Motor Vehicle Sales Bill

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.

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.

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.

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.

I want to start my address by imploring somebody from the Government to stand up and tell us what this bill is about. New Zealand First was not on the Commerce Committee. I heard my good colleagues from the National Party—I think Simon Power said so when he started his speech—say that they are to support this bill, but they have not found a thing that is right with it yet.

💬 Simon Power: No, I didn’t say that.

I was almost certain that the member said he would support this bill.

I must be a bit more serious. Clause 3 outlines the purpose of the bill. It states: “The purpose of this Act is to promote and protect the interests of consumers in relation to motor vehicle sales.” This bill falls well short of that. We need a Government member to stand up and explain how this legislation will deliver on that. The bill removes the fidelity fund. If members talk to members of the public who buy cars, they will hear that the public is concerned about that. Maybe the dealers are not very concerned about it, but members of the public who buy cars—

💬 Hon David Carter: Name one.

The list would be so long that it would take me all night and half of tomorrow to read it.

💬 Hon David Carter: I will get you an extension of time—until 1 o’clock in the morning, if you like.

Oh, yeah.

💬 Rodney Hide: I don’t think there’s any.

Mr Hide should read the report. The select committee said it had looked at a number of alternatives to the fidelity fund, including indemnity insurance, but it put that in the too-hard basket. It looked at a bond system, and again it put that in the too-hard basket. It looked at insurance schemes with ministerial approval, and they were most definitely in the too-hard basket. Nevertheless, the fidelity fund is to go.

Another question that should arise is who will police this system? The Government is setting up a structure, but who will police it? And if that is too tough a question, Government members should answer this one, which may be even harder: how will they police it? By reading Supplementary Order Paper 30 in the name of the Minister, which is nearly a tenth of the size of the bill—a Supplementary Order Paper that will not be scrutinised by the select committee—we see towards the end Clause 146, “Review of operation of Act”. Not that ACT, I hope. Clause 146 states “(1) The Ministry must, no later than 2 years from the date of commencement of this Act— (a) review the operation of this Act since its commencement; and (b) prepare for the Minister a report of the review that includes recommendations on whether any amendments to this Act are necessary or desirable.” That really sounds like a Government that has confidence in this legislation!

I know the Minister in the chair is a sound-thinking member, and I invite her to stand up and tell us what this bill is all about and whether it will be to the benefit of the consumers, as the purpose clause illustrates it is meant to be. There is some real concern out there on the part of the public. To my mind, and I might be totally wrong on this, this legislation opens the door to any unscrupulous person who wants to get involved in selling cars—anybody at all. The policing of that is vague, to say the least. The bill states somewhere that a car salesperson is someone who sells more than six cars a year. Who will keep a check on that? How will a check be kept on that? I understand it will be administered from a central office in Auckland, and I want to know how that will work.

As I said, New Zealand First was not on the select committee at the time of its consideration of this bill, so we did not play any role at all in the way that it has been compiled. We are concerned to see a Supplementary Order Paper of significant size, relative to that of the bill, coming to the Committee, and, further, a one-page proposed amendment from the Minister. We believe there are some genuine questions to be answered, and we believe this Committee should be entitled to the answers before this bill progresses too much further down the track.

💬 Hon David Carter: You won’t be able to go to one o’clock if you can’t do better than that.

I do not intend to go to 1 o’clock, for the information of the good member. I am trying to raise the seriousness of this debate. We have a bill here—

💬 John Carter: When are you going to start?

I have been trying to do so for 5 minutes. I thought I was doing very well. We have a bill here that really opens the door to people who are prepared to be unscrupulous in selling vehicles. I think the intention of this bill is admirable, but the Government has not made it a reality.

United Future is pleased to support this legislation. As the holder of two motor vehicle dealer’s licences, I am affected by it. I notice in the part we are dealing with the question of who is treated as a motor vehicle trader. Each of the licences that I currently hold has cost me between $15,000 and $20,000 to obtain under the present regime.

Much has been said about the levy on traders. As I understand it, the levy will be $127 per trader. I find that most motor vehicle dealers are very pleased to get any dispute sorted out quickly, because we have found in our industry that the longer something goes on, the more it will cost us. Therefore, if I have to contribute $127 per year, per licence, towards a tribunal that will sort out disputes fairly quickly, I personally am very happy to do that. To say that provision has just been thrown into this legislation is not correct. As I understand it, that proposal was in a discussion document that was before the industry in January 2001, which the majority of the industry supported. The motor vehicle dealers have had to operate for many years on what is a very unequal playing field.

I have concerns about various parts of this bill that I will discuss at the appropriate points, but maybe this bill should be called the “Thank Goodness it’s Here” bill.

