Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill

I move, That the Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill be now read a third time. The bill introduces changes to the Motor Vehicle Sales Act to provide for its more effective operation and to ensure that consumers’ interests continue to be protected in relation to motor vehicle sales. It ensures that consumers have access to good information that allows them to make informed purchasing decisions.

The Motor Vehicle Sales Act came into force in December 2003. It introduced a new registration regime for motor vehicle traders that served to make traders more accountable. It also offered more flexibility to participate in the industry, introduced new information disclosure requirements for used motor vehicles, and established the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal, which offered consumers a forum in which complaints against traders could be heard.

The bill is the result of a review of the operation of the Motor Vehicle Sales Act conducted by the Ministry of Consumer Affairs. I endorse the review of legislation 2 to 3 years after enactment. This allows assessment as to whether legislation is bedding in as intended, and it provides for any operational problems to be addressed.

I thank the members of the Commerce Committee for their consideration of this bill. I also thank those who made submissions on the bill to the select committee and throughout the initial review of the operation of the Motor Vehicle Sales Act. Many of the issues raised in those submissions have been addressed in this bill. I also thank the previous Minister of Consumer Affairs, officials from the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, and parliamentary counsel for their work on the bill.

As an ACT Minister in the National-led Government I am pleased that this bill not only includes benefits for consumers who buy motor vehicles but also removes some compliance costs and red tape for motor vehicle traders, private sellers of motor vehicles, and motor vehicle buyers. The bill tidies up the processes related to motor vehicle trader registration renewal and the registration process for overseas directors. It removes the requirements for a consumer information notice if selling a car privately at a car market, and also in sales made between motor vehicle traders and motor vehicle traders and wreckers. Car market operators, those offering premises for an Internet site or for vehicle sales but not actually selling vehicles themselves, will no longer be required to register as motor vehicle traders.

A key function of the Motor Vehicle Sales Act is to protect consumer interests, and I am pleased to highlight to the House that the bill raises the limit to which the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal may hear claims. It has been increased from $50,000 to $100,000. This will allow better access to the tribunal and will also future-proof the limit. The bill also includes some amendments to allow for the more efficient functioning of the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal, and it provides for all decisions of the tribunal to be published, which will provide more transparency and allow traders and consumers alike to learn how best to adjudicate disputes between themselves and resolve them.

In terms of positive outcomes for both consumers and motor vehicle traders, the success of the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal highlights how well these kinds of dispute resolution entities work in providing low-cost, efficient, and fair outcomes for all New Zealanders. I encourage consumers to take advantage of their existence if in a dispute about a motor vehicle and a trader.

The changes I have outlined are designed to strengthen the operation of the Motor Vehicle Sales Act. They are designed to improve consumer outcomes when purchasing motor vehicles, and to remove unnecessary regulatory requirements and the associated compliance costs. I commend this bill to the House.

It is my pleasure as Labour’s consumer affairs spokesperson to speak on the third reading of the Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill. As Labour members have noted previously, we support this bill. It has a number of very sensible amendments. It is not a bill that will set the world on fire, or, indeed, a bill that it is necessary to deal with under urgency but it is a good solid piece of work.

I want to talk first about why legislation in the consumer affairs area is important. This bill is part of our consumer legislation. Motor vehicles are significant items for many New Zealanders. For the many New Zealanders who can no longer afford to buy houses—and that is an increasing number of New Zealanders—a motor vehicle may well be the biggest single purchase they make. Consumer legislation on motor vehicle sales is important. The motor vehicle industry employs a number of people. We have seen many people in that industry lose their jobs as a result of the recession. In tough economic times New Zealanders are reliant on cars. In most places in New Zealand people are reliant on cars because they do not have an alternative; public transport is not the way in which people get to work. They require a car to get around, to get to work, to take the kids to school, or whatever, so a car is often not an optional purchase for New Zealanders. I think we would all accept that. Although some of us are probably more committed to changing that situation and having alternatives, the reality is that buying a car is very significant. I just want to put this in context.

The Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill deals with an issue that is important to us—that is, the sale of motor vehicles. As has been outlined, this legislation was brought in by the previous Labour Government. The Motor Vehicle Sales Act, which was significant legislation, came into effect in December 2003 and provided for some very important things. It provided for the registration of motor vehicle traders. Used-car salesmen are not seen as the most honest and reliable people in the world; I cannot remember whether politicians are ranked above or below them at the moment. There was a need to tighten up that industry and so another part of the legislation set up the disputes tribunal so that people had somewhere to go to deal with any disputes they might have. I have previously noted that the disputes tribunal seems to be working very effectively. It also legislated around the issue of consumer information—the sorts of things one might expect to know when one is purchasing a vehicle.

That legislation was set up in December 2003 with a requirement that the Act be reviewed after 2 years in operation. I think that is important, especially in an area like consumer law, where things change. Even in 2003, who would have thought that the amount of buying and selling that takes place in the online trading area would be the case? The fact is that consumer law is an area that we need to review fairly regularly. That process led to a review, and 12 areas in the Motor Vehicle Sales Act were identified as possibly needing amendment. A discussion document went out, a number of people commented on it, and that fed into a process whereby a bill was put before the House. That bill was introduced in May 2009—so it has not had a speedy track through the House since that time. The bill was referred to the Commerce Committee and I am pleased to note that my colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel is the chair of that committee and provides very good leadership in it. It was important that this bill went to that committee. It has had good, thorough scrutiny, and by all accounts it has had good assistance from officials. The bill was reported back in December 2009. The second reading occurred in June 2010. So after a slow start, we are dealing with the Committee stage and the third reading under urgency. It is a little unclear to me what is so urgent about the Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill that warrants us being here in urgency to deal with it. That is not to say that the amendments are not useful and helpful amendments, but it does seem a little strange, given the pressing issues facing New Zealand at the moment—such as high unemployment, lack of an economic plan, and New Zealanders struggling to make ends meet—that we are dealing under urgency with what are, effectively, fairly minor changes to the Motor Vehicle Sales Act.

Just what are those amendments? As has been outlined, the amendments include changes to the process whereby motor vehicle traders renew their annual registration. This change was partly driven by a desire to reduce compliance costs on traders. One change that is really important, and which should be valued by all of us, is the closing of a loophole that prevents the automatic banning of traders whose registration has lapsed following conviction under this Act. That is important. It is what should happen and it has been fixed up by this bill. The bill also deals with a set of changes around consumer information notices, primarily around the use of those notices in car markets. It essentially recognises the fact that people operating a car market are not, by definition, motor vehicle traders themselves. They provide a space where people buy and sell cars. It also removes the requirement for transactions between traders, or traders and wreckers, to display a consumer information notice. That is probably OK. We would expect that those people would be aware of their rights and aware of the information they need to decide on whether to purchase a motor vehicle.

The third area is around the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal, and the bill increases the financial limit for claims it hears from $50,000 to $100,000. I have already said that we think the disputes tribunal appears to work well, that it is effective in its decision making, that it is dealing with an increasing number of cases, and that it draws to our attention matters that are of interest or, indeed, matters for further law change. So that is all positive. We have no issue with extending the financial limit for claims from $50,000 to $100,000, but it would be fair to say that this change will not affect most New Zealanders. Most New Zealanders are not in the market for a vehicle that is worth more than $50,000; we have to accept that. In tough economic times people are holding on to their old vehicles, and they are looking at downsizing, often, especially with fuel prices being what they are and little or no wage increases. That provision is not exactly something that will affect the majority of struggling New Zealanders, but certainly Labour does not have a problem with it being in the bill. Again, I say that it is not the key issue facing this Parliament at the moment.

