Motor Vehicle Sales Bill

At first glance, the title of this bill may seem to be unimportant, but there is quite a big difference between this and the original 1998 Motor Vehicle Dealers Bill—and the Minister will no doubt be keen to take a call on this. As we progress through the legislation part by part this evening, and well into tomorrow evening, it will be clear from the contributions from the National benches that there is a big difference between the prospect of a Motor Vehicle Dealers Bill, as was previously the case, and this bill. As I said, at first glance it may not appear significant, but this bill wraps up a whole lot of different environments where sales may occur, when, under previous legislation, legislation of this type would relate only to registered motor vehicle dealers. The issue that leaps to mind relates to car fairs—and I say that quite seriously, because in that type of environment there is usually a series of private sellers who bring their goods to the site—

💬 Hon David Carter: By car.

They often drive there, and trade motor vehicles freely between themselves. That type of activity was not previously caught by any motor vehicle dealers legislation, unless the number of cars that were traded came into question. Under this legislation, that type of selling will be caught, so there is quite a subtle difference between the 1998 National legislation and the current legislation.

During the discussion this evening, members on this side of the Chamber will be tying back many questions and other parts of the bill to the title, and explaining why it is that, although at first glance the title may seem to be pretty inoffensive, it is actually reflective of a different type of legislation to that which we have seen in this country until this date. I look forward to the contribution from my colleague the Hon David Carter, who I know has spent some time looking at the title to this bill, and who has very strong personal views about how the title relates to legislation that was before this House under a previous National Government. The differences between that legislation and the current legislation will no doubt become apparent as the parts pan out.

I just return to my theme, that the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill is a different piece of legislation entirely, and the title, as my colleague points out, is different from the title of the previous legislation. I could not be more to the point in saying that, despite the previous bill being called the Motor Vehicle Dealers Bill, the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill is a wider net cast into an industry that up until now has been governed by very specific legislation relating to licensed motor vehicle dealers and to private dealers who were trading, from memory, six vehicles or more in the course of one calendar year. What this bill does, through the reflection of the title that we have been talking about for what seems some time now, is to extend wider than that initial definition to include, as I have said, issues like car fairs and a more communal way of selling and buying motor vehicles than that which previous legislation covered.

At this early stage, I want to talk briefly about the other interesting point worth making—that is, how this name came about, given that the aim of the bill is to repeal the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act and to overtake the Motor Vehicle Dealers Bill of 1998. Perhaps the title, including “sales” rather than “dealers”—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member’s time has expired.

💬 Hon Roger Sowry: It is clear that the member on his feet has a lot of new information, and I seek leave of the Committee that he be given a 2-minute extension of time.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Leave has been sought. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is no objection. I call the member.

Clearly, I should have objected myself, but I thank my colleague.

💬 Gordon Copeland: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The honourable member did not hear us, but we did object down this end of the Chamber. We did so quite clearly.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I did not hear the member call.

💬 Gordon Copeland: We did, very clearly indeed.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry I missed hearing the member, but I have already given the call.

I am not sure whether to thank my colleagues from the United Future party. Nevertheless, I return to what is a complex area of this bill—the title. I will continue with what I was saying before I was interrupted by the bell, and I thank my colleague the Hon Roger Sowry for allowing me to continue on this important road of discovery, as I find myself more interested in this issue as time passes. Before my colleague granted me an extension—and I thank the United Future party for that, with the benefit of hindsight—I was talking briefly about the fact that when the original Motor Vehicle Dealers Act of 1975 was repealed, the then National Government decided, in 1998, to introduce the Motor Vehicles Dealers Bill—again, a completely different title from the one currently under consideration. That bill would have been, apparently, a very good bill, although we have seen some differences through the proposal and comparison documents, and my colleague will refer to those in his contribution to the title debate. We now find ourselves dealing with a bill called the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill.

As I said earlier, that at first glance may seem to be a title that we could probably not spend very much time discussing. Having said that, I point out that this bill, with its ranging five parts and two schedules, will allow colleagues on this side of the Chamber to spend some time looking at those parts in detail in a way that reflects the title of the bill and its now quite expansive nature. The interesting thing about the term “sale” is that it immediately throws up ideas relating to a contract.

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 of legislation 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 2,250 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.

