Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4)

United Future will be objecting to clause 67 in this part, concerning the requirement to supply a supplier information notice card (SIN card). Traditionally, when a transaction has happened between motor traders, it has been accepted that a SIN card has not been required. Therefore, we have no problems with anything in the bill, except when we come to section 14 (1A)(b) and (c), in clause 67, because now we have the case whereby a motor trader that may be an insurance company—in fact, the request for this provision came from an insurance company—sells a vehicle that is still registered to a wrecker, the insurance company maintains that it causes extra compliance costs for the trader to have to provide the SIN card.

But the problem we have is that we are fostering another great black hole for the recycling of cars that have been substantially damaged or written-off, without having any checks and balances on their repair. For example, if an imported motor vehicle comes across the wharf and has any form of damage, that vehicle is flagged. It is not that the vehicle cannot be repaired, because it can be repaired, but it must go through the correct process and have engineers’ reports etc., depending on the damage, before it is called “complied” and issued with an MR2A form to allow it to be registered. An insurance company that is also a motor trader does not have to supply a SIN card under the current regulations, provided that the vehicle is deregistered. If a vehicle is deregistered, sold to a motor wrecker, then purchased by somebody who decides to repair that vehicle, it can be repaired. But, again, it must go through the correct procedure to make sure all the repairs are done correctly before it is reissued with an MR2A form and comes on to the market as a reregistered vehicle.

Unfortunately, paragraphs (b) and (c) allow insurance companies to sell damaged cars while maintaining their registration. Therefore, nothing stops those cars from being repaired without any checks and balances, then being sold to the unsuspecting public as cars that have been substantially damaged and repaired in New Zealand.

United Future supports the idea that a transaction from motor trader to motor trader should not need to have a SIN card. However, we do not accept that in the case of a trader that is selling, as in paragraphs (b) and (c), to somebody with a licence granted under the Secondhand Dealers Act or the Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Act “who buys, in the course of that person’s business as a secondhand dealer, motor vehicles for wrecking or dismantling by that person;”, because we maintain that is just another step in the process to allow cars to be recycled.

So we welcome the new Motor Vehicle Sales Act coming up for review, but we also flag the significant concerns in the industry over the SIN card issue. This would be a retrograde step, a bad step, and an indication in the wrong direction, so United Future will be objecting to clause 67.

On the basis of that objection to clause 67, I object to clause 68, as clause 68 cannot stand without clause 67.

Clauses 67 and 68 objected to and struck out of the bill, and Part 12 as amended agreed to.

Part 13 agreed to.

Part 14 New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 349 in the name of the Hon Rick Barker to Part 14 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to, and Part 14 agreed to.

Parts 15 to 18 agreed to.

Part 18A Sale of Liquor Amendment Act 2004