I want to put this bill into the context of consumer affairs generally. We could judge this bill in light of a framework. I mentioned previously to the new Minister of Consumer Affairs that we are looking at a framework around consumer affairs, and I seek to meet him to discuss this. Firstly, it would look at things like improving consumer knowledge and protection, so we could say that to a degree this bill is part of that. Secondly, it needs to take account of the needs of vulnerable consumers. I am not sure that this bill touches particularly on that area, although the Motor Vehicle Sales Act is important because, as I said, cars are one of the biggest single items that consumers may purchase. The Government has failed to show much leadership in the area of vulnerable consumers. The fact that National and ACT MPs voted against the loan shark legislation not long ago shows a lack of interest in the interests of vulnerable consumers. I know that the Hon John Boscawen has a concern about vulnerable consumers, and I will be seeing whether he wants to change tack on that issue. As for targeting exploitation, I think we need to look at what we are doing in the area of the motor vehicle market, at the bottom end if you like. I identified one part of Auckland where it is particularly an issue, and that is Ōtāhuhu. Again, this bill in itself is not in that space, but there is enforcement work, particularly, that could help. Updating consumer law is clearly part of our framework, and we see this sits within the bill. It takes account of changed circumstances, and that is important. Greater regulation is something we will probably debate, as is increasing consumer awareness. I will end there. Thank you.

I rise to take a short call on the Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill. Firstly, I acknowledge the previous Minister of Consumer Affairs, Heather Roy, for the work that she did—not just in this portfolio of consumer affairs, but also as Associate Minister of Defence and Associate Minister of Education. I know that she was a strong advocate for those portfolios. I also acknowledge my colleague and friend Mr Boscawen, who has just left the Chamber, for his work on this bill as a member of the Commerce Committee. He is now the Minister of Consumer Affairs and has moved the bill’s third reading. He is a hard-working MP and will be a very good addition to the ministry of this Government and future National Governments.

I acknowledge the members of the Commerce Committee. I thought we worked well as a committee. The committee was well chaired, of course. I also acknowledge the submitters who put forward the very few submissions that were heard orally, and the officials for the work that they did in bringing this bill through the select committee process.

The Minister has already alluded to the main components of the bill, but I say this bill promotes and protects consumer interests. In the tough times that we have been through, in the recession, consumer protection legislation is particularly important, and a number of speakers have alluded to that. The issue is about creating an environment of confidence and choice—choice in that consumers want to rely on the information produced by the vendors of motor vehicles, and choice in that that they can make their decisions by relying on that information.

This bill is about the reform of regulation. This National Government is cutting red tape, reducing compliance costs, and pushing through—

💬 Carol Beaumont: This was a Labour bill.

No, this is actually a National bill, which has been moved by an ACT member. The bill is about cutting red tape, and the previous Labour Government had no idea about how to do that. One of the policy reform areas is to cut red tape in order to improve the long-term performance of the economy, lift our living standards, and create jobs. This bill is part of a series of reforms that we have brought to the House. It is being considered under urgency. National is a Government of action. This bill is part of that reform, and I commend it to the House. Thank you.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak in the third reading of the Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill. This bill has had quite a long history, in terms of its gestation and its traverse through the House, and I want to comment on all of those points, as we did in the Committee stage. First, I want to again comment on the history of the bill and how we have arrived at this position today. I think it is important that we have very good regulatory processes in order to assess the operation of a regulatory framework after it has been in place for a certain period of time. The Motor Vehicle Sales Act 2003, which this bill amends, had within it a review after 2 years. There are those who would consider a 2-year review as too short and there are those who would consider a 10-year review as too long. I am probably of the view that the 2-year review is too short.

Although I think this process was robust, in that it involved the review that had a number of recommendations coming out of it, it then led to the development of a discussion paper that proposed amendments to the Motor Vehicle Sales Act. There were 18 submissions on the discussion paper, and there was an open forum with industry and consumer representative organisations. It engaged with the major stakeholders that one would expect to see involved, such as the Motor Trade Association, the Independent Motor Vehicle Dealers Association, the Motor Industry Association, the New Zealand Automobile Association, and Consumer New Zealand, amongst many others.

