Grant Robertson 
: Forever Tuesday morning. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Forever Tuesday. That would make a really good song I reckon. 
I am diverting from the subject. Let me get back to the really serious issue which is that an excellent process was put in place to make sure that the Act would be capable of being refreshed after the experience of its operation. This bill essentially is an opportunity to refresh the Act. 
I think the degree of consultation that occurred—and I pay credit to the officials for that—is indicative of that process. The closing date for submissions was 20 August 2009. We received and considered eight submissions from interested groups and individuals and we heard two submissions. I pay credit to the Ministry of Consumer Affairs and the committee’s excellent advisers from that ministry for that and the reason I give credit to them is that if the bill had been controversial there would have been a lot more interest in it. The fact that they were able to do so much consultation prior to the arrival in Parliament of the Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill—see I got mention of it in there—is the reason why there was so little controversy or commentary about it. 
To deal with the specifics provisions of the bill which I am sure the Chair is really keen I get on to one of the issues that the committee managed to do is update the legislation so that it speaks to the modern environment—the electronic environment—that we all operate in. We have recommended that clause 7 be amended to make it clear that the Motor Vehicle Sales Act requires motor vehicle traders to display a consumer information notice when displaying or offering for sale a used motor vehicle physically or when displaying or offering for sale a used motor vehicle over the Internet when a contract to buy the motor vehicle can be entered into online. That is the critical point that I want to emphasise; it is not a question of having a consumer information notice on every single page where a car is offered for sale on TradeMe or whatever website people are using but when people can enter into a contract to buy online that information needs to be made available. That is really important. Consumers need to have access to that information before they enter into the transaction itself. The purpose of the change that we made to the bill was to distinguish between Internet advertisements that offer the ability to enter into a contract to buy the vehicle online and therefore should display a consumer information notice and Internet advertisements that are effectively the same as classified advertisements in local newspapers for which the provision of a consumer information notice would be an unnecessary and onerous requirement. That is a very sensible arrangement that we have entered into. 
I personally would not buy a car on the Internet. I have bought other things on TradeMe but I certainly have not bought a car. 
Chris Hipkins 
: What other things? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I think the Chair might rule me out of order if I started talking about the lenses for my lovely Canon SLR camera. We will not talk about photography being my favourite hobby outside this place either. The point I am making is that the purpose of the legislation is to have a regulatory framework that is fit for purpose and we have to take into account the new environments within which people make purchases. It took me a long time to feel that I could make a secure purchase on the Internet. I have now managed to do that with DVDs— 
Grant Robertson 
: DVDs? Don’t try to table them! 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I will not try to table one as an example just in case I am told it is not a document. The point is if the wording in our legislation does not match the changes in technology then it will simply not be able to achieve its purpose. I am very pleased with the changes that have been made to make the Act modern. The previous Labour Government introduced the original legislation. This Government has managed to update it and I pay tribute to it for doing that. 
I also acknowledge the previous Minister of Consumer Affairs who played a very important role. I compliment her on her presentations to the Commerce Committee. I thought she was excellent. I want to put that on the record and I think I can rightfully use a bill that she introduced to this House to do so.