Kedgley Sue: Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Kedgley Sue: Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:655;Page:4697] 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will be supporting the Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill. As others have said the bill is fairly minor and makes a series of minor amendments. We support most of the amendments however although they are minor. It is a very good idea to increase the consumer redress to the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal from $50000 to $100000. That is a very positive move. It makes sense not to require a full-blown motor vehicle trader to make an annual statutory declaration every year. 
Most of the other provisions in the bill are perfectly sound and sensible except for one which is that the bill removes the requirement for someone who is privately selling a motor vehicle to have to display a consumer information notice. The reason given is that removing the requirement will reduce compliance costs but I have a consumer information notice here and I cannot imagine the compliance cost of filling out this piece of paper. I think it would take about 5 to 10 minutes of time so to suggest that compliance costs are the reason for removing the requirement does not stack up. All people have to do is answer questions such as “Is there any money owing on the car?” “What is the make?” and “What is the distance the car has travelled?” and give the certificate of fitness expiry date and so on and so forth. The notice asks for very basic information but nevertheless it is information that is important for a consumer who is thinking about purchasing a car. 
Consumer information notices provide a small amount of consumer protection. We cannot see why we should remove that consumer protection when a consumer buys a car from a private seller. In fact we could argue the reverse. When someone buys a car from a private seller he or she wants even greater consumer protection because as others have mentioned we have some very fly-by-night people selling cars. How can a consumer be protected and know that the car he or she is buying meets at the very least the requirements of the Consumer Guarantees Act? The Act states that the vehicle must be of acceptable quality taking into account its age price and condition at the time of purchase etc. At least the Act provides some information and some guarantee for a consumer purchasing a car from a private seller. 
We cannot understand the justification for removing that requirement. We do not think this is a major issue but we think it can be addressed in the select committee. We have no problem with removing the requirement for a consumer information notice when a trader is selling to a wrecker. Interestingly someone pointed out to me that sometimes car wreckers sell cars. Apparently people become motor vehicle traders only if they sell six or more cars a year. So if a wrecker sells fewer than six or more cars a year he or she would not have to provide the consumer with information. That needs to be given further thought. We do not think the justifications stack up. However we support the other minor amendments of this bill so we will be supporting it. Thank you.