I think the importance of the process was that those particular major stakeholders were able to engage quite fully in the process. If it was a 2-year review, after legislation that had come into force in 2003, the discussion document came out in 2007, and the legislation was introduced in 2009, I am starting to get a picture of things having probably moved on during the period. I personally think that 2 years is too short. Just for future reference—and we all learn as we go along in this particular role—I think that a review of this nature should have been 5 years, unless there were circumstances that required the urgent attention of the Government that would bring it forward.

We also need to consider truncating the process, because I think we have doubled up here. There were 18 submissions on the discussion paper, and at the Commerce Committee we received eight submissions on the bill and we heard two submissions. Again, one of the concerns I have is that although it is a robust process, and I again place on record our thanks to the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, which gave us very good support when dealing with this bill, it possibly could have been dealt with a lot sooner if we had managed to get the bill before the House a bit sooner than we did. Be that as it may, we got the bill in front of the House last year in about May, we reported it back from the select committee in December last year, and now we are in urgency, finishing off the final reading. It is actually—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I was a member of the select committee way back then. It was when Chris Carter was our education spokesperson, I think. I sat on the committee.

No, I do not think so, because it was my select committee and I do not think I have ever had the pleasure of having Trevor Mallard on my select committee. I kind of hope that—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: It never happens?

—it stays that way. Oh, it is nothing personal.

💬 Hon Members: Poor Trevor!

Well, I do not think I could compete with that degree of testosterone, but there we go! We were speaking on the Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill, I say to Mr Mallard.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Right—wrong bill.

I thought we were speaking at cross purposes.

The Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill was reported back to this House on 14 December last year, but the bill was not read a second time until June this year. I went back and had a quick look at that second reading and it was dealt with under urgency, as well. Now, here we are, completing the final stages of the bill under urgency. I made the point during the Committee stage that although the calendar on the wall says that it is 24 August, it is, in fact, 26 August. Although time may have stood still as far as the urgency motion goes, we are debating this bill now when our select committee should actually be meeting and dealing with other legislation. But here we are in the House dealing with this bill. If this really was a matter of urgency, then it ought to have been dealt with some time sooner.

The main issue that I focused on when we were in the Committee stage on this bill was the question of the display of a consumer information notice. I will comment on one of the submissions that we received in the select committee, because I thought it was the most appropriate submission to refer to in respect of e-commerce and the advent of TradeMe into the car market, as it were, through online car market operators. According to the submission, the theory of the current situation, prior to this bill coming in, is that each of the 175,000 motor vehicle auctions on TradeMe in the past year would have had to include a consumer information notice, and TradeMe provides advice to the sellers in the car listing process that they must do that. But, as the submission said, the reality was quite different. It said that the Commerce Commission had advised in 2006 that it would enforce this requirement only against motor vehicle traders, and the Ministry of Consumer Affairs recommended in 2007 that the law be changed to remove this requirement on private sellers. I guess that in the meantime, generally only motor vehicle traders have been displaying the consumer information notices.

The point made in the submission—and I guess that this backs up the point that I was trying to make before about the time frame for review and action on those reviews—is that the amendment simply changes the law to catch up with the reality of what people are doing and with what everyone seems to agree makes sense. That is why, when the previous speaker said that our Government did not address red tape and compliance costs, I would make the point that I was the Minister who developed the model of the Regulatory Improvement Bill. Something like this does not need to be separate legislation. This could have been dealt with by way of making amendments under the Regulatory Improvement Bill.

I think that one of the things we need to also contemplate as a Parliament is having a much more open approach towards an omnibus bill or generic legislation that is able to pick up a range of compliance-reducing initiatives that do not always get the priority of the department, the Minister, or the Leader of the House in terms of the process that will be adopted for ensuring that legislation can be updated in a timely fashion. The sequence of events that I have spelt out in terms of the timing of the review, the discussion document, getting it to a bill stage, and getting priority in terms of the House means that something that was identified in 2006—according to this submission from TradeMe—is being fixed in 2010. That, to me, is the fundamental flaw we have in our parliamentary system.

This bill has had to compete against changes to “three strikes” legislation and with other things that the Government might think are a priority but most New Zealanders do not. Bills have to compete on that basis. I would certainly recommend that we ensure these things are kept up to date with sensible review periods, and also take an action approach to implementing those changes. I commend the bill to the House in its third reading.