Like my colleague Simon Power, and Deborah Coddington, I, too, want to express concern about the title of this bill and the sneaky Supplementary Order Paper that has been tabled by the Minister. Is it not interesting that this is a process around motor vehicle sales that is now 9 years old? For 9 years there have been discussions about changing the rules around motor vehicle sales and updating that 1975 Act. We then get to the last hurdle, and under urgency this sneaky Government wants to clip an extra tax on to honest, enterprising New Zealanders. I ask Mr Benson-Pope, how many of his Dunedin car sales people have been consulted about this new tax? [Interruption] He tells me. I would love to make contact, because it will be just like the Minister in the chair, the Hon Steve Maharey, on the Tertiary Education Bill. At the last moment he snuck into the House a dirty little levy on all sorts of education providers. I suspect that that is why he is in the chair. He will do the same trick again, and this time to the motor vehicle dealers.

I ask the Minister in the chair what level of consultation there has been with the motor vehicle industry about this Supplementary Order Paper. I seek any answer from any member of the Government. I note that United Future supports the bill and the Supplementary Order Paper. Can its members advise me what level of consultation with the motor vehicle industry there has been on this bill? Can any member of the Government advise the Committee as to whether there has been a process of consultation with motor vehicle dealers about this new tax?

💬 Helen Duncan: Concentrate on the new leader!

I can see that Helen Duncan does not want to talk about the bill before the Committee. She is more interested in playing some silly political game than she is about the extra tax that will be imposed. This title is not particularly appropriate. If we are to have a bill that will impose a new tax that has been added, through the Supplementary Order Paper, on those people in the motor vehicle industry, then members on this side will say what they mean. If that tax is to be imposed, then let us call it a tax bill. If that is what the Government is to do with legislation of this sort, let us truly describe what it is all about and describe this as a special tax bill for the latest group of entrepreneurs to be hammered by this Labour Government.

💬 John Carter: With additional compliance costs.

That is right. I remember reading in Labour’s manifesto that it was to reduce compliance costs. I would be interested to know how—

💬 John Carter: What does the chair think of the tax?

I have to advise my chief whip that we must not bring the Chair into the debate. However, I would like to know from the Minister in the chair how this bill contributes to reducing compliance costs.

💬 Sandra Goudie: Did they run it through the compliance cost report?

There is a good question from my colleague, the very capable MP for Coromandel. It is interesting that every bill that comes before the House has to have a compliance cost report, but not for the Supplementary Order Paper that this Minister has now brought into the Committee stage not once, but twice, under urgency in terms of amendments to this bill. Members on this side of the Chamber tell the Government to be honest about what it is doing, and to be honest about the fact that it is introducing a new tax on motor vehicle dealers. Let us call this bill what it is. The Minister may prefer to call it a levy. I notice that when Dr Cullen was in Opposition he said that a levy was just another name for a tax, but if he had preferred to call it the “Motor Vehicle Sales Tax Bill” or the “Motor Vehicle Sales Levy Bill”, we could live with either of those. I invite any member opposite to get to his or her feet and to justify the significant way in which this Supplementary Order Paper changes the bill, and also to justify the fact that this bill has been around for a very, very long time. Why are we under urgency rushing this bill through when there has not been consultation on the key changes with the dealers, and those who are involved in the industry? Again I say let us change the title and say what it means.

I suspect that this is a sneaky piece of work by the Labour Government. I hoped to be able to stand up here and support the title.

💬 David Benson-Pope: Speaking of sneaky, where is the numbers man?

Does that member want to take a call? If he does, I will cede and let him have a call, then start when he is ready.

Before being interrupted by Mr Benson-Pope, I was saying that I was hopeful of standing in the Committee tonight and being able to support the title of this bill. At first glance, it actually is a fair prescription of what this legislation attempts to do. But as my colleagues Simon Power and Deborah Coddington pointed out, sneaky little Supplementary Order Paper 30 has been tabled.

💬 Hon Rick Barker: Why isn’t the rest of the National Party here?

Rick Barker clearly does not even know that it has been tabled. He would not be worried about compliance costs; he would not know what compliance costs were.

This sneaky little Supplementary Order Paper dramatically changes the tone of the bill and talks about regulations to impose a levy. Even Mr Benson-Pope knows that is another word for tax. Mr Benson-Pope has just spelt the word levy, and he got that right. He should now have a go at spelling the word tax. He could not manage that one, but it is “t-a-x.” Deborah Coddington had it right—this legislation is no longer appropriately named, at all. It should no longer be called the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill, but the “Motor Vehicle Dealers Regulation and Taxation Bill”. That is what this bill proposes to do. There was no mention of a levy before the bill went through the select committee process. The Government was too sneaky to do that.

💬 David Benson-Pope: That is uncharitable.

