Power Simon: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Power Simon: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4761] 
SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 We are now starting to get to what is often seen as a pedestrian part of a bill which is largely the definitions of various terms contained in it. But it is actually worth raising some questions in relation to some of the terms in this bill. The Minister may like to take an interest in this because there are some odd definitions in the bill. I know that Mark Peck who has told this House that he has consulted one dealer in his electorate on this bill would be interested in this. 
In clause 6 “Interpretation” in subclause (1)—this is the Parekura Horomia clause—the term “actual distance” is defined as: “in relation to a motor vehicle’s odometer means the actual distance that would otherwise have been recorded on an odometer had it not been tampered with”. How is that supposed to work? That would be the “odometer of dysfunction.” I just cannot understand that. 
John Carter 
: Ask Paul Swain. 
SIMON POWER 
: Where is the Minister of Transport? He is in the Chamber. The actual distance is defined in relation to a motor vehicle’s odometer as: “the distance that would otherwise have been recorded on an odometer had it not been tampered with”. What on earth does that mean? In terms of a definition of actual distance how on earth is this legislation supposed to work when actual distance is defined as the distance that would otherwise have been recorded had the odometer not been tampered with? Who knows the answer to that? Which person is able to track that? 
That definition is absolutely impossible. It will take us nowhere and I would be very interested if the Minister or somebody else with a transport background would rise and take a call to help us out with that. [ 
Interruption 
] I ask Mr Peck to help us out. What is the distance that would otherwise have been recorded on an odometer had it not been tampered with? I fail to understand how we will be able to track anything in respect of that. 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: We are on your side. 
SIMON POWER 
: It is just not the same down here. I ask the Minister to come over here. [ 
Interruption 
] Madam Chairperson I have a loud voice but even I cannot compete with this noise. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: There is banter coming from both sides of the Chamber. 
SIMON POWER 
: The other thing that I do not understand is why on earth when we are talking about motor vehicle sales we now have terms like “car consultant” and “car market operator”. Those people are not hairdressers. They sell motor vehicles and we are now to call them “car consultants” and “car market operators”. 
I have a question. I can see Russell Fairbrother sitting back there; this is a question for a legal mind. Actually Deborah Coddington the ACT member might be interested in this as well. I refer to the definition “sale in relation to any motor vehicle—(a) means the sale or lease or exchange or any other disposition of that motor vehicle …” That would imply to me that a contract has been formed between buyer and seller for the disposition of that motor vehicle. Let me ask this question. We know and Wayne Mapp knows from his legal training that for a contract to be valid there must be consideration. There must be a buyer a seller and consideration. I ask where in an exchange of motor vehicles is the consideration that allows a contract to be formed? I ask the Minister to take a call and help me out on that. What is the consideration in the contract when a sale of exchange occurs—in other words a swap? Where does the consideration lie? 
This legislation is very confusing. Not only do we have a definition of who is treated as a motor vehicle trader in clause 8 but for the purposes of getting it absolutely right we also have in clause 9 a definition of who is not treated as a motor vehicle trader.