Kia ora koutou, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to take a call on the Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill. It has been interesting to hear, both during the earlier reading and the during the Committee stage earlier today, the extent of the peculiar love-hate relationship we have with motor vehicles in this country. It is probably not unique to us, but it is certainly a characteristic, and it is another reason why this market needs to have some regulation on it and some attention paid to it.

The lower end of the market has not been characterised by a high level of integrity, I have to say. Clearly, new car sellers, franchise holders, and, for the most part, secondhand-car dealers operate with some degree of integrity, but there is a minority whose reputation probably equates to our reputation as politicians, and it is not a particularly high level of trust that is shown by the public in that market. So it is important that we are seen to apply consumer protection provisions in this bill.

Given the economic and, apparently, the cultural importance of motor vehicles in New Zealand, I think it is probably unfortunate and a bit odd that this bill has languished for nearly 18 months since its first reading. I was interested in the comments made by the previous speaker, Lianne Dalziel, about the necessity of perhaps looking at a more regular review, a more timely review, of what is quite a significant market.

The numbers are interesting. There are over 4 million vehicles currently registered in New Zealand. Looking at the population, we see that that equals roughly one car each, which puts us on the top tier, certainly, in terms of per capita ownership of vehicles. That number is also fairly stable. The number of new vehicles coming on the market more or less balances those that get trashed each year, and it is interesting that we do seem to maintain this very, very high level of vehicle ownership, despite the fact that, clearly, vehicles are a liability.

Vehicles are often perceived as being an asset, but they are a liability to own and operate. New vehicle sales hit a peak in 2007—something like 100,000 vehicles were newly registered in that year—and that figure dropped substantially during the recession, down to a low last year of fewer than 70,000-odd vehicles. But that figure is clearly on the way up. There is something like a 15 percent increase in new vehicle sales this year and something like a 43 percent increase in the sale of imported second-hand vehicles, and, again, it reflects the need for some constant attention to regulate and ensure that consumers are getting a good deal in this market.

The most popular vehicle segment is mini and small vehicles. But there have been major drops in sales as more people think very hard about the purchasing of large investments like cars, and, of course, the collapse of finance companies also discourages people from getting involved in anything that commits them to debt. It is interesting that the hardest-hit segment of the market is large cars, People are turning away from large sedans and moving more towards the sport utility vehicles in spite the fact that the particular qualities or characteristics of those vehicles really only meet the needs of a relatively small number of people.

All this information leads us to reflect and to acknowledge that the purchase of a motor vehicle is often a very emotive rather than a wholly rational decision. There may be a degree of rationality about it, but people often buy vehicles on quite an irrational basis. In a market like that, it is important that we have appropriate regulation and, without wishing to sound patronising, that we apply some protection for consumers in an area where they are very easily ripped off and cheated.

The age of the New Zealand vehicle fleet is hovering at about 12 years to 13 years, particularly the light vehicle fleet, which is the largest component of the overall fleet. It is about 90 percent of the total. About half of that fleet is made up of used imports—vehicles that have come in as second-hand vehicles. Something like 78 percent of total vehicle kilometres travelled in New Zealand are in the light passenger vehicle category, which indicates that most of the kilometres travelled in New Zealand are travelled in cars and very light commercials. Again, all those figures tell us that the buying and selling of vehicles is a very busy, very complex market, and any steps to better inform and protect consumers in that market place is to be welcomed. There are provisions in this bill that seek to do that. The numbers also point to the need for developing much more coherent and much more appropriate strategies for incentivising customers to make purchases that will meet their needs and reduce the adverse environmental impact of motor vehicle use.

Over time the Greens have put up a number of propositions aimed at increasing, in particular, fuel efficiency standards across the whole vehicle fleet. We have proposed a system of tradable credits that would give importers absolute discretion in terms of what vehicles they choose to import. But, clearly, that would incentivise a mix that favours the most fuel-efficient vehicles coming into this country, which would not only meet the needs of consumers to the extent that it would reduce the overall running cost to vehicles but also would reduce the significant negative environmental impact of our vehicle use.