It is not uncharitable; it is a fact. If Mr Benson-Pope is so proud of loading another tax on to a very entrepreneurial sector of the New Zealand business community, put it in the principle legislation, give it an appropriate name, and let people make submissions. But no, he would not do it that way. Mr Benson-Pope is wrong when he argues that we should be calling this legislation the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill. That no longer adequately describes it, and Mr Maharey knows that. Therefore, I now completely support Deborah Coddington’s superb work in pointing out that this is no longer a bill just to facilitate the sales of motor vehicles; it is now a bill about how to levy another tax on a particular industry. That means that we have a duty in the Committee stage to give this legislation an appropriate title.

I note that Mr Chairman agrees with that. He acknowledges that we have a duty to make sure that at this stage of the proceedings we give this legislation an appropriate title. I say to you, Mr Chairman—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member cannot bring the Chairman into the debate.

The title of the bill is no longer appropriate, at all. We need to make sure that the name is changed, so that people know that although this legislation talks about facilitating the sales of motor vehicles, it also talks about imposing yet another tax and compliance cost on an industry—

💬 Sandra Goudie: What about the compliance cost reports?

The Minister can take a call and tell us whether he has done any work on compliance cost, but he will not have done. That is the sort of thing one talks about when in Opposition. It is the “Maharey principle”.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member must use a member’s full name and title.

I have been talking to the title of the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): If the member wishes to address another member in Committee, he must use that member’s full name and title.

I was not talking about the Minister. I was talking about the “Maharey principle”.

I move, That the question be now put.

As a transport spokesperson, I am very concerned about this legislation. The title of this bill certainly does not now reflect what we have before the Committee. It is important to say that the National Party supports this legislation and, along with interested groups, has supported it right through the process. We worked with those groups and the Motor Vehicle Dealers Institute to make sure that we had legislation that was non-controversial and able to pass through Parliament with relative ease.

I am disappointed that the Government has decided—for the second time with this bill—to debate it under the urgency motion, because I do not think that is appropriate. What we have now is a bill that the Government has titled the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill, which is the bill the industry has been consulted on, and the title that everybody is comfortable with. We all know what we are talking about when we talk about the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill. The bill of this title was first referred to a select committee on 5 December 2001 and reported back in 2002, so it has had a long period of time in the House. Now we find that the title of this bill suddenly does not reflect what is in it. Suddenly, the bill is changed.

This is a large bill. Radio listeners cannot tell how big it is, but I can tell them that the title of the bill—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): No, the member must not refer to radio listeners.

For those people who are interested out there, the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill covers 96 pages. Then a little wee amendment—about three or four pages—is put in—

💬 Steve Chadwick: It is a tidy bill.

The member says it is a tidy amendment. Perhaps she will tell us whether she has consulted the motor vehicle dealers in Rotorua on the new levy that is being put into this bill—the so-called Motor Vehicle Sales Bill. The title does not reflect that this bill has new compliance costs, and the member supports new compliance costs and new taxes. This bill is now an extra imposition on motor vehicle dealers and the people who sell cars. Instead of being the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill, this bill should now be the “Motor Vehicle Sales and New Tax Bill”. Why would anyone take something as important as a new tax, not put it in the main bill, not have it as part of the submission process, and then just sneak it in at the end, but keep the title the same? That is so that Labour members can say that everyone supported the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill. They want to be able to say: “We had submissions on it. It was all OK.” But the real part of the bill—the sneaky little part of the bill—is not reflected in the title, at all. We are very disappointed that, under urgency, the Government has decided to do that. We know—

💬 Steve Chadwick: Does the member not want a disputes tribunal for consumers?

The member interjects and asks whether we want a disputes tribunal in the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill. Of course we do. A disputes tribunal was in the bill, and we voted for it. The Labour Party voted for it, and that party did not put the tax provision into the bill in the select committee—so what changed? What changed between the Labour Party reporting back the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill, and titling it that, and going along to its caucus and deciding to put in this Supplementary Order Paper with the extra tax in it? Why was that done? [Interruption] Well, Helen Duncan says that was a clever, cunning move. It’s as cunning as a—

I move That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): No.

It is my great pleasure to engage in this Motor Vehicle Sales Bill title debate. I want to take up the challenge that the Minister gave in her second reading speech when she said: “There are several issues that the select committee could not agree on ...That will provide an opportunity for the House to debate these issues.” So they certainly will, because this is a Minister who could not help herself. At the last minute she has snuck into this bill, which had all the hallmarks of being potentially a very good bill, this Supplementary Order Paper, and by that the whole flavour of the bill has changed. The Minister could have stuck to the very guts of the bill. It was titled the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill for a very good reason, because it—

💬 Hon David Carter: Would you buy a used car from that person?

