Coddington Deborah: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
Coddington Deborah: Motor Vehicle Sales Bill — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee 
[Volume:607;Page:4753] 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party to address the title. The ACT party was going to support this legislation when it came back from the Commerce Committee but we are not now prepared to do so unless at least one of our amendments is passed. I have tabled an amendment to change the title from the “Motor Vehicle Sales Bill” to the “Motor Vehicles Dealers (Regulation and Taxation) Bill”. That in effect is what it is now because the Minister has sneaked in a Supplementary Order Paper after the bill has been to the Commerce Committee and after public consultation has taken place. It is not just an innocuous Supplementary Order Paper; it is a Supplementary Order Paper that introduces a tax a levy on all motor vehicle dealers. That definition is expanded under this legislation. 
Motor vehicle dealers will be taxed to fund the disputes tribunal. Before I go on I say that there are still some good aspects to this bill such as getting rid of compulsory registration with the Motor Vehicle Dealers Institute. But the Supplementary Order Paper now wipes out all the things that the industry wanted. It is just another way for this Government to introduce a tax. The title oflegislation is really important because it signifies the purpose of that legislation. It is important that this bill now have in its title that it is a motor vehicle dealers regulation and taxation bill because that is what the legislation is being used to do. It is being used to tax the industry to fund the disputes tribunal. 
Motor vehicle dealers already pay a huge number of taxes including GST levies and other things so why should the disputes tribunal not be funded out of that in the same way that other court systems are funded? Why punish the good dealers who very rarely if ever get taken to the disputes tribunal? Many never get taken to the disputes tribunal—or to the fidelity fund as it was before—which is to go. Why should they be punished because of the few bad dealers who do need to be taken before some form of justice and sorted out? It is so unfair and it is just another compliance cost on working New Zealanders. They are the people that this Government just loves to tax again and again and again. 
When we had the second reading of this legislation I was told that the industry supported it so I decided to do a little exercise. I knew that the industry had not been consulted about the new Supplementary Order Paper that introduces this tax so I wrote to 2250 motor vehicle dealers. I told them about the tax the levy on the Supplementary Order Paper and asked them what they thought about it. I received masses of replies. They have been flowing in although I wrote to them only last week. I would like to read some of them. They demonstrate why I think the title should be changed to include the word “taxation”. 
One reply was: “We would regard this as the death knell to our continuing to hold a licence as such. These days the used-car business is as sick as ever and we have all but stopped the practice and are now concentrating on our core activity of earthmoving machine trading.” These are the sorts of people that this legislation will catch. It is all very well to pass legislation or to sneak through Supplementary Order Papers that impose specific taxes on specific industries because the public’s perception of used-car dealers is that they are not quite nice or that they are indulging in activities we do not quite approve of. But many people will be caught by this legislation who are not used-car dealers who do not even sell cars and who as this guy said sell farm machinery. 
He said: “The business of running a used-car yard and complying with the necessary regulations must be a nightmare for those actively involved.” My personal observation is that once I could spot car dealers a mile off with their loud dress and non-stop usually cheerful patter. These days those same people look like hunted deer and I do not think it is because they are worried about running into a customer. Is there any objections to calling the bill the “Motor Vehicle Dealers (Regulation and Taxation) Bill”? I think we are getting closer to why it should be called that.