The Greens have proposed a “feebate” system—that is, a differential in registration fees—to advantage and incentivise the purchase and use of smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles rather than the larger, less fuel-efficient vehicles. This would give consumers maximum information and maximum choice so that they can reduce their overall cost of ownership of vehicles over time. It is true that this amendment to the Act will provide more consumer protection. The Internet has also been pointed out as a factor. It is not a new phenomenon, but certainly the number of vehicles that are bought and sold through Internet sales and auctions now makes up a significant part of the total. When I checked a few days ago there were something like 32,000 motor vehicles advertised for sale on the web, mostly on TradeMe, and some 25,000 of those were private sales. Again, that points towards the need for ensuring that private and indeed commercial sellers are obliged to give consumers information that is as appropriate, accurate, and honest as possible.

The Greens will be supporting this bill. It enhances the degree of consumer protection. We do regret that much more fundamental, coherent, and broad-based attention is not being paid to how we buy, sell, and incentivise the importing and the purchasing patterns of motor vehicles in New Zealand. We will continue to advocate for an approach that leads us to a more sustainable low-carbon economy, which is the way we need to go. Thank you.

I rise to speak on behalf of the ACT Party in the third reading of the Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill. It is very pleasing to see support from across the House for this bill. The bill makes a good deal of sense. It came together as the result of the review that was done. A car is a large purchase for most people, but it is most important for consumers that those protections exist. It is also very important, and we should not forget this, that a fair environment exists for sellers. I would like to say that the consultation process from within the motor vehicle industry itself was conducted very well, and I think very fair and reasonable conclusions have been arrived at as a result of that process. In light of that, I would like to compliment the consumer affairs officials who were responsible for conducting that very professionally.

I also would like to mention the Commerce Committee. We have heard about the submission process through the Commerce Committee, and the amendments that came forward as a result of that work. That was also done very well. Having been involved in the introduction of this bill in my former capacity, I am pleased to see that we have reached this conclusion.

It is a little mischievous of Labour to talk about this bill being heard under urgency. Labour, of course, originated this process. The review happened pretty slowly, in some respects. Had Labour been really committed to pushing this through much faster, it could have done so when it was in Government. I have to say that it is very pleasing, as the Minister who introduced this bill to the House, to be able to speak in the third reading and see that it is about to reach its conclusion today.

Section 163 of the Act required a review within 2 years of the bill’s commencement in 2003, so we are going back quite some way. That review was undertaken by the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, as I have mentioned, and it identified areas where the Act’s operation would benefit from amendment. Some gaps become apparent over time, and those have been dealt with in a rigorous and thorough way as part of the review process. The review report, which was tabled in the House in March 2006, was followed by further consultation on the review’s recommendations. That process has led to the amendments we see before us in this bill today.

I am very pleased to see that the bill will remove several unnecessary compliance costs for motor vehicle traders and consumers. The amendment is in line with the Government tackling regulatory obstacles as promoted by both ACT and the National.

The issues in the bill have been pretty much traversed by all members who have spoken on this bill, both at the Committee stage and by those who have preceded me in this third reading. But I will briefly go over those that I see as priorities that will improve things for consumers. The bill removes the requirements for private sellers at car markets to display a consumer information notice. That amendment will reduce risk of confusion between private sellers and buyers as to their responsibilities and rights. I think it makes a good deal of sense. Certainly, it was a compliance that was unnecessary in that particular circumstance and it has very sensibly been removed.

The other thing I previously promoted heavily was that the bill offers increased consumer protections, particularly with regard to the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal. The protections offered to consumers here include increasing the financial limit at which consumer claims may be heard by the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal. It has increased from $50,000 to $100,000, and it is a very sensible move. This increase means that the majority of consumers can now have their issues heard in the expert forum that the tribunal offers. This change will also assist in the future-proofing of claims limits, and provide protection to consumers who purchase high-end vehicles. Previously, some of those consumers were not able to take their case, genuine though it might have been, to the disputes tribunal. Currently, regardless of their financial means, consumers can still have difficulty in gaining redress from a specific motor vehicle trader. The increasing of the limit to $100,000 should help in this regard.