No, I would not buy a used car from that person. One of the very reasons this bill was named, so appropriately, the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill, was that it covered things the industry really cared about. It simplified a whole wide range of issues for the industry. It covered those issues for people who cared about the motor vehicle sales business. It covered people who operated as car market operators, as auctioneers, as vehicle traders, and those who traded on the Internet. All of those people involved in the motor vehicle sales industry thought that this bill was appropriately titled. They were happy with it, and National was happy to support it. But, lo and behold, in the Supplementary Order Paper has come a levy—a tax—that is not in the title of this bill. Nowhere in the title of this bill do I see the word “tax”, yet in the Supplementary Order Paper is a tax that was not on the “credit card”, and is not in the title of the bill, but it is there for everybody to see. It is there to drag down the industry and add another cost.

I want to draw to the attention of the Committee comments that the Minister also made in her speech as it relates to the title. She said that in designing this bill there had been a great deal of consultation and input from stakeholders and experts. In terms of the title, they may have been experts in motor vehicle sales. I am well and truly prepared to accept that the Minister went out and spoke to a great many people, that submissions were taken from all sorts of motor vehicle dealers across the country, and that that was aptly put together into the title. I am not happy to accept that the consultation process that took place in the industry was reflected in the Supplementary Order Paper. Therefore, I am not convinced that the title adequately reflects it.

💬 Simon Power: Tax!

Where is the word “tax”? Where is the word “levy”? If the Minister had gone out and undertaken extensive consultation, had asked for submissions, and had included in the earlier bill the levy that she intends to put on the industry—not snuck it in some time later on; not snuck the bill through urgency, but had done that in the consultation process—I am prepared to wager in this Parliament that those submissions would have clearly come back saying that this title is completely inappropriate. It should not be the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill; it should be the “Motor Vehicle Sales and Revenue Collecting Tax Bill”. It should be the “Motor Vehicle Sales and Tax Bill”—

💬 Simon Power: Motor Vehicle Sales Tax Bill.

JOHN KEY:, Absolutely, Mr Power! Many submissions would have come back to the Minister, and the first thing they would have drawn to her attention is that this title is completely inappropriate and misleading. That is a great tragedy, because it is a bill that has great hallmarks—a bill that really claims to do many of the things that National supports. One of the reasons that National has been supporting this legislation is that the industry requires reform. It is an industry that needs simplification. Just as the title is very simple, with those four very plain and simple words—Motor Vehicle Sales Bill—so easily was that reflected in the bill, until the Minister could not help herself and did that little sneaky deal to raise taxation.

I move, That the question be now put.

I take particular interest in this bill, and the reason is that many years ago, when I used to practice law on a regular basis, the members of this industry were a major sector of my clientele. I can tell members, my having applied for numerous motor vehicle dealer licences, registration for salespeople, and all of that, that it was a really complicated, difficult, and demanding system. I tell members there was a great deal of expectation, of expectancy, that this bill would reduce costs, and, generally speaking, it does.

What alarms me, when I look at the title, is that it does not make sufficient reference to the secret plans of the Government on the one hand to take, and on the other hand stealthily to reregulate. The Government has come up with what is actually a quite credible bill, I would have to concede—and National is voting for the principle of the bill generally—but what greatly concerns me is Supplementary Order Paper 30, which includes the amendment that was accurately described by Deborah Coddington of the ACT party as the reintroduction by the Government of a tax on thousands of entrepreneurs up and down this country. The Government may just toss this off to one side as being of no particular account, but if it looked at the bill it would understand the serious injury it is doing to New Zealand entrepreneurs—hard-working, small-business people, by and large. They are the sorts of people who Labour is wont to say these days are its supporters. So what does it do to those people? It gives them a hard kick up the butt.

💬 John Carter: Shove them right up. [Interruption]

Well, there you are! Those are not the sorts of words I would use, I hasten to add, but that is the reality.

This is my concern. Under the bill, which is intended to be a deregulatory bill, there is only one charge, and that is at the time of the initial registration. By and large, thereafter we would have light-handed regulation—something that the industry could live with. I imagine the ACT party would probably say that was still going too far, but, nevertheless, it is something the industry could live with. What is of particular concern, however, is that under the Supplementary Order Paper there is now an annual levy based on classes of trader, based on the types of vehicles, and it has to be applied to thousands of people. It is, allegedly, to pay for the disputes tribunal. But what the Government is doing is actually adding cost after cost, on an annual basis, to these hard-working people.

