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:4768] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (NZ National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I would like to support my colleagues in their wonderful presentations in the Chamber tonight. I see that their presentations have been so good that we have the majority of the Labour Party out there to listen. I congratulate my colleagues on doing such a wonderful job on this bill. It is a fantastic job. Look at that! Labour is cheering their wonderful presentations to the Chamber tonight. It is a tribute to them. Labour is acknowledging their great contribution to this debate. 
I want to talk to members about the purpose of this bill and read a few words from one of our colleagues who said: “Wonders will never cease in this House when it comes to where Labour Governments come from when they want to regulate and to increase the costs of people in our society.” The Government has done that magnificently in this bill. The purpose of this bill is “to promote and protect the interests of consumers in relation to motor vehicle sales.” What has the Government done? It has released a Supplementary Order Paper that introduces a levy without having a compliance cost report. I support my colleague’s call for the Minister of Finance to make a response to the lack of a compliance cost report in relation to the Supplementary Order Paper given that this legislation is meant to be all about protecting the interests of consumers but is actually more about imposing a levy. 
The bill states as mentioned earlier by a colleague that it binds the Crown yet we see in clause 24 that the Crown has given itself an exemption from the requirement to register. Instead of the Crown going through the same process as everybody else in accordance with the bill the Government has said that the bill binds the Crown but has turned round and given the Crown an exemption from registering. So it does not really bind the Crown even though the bill states that it does. 
I also draw members’ attention as a number of colleagues have done to the actual distance in relation to a motor vehicle’s odometer. One cannot actually tell if it has been tampered with and if it has been tampered with before— 
Hon David Carter 
: You don’t know where it’s been tampered with. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: That is right. When a vehicle comes in from overseas how would anybody know if it were tampered with overseas and how can a motor vehicle dealer be held to account? [ 
Interruption 
] That is it. Government members do not actually understand the trade. They have not consulted very well or gone to any great lengths to understand the trade. Do they realise that if one is going to calculate the distance travelled and the odometer is faulty there is a problem? And one needs to know whether the tyre size was large or small because that has an influence upon the distance travelled. Government members might not be aware of that of course but we do not expect them to know because we know they do not really understand vehicles. 
I now take members to “car consultant”. That is a really interesting definition. I will read it out so that members know. 
Hon David Carter 
: Sounds like a Cunliffe special. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: Yes it does sound like a “Cunliffe special”. He was saying on the telly that he wanted a little bit of extra fun and I wonder whether he was referring to the definition of a car consultant. It states: “car consultant means a person who for rent fee commission or other valuable consideration”. We have to wonder what “other valuable consideration” might mean. Given the recent debate on the Prostitution Reform Bill is Mr Cunliffe envisaging this as being an element of fun that he was looking for in Government and in Government legislation? I just draw members’ attention to those words in the definition of “car consultant” and wonder what “other valuable consideration” means. The payment in kind or whatever it is that is being looked for is rather questionable indeed. 
I also draw members’ attention to other words spoken previously by colleagues about this bill supposedly meeting consumer interests yet having a heavy emphasis on compliance costs. That is a major concern for us. We are talking about covering only about 27 percent of car sale transactions. Most transactions happen outside the orbit of licensed dealers. So here we are winding back the restrictions and prescriptions of the past in this bill. It will increase the taxpayers’ costs on an ongoing basis. Are we really expecting that all the dispute tribunal costs and all the enforcement costs will come out—