The bill allows the tribunal to award costs for non-attendance of either party to the dispute. This creates the right incentive for both parties to turn up to hearings, which has been something of a problem. Currently, costs can be awarded against the consumer when he or she does not attend, but the amendment bill will enable the ability for costs to also be awarded against the trader, so we have a much more level playing field with the amendment before the House at the moment. For a consumer, considerable compliance costs may be associated with attending a hearing that has to be postponed because of a trader’s non-attendance, so from a purely practical perspective this amendment makes a good deal of sense.

The bill also closes a loophole where the automatic banning of a trader from future trading as a motor vehicle dealer cannot be applied to a person who is unregistered or has a lapsed registration at the time of his or her conviction or bankruptcy. Currently, such people can continue to trade in motor vehicles until the registrar can take a case to court to ban them, which may take some months. The Motor Vehicle Sales Act is predicated on a fairly light-handed registration regime, and that is as it should be, in my view, and it is supported by enforcement. Effective banning provisions are an important element of this enforcement.

It gives me a great deal of delight to see the completion of this bill today, and I am very pleased to see that it has cross-party support.

It is a pleasure to stand and speak on the third reading of the Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill, and especially to follow the previous Minister of Consumer of Affairs, Heather Roy, and hear the details that she was able to give. The purpose of the bill is pretty straightforward: to promote and protect car buyers. That is an honourable goal and is consistent with that of other bills that have gone through the House under urgency, such as the bill to protect the rights of investors by focusing on standards for financial advisers.

The bill amends the process for motor vehicle traders to renew their annual registration, and it also extends the range of people banned from car trading. It makes pretty good sense to the Māori Party that those who stoop to give false registration information, or those who have lapsed registrations, should not be rewarded for that with opportunities to trade. So we are pleased to support this bill all the way through the House and will continue to do so.

However, I have a couple of concerns. The bill promotes and protects car buyers, but unfortunately it has a huge gap, in that it does not protect car drivers from people like Ms Mackey’s mother who feel that the only thing they need is that a car be white and have a cup holder. I think that my son, before he bought his last car, must have been speaking to her mother, because he bought a white one as well. It had more than a cup holder, though. Since then he has spent more money on upgrading his car than he did on buying it. Since he bought it he has lowered it, and he has put mag wheels on it. I recognise the mag wheels, because when one takes the car out on a bright Wellington day one is blinded by all the bling. But the thing that he spent most of his money on was the sound system, and because of the amount of bass one can hear that car coming for miles around. I do not know whether my son was talking to Ms Mackey’s mother when he put all of that into his car, but we really need to be looking for things other than whether cars make the right sound and are the right colour—those sorts of things. Maybe we need to think about making some amendments to the bill to make sure that car buyers buy a car and not a sound system on mag wheels.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Support New Zealand music, not overseas cars.

It is a bit late now; next time!

I also cannot leave this debate without making the connection to some of the other policy priorities that have been impacting on Parliament during this last week. The first is to raise public awareness of young drivers’ crash risk. The statistics for the years 2006 to 2008 show that of all the drivers involved in fatal crashes, the 20 to 24-year-old and the 25 to 29-year-old age groups were the most likely to be affected by alcohol/drugs. To that end we support the need to improve the road safety education available to young people and to increase access to it. Somewhere, hopefully, we will be able to deal with that issue.

The Māori Party supports this bill. We support the decision for tribunal findings to be made available on the Internet, and the focus on greater transparency and accountability. The issue is about providing a better deal for consumers and keeping the traders honest. This bill will help consumers in disputes that relate to misrepresentation about the condition of vehicles for sale, and it will provide some protection from unsafe traders. We are particularly aware of the requirement for traders to display a consumer information notice on vehicles. That is a positive move, and it will add to the general safety and protection of the New Zealand consumer. We congratulate the previous Minister of Consumer Affairs and the current Minister on their initiatives in that regard. We are supportive of the bill and its consumer focus, and make the point that of course there are many other initiatives that we must promote and uphold as part of any approach to keeping New Zealanders safe on the road.

