APIA                                                                                                               17 Sept 05

AGM Report

The past year has been both good – and bad. Satisfying and frustrating.

The good aspect of the year has been that, as it is an election year, government ministers do not wish to receive legislative recommendations that may be controversial or require additional work through various committees and other meetings. As a result LTSA do not instigate new policy matters but take the opportunity to tidy up all the loose ends that have resulted from the previous years decisions.

That’s good for us because they did not continue to introduce policy under the emotive term ‘safety’ that made trading for our industry more difficult. 

For me, it was additionally good in that they had far fewer meetings that required our attendance and representation. That meant fewer mind warping trips to Wellington.

It was also good in that on the 1st December LTSA merged with Transfund New Zealand to form Land Transport NZ.

Land Transport NZ’s objective is to contribute to an integrated, safe, responsive and sustainable land transport system. They say in their propaganda, that they will work in partnership with central, regional and local government and with many other stakeholders to help develop land transport solutions.  By our regular involvement in the consultation process, APIA is considered a ‘Stakeholder’.
The LTNZ policy document goes on to say “we will focus on optimal use and development of New Zealand’s land transport system and take a long-term view. Although there will no longer be an agency focused solely on land transport safety, safety will be maintained and improved”.  I suggested this was good. It is in the respect that in the short term the departments are busy trying to sort out who does what to who, and who, if they are not careful is out of a job.  During this period they are leaving us alone.  More importantly, as their Mission Statement says, they are not solely focused on safety as they were under their previous mandate as Land Transport SAFETY Authority.  They now have the whole transport system to play with.

There are also a lot of new faces in the department we principally deal with. This means the ‘stakeholder’ groups like us know more about what is going on than they do and we can quote all sorts of past agreements that effectively wind the clock back on many issues that were starting to become worrying. Things like banning the salvage and recycling of all vehicle ‘safety’ components – that included nose cuts, brake & steering components, bonnets, bumpers and other deformable structures.  Hopefully these topics will not emerge again until late next year or 2007.

The bad aspect of the year and the principle frustration is the result of much the same reason.

As it is an election year the ministers do not want to speak to anyone.

Late last year I made appointments with both the Minister of Transport Safety Harry Duynhoven and the Minister of Transport Pete Hodgson.  The subject of the meetings was to attempt to have the defacto rules that have resulted in our being unable to supply salvaged Air Bags, changed.  The secretaries of both Ministers cancelled the meetings on the basis that it was a subject that should be considered by the new incoming Ministers in the impending government.

As a result there has been no change to any of the circumstances surrounding last years decision by the Director of LTSA to create industry guidelines that are both unreasonable and of no value in terms of transport safety.  

There is no rule or law saying that salvaged SRS cannot be recycled. The guidelines given to repairers and certifiers however have resulted in the same outcome as if a law had been passed. This is legally unacceptable.

The issue of Air Bags that we are still battling may seem like a lost cause to many members. I certainly don’t believe that it is. Notwithstanding this opinion on either side, you must understand that this is the issue where we have drawn the line in the sand. Our strategy for over 5 years has been to stand and fight on this point.  By keeping LTNZ battling rear guard actions over the sale of airbags we have very successfully stopped them focusing on all of the other parts mentioned earlier that they mistakenly believe, by banning, will make repaired vehicles safer.  It’s a pity we had not learned the strategy of political maneuvering sooner than we did.  With hindsight we may have prevented aspects or at least modified elements of the Repair Rule and the Frontal Impact Rule which heralded in the era of focus on recycled parts as something which may cause repaired vehicles to be dangerous.

The worst thing that ever happened in our industry and the event which really convinced LTSA that our industry was irresponsible and ruthless in the pursuit of a profit at the expense of lives, was the importation and rebuilding of the flood damaged cars back in 1999.  This will forever be the moment LTSA personnel decided that lives were at risk from parts suppliers’ unscrupulous activities.  The sad thing was that only a handful of vehicles from the Japanese floods actually made it into the fleet and very few of those were handled at any stage by our members or dismantlers generally.  Nevertheless, we were branded as the industry bad boys and have suffered ever since.  I beg you – if ever an opportunity to make a $ by selling any part that may be dangerous or may contribute to an accident through premature failure presents itself – don’t do it.  Much of my argument with LTSA is based on the premise that our industry and especially our APIA members are a responsible and ethical group.  Only each of you as individuals can build on that image and enhance your businesses in the future.  If you become aware of any other supplier involved in any activity that could reflect badly on our industry, please do something about it. If you don’t wish to DOB them in to the appropriate authorities then at least tell one of your executive members.  I won’t hesitate to do something about it because it’s too hard going to Wellington arguing for your future when members of our industry are our worst enemies.

I believe APIA has been successful in consultation with government. We are now a recognised group with a stake in the vehicle repair industry. As a result we are also consulted by the Ministry of Transport, have had an input into biosecurity and environmental rules, liaise with the Collision Repair Association and talk to our other industry partners. 

This is the principal role of APIA.

We represent you in areas where it is unlikely you will have an opportunity to express your own personal interests.

Given this, it is important that you provide feedback to me or the executive who in turn can tell me what you want in the future.  We send out reports and newsletters to members but seldom get a comment or any feedback. It concerns me that we may be doing and saying the wrong things on your behalf. Please call or send me messages ( maurice@tauranga.co.nz ) about any industry issue that interests you so that I can remain up to date with your concerns and aspirations.

Maurice O’Reilly