I rise to speak to Part 1 of this bill. Clause 2 is where we come to the introduction of Supplementary Order Paper 30, which refers to clause 130A. Clause 130A deals with the imposition of levies, and I would just like to come back to what the member over there on the Government benches, Steve Chadwick, said. She is a very honourable and lovely person, and I do not mean to cast any aspersions on her, but she said she had consulted with dealers in her area. I would like to ask her whether she has consulted Honda Motorcycles, Rotorua, which asked me why it was being singled out, and why we are not levying all supermarkets and grocery stores. I quote: “If such a levy were imposed, the repercussions further down the line would end up affecting none other than the man in the street, the very person this Government is supposedly working for. In an age where business is difficult at the best of times and margins are constantly being squeezed, it seems ludicrous to be entertaining such a proposal.”

Again from Rotorua, when consulted about clause 130A in the Supplementary Order Paper referred to in Part 1, Nigel’s Cars, a car dealer for 16 years, wrote: “I think we pay enough levies as it is now and with the change to the motor vehicle sales Act, it is supposed to be better for all concerned. But reading your letter it seems this is not the case, and that we as car dealers will again be paying for the privilege to sell cars, when there are lots of unlicensed people out there selling cars at car fairs, and in our case, in Rotorua, where the local council have created a car yard.” It will be interesting to see whether that business comes under this legislation, too.

Clause 3 sets out the purpose of this bill, and it is just more self-congratulatory nonsense from this Government about protecting the interests of consumers. I can see I am keeping the Minister of Finance up again. If the Government is to impose costs on business, those costs will be passed on to consumers; there is absolutely no doubt about that. This Government just does not seem to get that. We are not opposed to a tribunal. There are members over there on the Government benches who seem to think we are opposed to a tribunal, but I say we are not. I have said before that we were going to support this bill until this sneaky Supplementary Order Paper, which has not been consulted on, came through.

I am very disappointed in the member for United Future, Paul Adams. United Future’s website says it supports lower, flatter taxes and fewer compliance costs. Now Paul Adams thinks that because he has been a car dealer for 30 years, he is an expert. I have been a mother for 28 years and a lover for a little bit longer than that, yet I am not an expert on mothering or on sex. So how can Paul Adams be an expert on car dealing just because he has been a car dealer for 30 years? It is a non sequitur.

Turning over to the next page of the bill, I note that clause 5 states that this Act binds the Crown. That is a really interesting situation; it will be really interesting to see what happens. At the moment, the Customs Service can seize imported vehicles that it suspects have dodgy odometers that might have been wound back. The Customs Service seizes those cars because they are deemed to be unsafe. But what does it do with those cars? It then sells them to the consumer, through the auction system. The first consumer is forewarned that the odometer might have been wound back, but subsequent customers who buy the cars after that are not warned. They have no idea of that, yet the Government is acting as a car dealer. So will the Government now have to pay these levies to itself if it gets taken to the disputes tribunal because someone has bought a car that has had its odometer wound back, and that person did not know that?

I wonder why the Minister of Transport is not in the chair.

💬 Hon David Carter: He doesn’t understand the bill.

Oh, OK. Well, someone else from the Government might be able to answer these questions. As I said, the purpose of this bill, the Government says, is to protect consumers. I will tell members what raising taxes does for consumers. An international report has just confirmed that workers in New Zealand—who are consumers—are now worse off, on average, than they were 2 years ago. Since Labour’s election, inflation and increased taxes and charges mean that a working couple is $1,400 worse off than previously.

The question I ask the Minister in the chair, the Hon Margaret Wilson, is whether she could answer the question raised by the Hon Paul Swain, the Minister who is actually in charge of this legislation. The Hon Paul Swain interjected during Mr Peter Brown’s contribution and asked: “Is this better than what exists now?” One would think that the Minister in charge of the legislation would have bothered to get hold of his own officials and find out the answer to that question, rather than expect a member of the Opposition to answer it for him. The Motor Vehicle Sales Bill is before the House, we are just embarking on the Committee stage, and the poor hapless Minister of Transport has to ask Peter Brown whether this bill will be better than what exists at present. I hope that Margaret Wilson will take a call and answer that question for the Hon Paul Swain.

While she is on her feet, I also hope that she will clarify clause 6—the Parekura Horomia clause, as it has been named tonight—and the definition of actual distance. This legislation records that actual distance in relation to a motor vehicle odometer “means the distance that would otherwise have been recorded on an odometer had it not been tampered with”. Even Dr Cullen is now expressing amazement at that definition. My simple question to the Minister is: when one comes across a vehicle with a tampered odometer and one needs to determine the actual distance, how does she propose to do that? I ask the Minister to spend a bit of time talking to the officials, because I think that she will need a bit of time doing that.

