Page 4282 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 23 October 2019
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
in their right mind should make a large purchase like a motor vehicle without having it checked out by a reputable person, unless you are Mr Gentleman and know a great deal about cars. Most of us do not and we should rely on the advice of somebody who does. For Ms Cheyne to come in here and speak about motor vehicle repairers in the way she did—that they are in cahoots and that they are not in the business of providing impartial advice—is outrageous and shows how out of touch she is with the hardworking motor vehicle repairers in this town.
MS CHEYNE (Ginninderra) (6.16), in reply: I am really disappointed that the opposition has used this motion as an opportunity to whack the government and has misunderstood its intent, whether wilfully or not. I really hope that Mr Wall’s misreading of the motion is not deliberate.
As is abundantly clear in this motion, in point (4)—have a read—I am not committing the government to any proposal except reviewing the existing legislation and considering whether there are some ways that consumers could be afforded greater protections in this space.
Mr Wall’s reaction to this motion is hysterical. He says that adhering to this motion will result in a drastic change to the industry and will put people out of business. Are you kidding me? That is absolute rot. Adhering to this motion is simply going to result in the government reviewing whether existing consumer protections are adequate. As Minister Rattenbury said, and as should be taken for granted, naturally all stakeholders will be consulted.
I actually had the head of a second-hand car dealership ring me today who supported what I was doing, that it was worth simply having a look at the consumer protections available. Far from Mr Wall’s alarmist comments, we have players in the industry who are lending their support to simply having a closer look. What does that tell you? I am completely comfortable if the government’s review confirms that the protections are adequate or that this work that is happening at the national level is worth waiting for. I am not convinced that that work is worth waiting for, but if the review does confirm that the protections are adequate I will be comfortable with that.
It is clear from Byron’s and Jess’s cases alone, and yet another woman who commented on my Facebook page just today—and I hope we are all in agreement about this—that at the very least we need better transparency about how to go about things, better advice when you are buying a second-hand vehicle and better knowledge about your rights and what is available to you. If this conversation, this debate and the coverage today achieve that, I will be pretty satisfied.
I am very appreciative that Minister Rattenbury has already asked Access Canberra to redouble their efforts in this space. The problems I have heard repeatedly are about car dealerships, and that is what this motion is about. But if, in doing the review, Minister Rattenbury considers that a closer look at how private sales work or online sales work is warranted, I am open to that.
I want to revisit Byron’s experience of ending up with a lemon. It goes to one of the points that Mr Wall well raised. Byron bought the car, a second-hand 2007 Jeep, from
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video