Two problems exist. First is the cost of administration, which is very significant indeed, when one considers that those businesses will have to employ special staff, develop a computer system, track records, and so forth. Secondly, how do we ensure that everyone actually pays? What do we do about the people who do not pay? Do we have a special regulatory regime that hunts down those people? That is the kind of approach that this leads to. We cannot, I presume, pass a legislative measure, then have no enforcement mechanism. That would be illogical.

So I would say this to the Government. It had a choice: it could have had a modest imposition for the cost of the disputes tribunal, to be charged to those who actually use it—and that may be the appropriate mechanism—or it could have funded it out of general taxation. Both those choices would have been simple.

💬 Simon Power: Like courts.

“Like courts”, as my colleague the former justice spokesperson says. What an excellent example! But instead the Government has gone for a blunt and crude instrument of a generalised levy, which has to be collected each and every year, with all the range of draconian apparatuses to punish those who do not pay it. So under the guise of deregulation, we now have a completely new and demanding regulatory regime.

I move, That the question be now put.

I am very pleased to be able to speak to the title. I would like to congratulate my colleagues. I think they have done a magnificent presentation of their concerns about the title. The title is “Motor Vehicle Sales Bill”, and some concern has already been expressed about the intentions of this bill, particularly since the arrival of the Supplementary Order Paper. I would like to acknowledge Deborah Coddington’s great contribution in bringing Supplementary Order Paper 30 to our attention more forcefully, and suggesting another title, “Motor Vehicle Dealers (Regulation and Taxation) Bill”, which is much more satisfactory.

This Supplementary Order Paper is about introducing a levy to help fund the disputes tribunal. I go further. Members will recall that when this bill was last discussed in the House, the Hon Judith Tizard—who sat here knitting during debate on a quite significant aspect of the bill, so she may have forgotten what she said—said: “The restrictions, cost, and procedures of working within the current law are considered to be too onerous by many motor vehicle businesses,”. Now the Government is putting forward a Supplementary Order Paper that introduces a levy that, I suggest, adds to that cost, and totally goes against what the Minister considers to be the original intention of this bill—that is, to help reduce costs.

This Government is introducing a levy without a compliance cost report. The Government makes a big deal about the need to have a compliance cost report, but then does not even have one. The Supplementary Order Paper should have had a compliance cost report, but, clearly, the Government did not want to go down that path. We are debating the title “Motor Vehicle Sales Bill”, but it should be “Motor Vehicle Dealers (Regulation and Taxation) Bill”, as suggested by Deborah Coddington and supported by my very able colleagues.

I also draw the Committee’s attention to some other aspects of the Hon Judith Tizard’s speech. She said: “The purpose of this bill is to promote and protect the interests of consumers when buying a motor vehicle.” I have to say I do not believe she is looking after the interests of consumers at all, because she has not included the fund that was there as a back-up for those who could not be reimbursed for bad trading. I do not believe she is looking at looking after consumers. She just wants to put in place a little bit of extra funding for this disputes tribunal.

If I draw members’ attention to some other provisions in her speech, they will understand why she wants to do that. She said: “Effective enforcement is fundamental to this bill. Enforcement will be carried out by the Registrar of Motor Vehicle Dealers, located within the Ministry of Economic Development.” She said further: “The registrar will have a dedicated enforcement team.” Of course, that will take some funding, hence the suggested title “Motor Vehicle Dealers (Regulation and Taxation) Bill”, to provide for a levy to pay for all this enforcement and regulatory control, and for the disputes tribunal as well.

But that is just one aspect. It has been stated that a great deal of consultation occurred with the stakeholders, to seek their input, but I suggest that it has been very limited in the extreme, because how many of them actually knew about this Supplementary Order Paper and approved the levy. I say to Government members opposite: “Hands up anybody who spoke to any motor vehicle dealers about the levy?”. I cannot see any of them paying any attention, so I say that none of them spoke to the motor vehicle dealers about the levy, and asked whether it was acceptable to them. [Interruption] Did they say yes? I suggest that they are going to be really bitten in the arse by this levy. We are talking about the need for rigid enforcement, as stated by the Hon Judith Tizard; she said it quite clearly in her second reading speech on this bill. [Interruption] I would not mind a little bit of quiet, if members would like to pay attention. The enforcement that will be required under this bill will require a lot more funding, so I suggest that a quite substantial levy will be put in place. There is no control of how far this levy can go, and, as we know, this Government does not understand compliance costs. It did not put in a compliance cost report.

I move, That the question be now put.