I then move to yet another definition, and on this occasion I have to congratulate the select committee on the good work it has done. The definition of a new motor vehicle is as follows: “new motor vehicle means a motor vehicle that is not a used motor vehicle”. I think that is reasonable. I congratulate the select committee, under the chairmanship of David Cunliffe, on getting that one right. But another definition worries me, and I am hoping that the Minister will help me with it. It is where we define a motor cycle. A motor cycle means “a motor vehicle running on 2 wheels”. That is quite serious, because we have just had all these problems in relation to the boy racer bill. I ask Clayton Cosgrove what happens when a motor vehicle goes around a corner too fast and suddenly it is on two wheels? It is a motor cycle!

💬 Clayton Cosgrove: We’re OK!

Clayton Cosgrove has answered that question, so I do not need the Minister to answer it. Clayton Cosgrove has acknowledged that if a motor vehicle goes around a corner too fast and is on two wheels, it becomes a motor cycle. But I have another definition that worries me from the Greens’ point of view. Again, it is the definition of a motor vehicle: “motor vehicle—(a) means any of the following: (i) a road vehicle that is drawn or propelled by mechanical power”.

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: Solar power?

Exactly, what about solar power, electric power, or wind-powered vehicles? We hear a lot from the Greens about the future of wind in energy. In future, we might have vehicles with sails and all sorts of things. I am concerned about whether that issue has been addressed.

Horse power?

No, I do not think that we will head back to the days of horse power, but it is a possibility with the Greens anywhere near the Government. I think that gives the Minister a certain number of questions—

You could thaw a lot of things out.

I will not comment on that interjection, but I thank John Carter very much for his contribution. I ask the Minister to help us with those definitions. The ones we want clarification on are how actual distance will be estimated when an odometer has been tampered with, and there is the issue of motor vehicle definition, as well.

New Zealand First has supported the title of this bill, but that is as far as we will go, because this bill will not work. The comment made by the Minister, Paul Swain, when he asked Peter Brown whether this bill would work indicates that he has no confidence in this bill whatsoever. I draw the Committee’s attention to clause 146 in the Supplementary Order Paper, which states that the Government wants to review the legislation in 2 years. Clause 146 indicates that the Minister has no confidence whatsoever in the bill, because he has suddenly realised that it will not work.

There is a simple description in the bill for interpreting “actual distance”. I cannot believe that it means “the distance that would otherwise have been recorded on an odometer had it not been tampered with”.

💬 Hon David Carter: That’s going to be a curly one, but the Minister will be able to answer it—she is getting advice from Parekura Horomia.

Parekura Horomia is giving her his advice right at this very moment.

💬 Hon David Carter: Seek leave for Parekura Horomia to answer it now!

I seek leave for Parekura Horomia to give us the answer right now—he is obviously giving advice to the Minister.

It is impossible to detect when somebody has tampered with an odometer, disconnected it, or even put undersized or oversized wheels or tyres on to a vehicle, which throws the odometer completely out. So how on earth can one decide whether an odometer has been tampered with?

Clause 8 “Who is treated as a motor vehicle trader”, states: “(1) A person is treated as carrying on the business of motor vehicle trading for the purposes of this Act if—... (b) in any specified period, the person sells more than 6 motor vehicles”. They could be two-wheelers, too. Backyard operators operating with or without a licence—usually without a licence—or under somebody else’s licence; in other words, harbouring, are not going to report the number of sales they have had. How will the Minister police that part of the bill? Whether or not he is harbouring, a backyard operator will not report the number of sales he has had. He will not report that he has bought and sold more than 6 vehicles. This bill will not work; it has no possibility of working. [Interruption] I have heard a lot of noise from the other side, and it just indicates to me that Government members do not have confidence in this bill. They have realised that it will not work. Government members cannot give an interpretation of “tampering”. They cannot give a genuine interpretation of how they will police whether this bill can pick up backyard operators.

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: It’s not intended to.

It is not intended to, I have heard. Perhaps that is the answer: the Government is putting in a bill just to tamper with the system.

I move, That the question be now put.

When Opposition members go through this bill, they have one overwhelming question in their minds, and it is this one: “How come Harry Duynhoven is not the Minister of Transport?” That is a question that everyone over here has asked. At least Harry Duynhoven understands how motorcars work, knows how to lift the bonnet and look inside a car, and would not be messing around with a bill like this. Harry Duynhoven knows how the motor vehicle industry works.

💬 Dianne Yates: What do you know?

Somebody asked me what I know. I will go through the bill and point a few things out. We are very interested on this side of the Chamber to see that Mr David Cunliffe chaired the select committee. [Interruption] We try to give David Cunliffe a trial; his nickname over on the Labour Party side is “fast track”. I am not sure whether that relates to the meteoric rise of his career, or his ability to get legislation through. Only David Cunliffe would see the need to define some of the things that are defined in there.