It is my pleasure to take a call on the Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill this morning. I firstly acknowledge the previous Minister of Consumer Affairs, Heather Roy, for her commitment to getting this bill through the House and her commitment to the consumer affairs portfolio. I also thank her and the officials for the support and guidance they gave the Commerce Committee, which helped the legislation get to its third reading in the House today.

The Motor Vehicle Sales Act promotes and protects consumer interests. It is obvious that all members agree with the purpose of this bill, which is to protect consumer interests, especially consumers who are more vulnerable. We want to create an environment of confidence and informed choice. This bill is aligned with the National-led Government’s efforts to reform regulations, cut red tape, and reduce compliance costs. It is also obvious from the debate that the House agrees with what the National-led Government is trying to do currently in those areas.

I want to touch quickly on just a couple of things in the bill, because there already has been a long debate on the bill this morning. Some of the changes include amending the process for traders renewing their annual registration. These amendments reduce the compliance costs associated with traders’ making annual statutory declarations as part of registration renewal. The legislation also closes a loophole preventing the automatic banning of traders whose registration has lapsed but who are subsequently convicted under the Act for misconduct while registered. It removes the requirement for private sellers at car markets to display a consumer information notice. It eliminates unnecessary compliance costs by removing the requirement for transactions between traders, or between traders and wreckers, to include display of a consumer information notice. It increases the financial limit at which cases may be heard by the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal from $50,000 to $100,000. And it allows the tribunal to award costs for non-attendance of either party to the dispute, and allows the tribunal to publish its decisions.

I commend the bill to the House.

I am very happy to take a call in the final reading of the Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill. I want to respond initially to some of the comments Rahui Katene made. I can say only that I hope the Minister of Police was not listening to the description of her son’s car, because it could end up being crushed, given the description she just gave.

💬 David Bennett: You’re allowed a bit of sound, mate.

I can just see David Bennett driving down the streets of Hamilton with his boom box on the back of his car. I want to—

💬 Jacinda Ardern: It’s compulsory with your warrant of fitness.

Apparently it is compulsory in Hamilton.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Along with the dice.

Along with the fluffy dice, that is right.

💬 David Bennett: Only one, though. You are not allowed two.

Only one? That is a very revealing comment. I want to acknowledge once again the previous Minister of Consumer Affairs, Heather Roy. I am glad she took a call in this final reading, because it is nice to hear somebody on the Government side speak with some knowledge about what the bill actually is and what it does. I was pretty disappointed during the Committee stage that not a single Government member spoke after Mr Boscawen spoke first in the Committee stage. Not a single Government member spoke. Government members did not respond to any of the questions or issues raised by the Opposition. As a result, many of those questions still remain unanswered. In fact, the only knowledgable speech we got from that side was from the previous Minister, who spoke with some knowledge of the bill. Mr Boscawen departed not a jot from the notes his officials provided to him.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I think that Heather wrote that speech. It was actually quite a good speech.

Heather Roy may well have written the speech that John Boscawen then had the opportunity to deliver. He certainly did not demonstrate that he had any knowledge of the legislation we were debating.

Despite the lack of participation from Government members, or perhaps because of it, the Committee stage was quite interesting and lively. We heard from Moana Mackey about her car selection criteria, which tend to involve the number of cup holders that it has. She did not mention, although she mentioned to me afterwards, the fact that in selecting her car she did not bother to check whether it had a petrol light. In fact, she discovered the hard way that the car did not have a petrol light, because it ran out.

We heard from Grant Robertson about the crossbar rusting issue that he had with his first vehicle that he purchased in Invercargill, and about some of the issues he encountered there in respect of change of ownership involving the motor vehicle dealer that he purchased it from. I talked about the five cars I have owned in my period of driving.

Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.