I ask members to consider whether they know what a trailer is. Does David Cunliffe know what a trailer is? We were driving along in our car or truck, and the question to David Cunliffe and the Minister of Transport—who is not Harry Duynhoven—was: “What is a trailer?” They came up with this: “trailer—(a) means a vehicle without motive power that is drawn or propelled or is capable of being drawn or propelled by a motor vehicle from which it is readily detachable.” That is a long way of saying it. Every human being knows what a trailer is, but David Cunliffe felt the need to put it in this bill. But then he goes further: “trailer—(b) includes a sidecar for a motor cycle.” How in the world can this Government think that a sidecar is a trailer, and that by passing a Motor Vehicle Sales Bill under urgency, we will somehow make a sidecar a trailer?

I see Parekura Horomia having a yawn, because it is past his bedtime, but next time he is coming down to Wellington in a sidecar, I ask him to contemplate that under this bill he is passing under urgency, he is actually in a trailer, not a sidecar, and ask himself why that would be. Only David Cunliffe, who is nicknamed “fast track”, would see the need to define a motor vehicle in this bill. I am trying to find this bit, because I know Government members have an interest in it. A motor vehicle is defined, and then it goes like this—

💬 Dr Wayne Mapp: It could be a tractor.

It could not be a tractor, but the Governor-General could come along and declare a tractor to be a motor vehicle, and then it would be. The Governor-General could declare a giraffe to be a motor vehicle, and under this bill it would be a motor vehicle. Why on earth is David Cunliffe giving the Governor-General—late one night after a Labour Party booze-up—the power to decide what a motor vehicle is? I have not heard David Cunliffe or the Minister in the chair take a call to explain why we are having this sort of thing.

Let us get to ACT’s objection. I know David Cunliffe is suffering from a lack of attention, and he will just have to work harder and do the job more. When we look at Labour, there is one solution to every problem, is there not? Paul Adams of United Future has bought into it, and the solution always is—more taxes.

💬 Hon Dover Samuels: Get your hand out of your pocket!

Dover Samuels says I should get my hand out of my pocket. He should get his snout out of the trough. That would be a good start, instead of going around eating at Te Puni Kōkiri—eating and drinking away in an election year. I am quite happy to take my hand out of my pocket if he takes his snout out of the trough.

I move, That the question be now put.

I want to take up a particular point that has been raised with me—that a tractor is not a motor vehicle. I was reading the purpose provision months ago, and it said that this bill would protect the interests of consumers. Why does the Government not want to protect the interests of farmers? Do members know how much a tractor costs? Mr Carter tells me that a tractor costs half a million dollars—an amazingly huge sum of money. Yet we are more concerned about $2,000 cars. This bill is huge. It has many parts, hundreds of clauses, many schedules, to protect consumers of $2,000 cars, but no protection whatsoever for $500,000 tractors. Tractor owners are just stuck with the Sale of Goods Act and the Fair Trading Act—which are pretty good Acts.

This is what I think. National has a policy of supporting this bill. When I think about it, why would we support a bill that cannot even support the farming community? They are consumers, they spend hundreds of thousands of dollars, but they do not get the sympathy, the empathy, or the legislation. This Government just washes them aside. [Interruption] It does not care about the rural sector. Does this Government even know what it is doing? Does it have legislation that is consistent, logical, concise, and protects the consumer? It seems to me that the honest purchaser of a tractor should be protected.

The other thing that strikes me as rather odd is that the Government does not trust itself. Clause 5 states: “This Act binds the Crown.” Normally that is seen as a good thing—the law should cover the Crown. But in this instance it is based upon a presumption that the Crown is dishonest, that it will try to con consumers, that consumers need hundreds of pages of legislation to protect them from the voraciousness of the Crown.

💬 Sandra Goudie: They have given themselves an exemption.

So the Government is covered and exempted all at once. It is unbelievable. Why would it do that?

The underlying premise says that the public cannot trust the Crown; that when the Crown disposes of vehicles—through the Government stores board, I guess—when it sells those gold limousines that those members all so desire, the public is likely to be sold a pup. They will have hundreds of thousands of kilometres on the clock, they will have been thrashed, and the motors will be about to bust, and the public will have to have recourse to all these provisions.

The other thing is this. We have heard today that the Government has put in a sneaky Supplementary Order Paper to have annual fees for the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal. I have to ask the Minister of Finance, who must be concerned about the Government finances, whether it is the intention that the Government will, each and every year, pay fees to the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal. Alternatively, will it be making a special allocation of tax funds to the tribunal? One of those things must be true, and the Minister should be able to answer that. Why should we be punishing honest, hard-working entrepreneurs and small-business people—men and women—with special fees, but exempting the Crown? This just loads it all on to the customer, even though the Crown is, in this legislation at least, potentially so dishonest that it would sell vehicles that are faulty to the public.

I move, That the question be now put.

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.

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.

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—

I move, That the question be now put.