WOF reforms ‘cost to safety’
The Motor Trade Association (MTA) has criticised the coalition’s overhaul of the warrant of fitness (WOF) regime for failing to add up.
James McDowall, head of advocacy, says the changes have been pitched by the government as a cost-saving measure for motorists under pressure from fuel and cost-of-living prices.
“The saving of one less WOF a year is around $70 and, while that may be well-intentioned, motorists will probably end up paying more in other costs such as larger maintenance and repair bills due to the delay in inspections,” adds McDowall, pictured.
“Not to mention insurance, ACC levies, and the cost to the taxpayer of increased enforcement and education.”
The MTA is concerned there’s a “cost to safety” too. New Zealand’s road toll is poor by developed-nation standards and the country has the second oldest fleet in the OECD.
“When we canvassed our members, who conduct 80 per cent of WOF inspections, for their views on the government’s proposals last year there was widespread consensus they would mean more unsafe vehicles on the roads,” says McDowall.
“The failure rate is currently 41 per cent with the existing rules. At any given time, there are more than a half a million vehicles on the road without a valid WOF. The new structure is hardly going to improve those figures.
“In the original proposal, vehicles up to 10 years old would have been able to get a warrant every two years. That’s now been increased to 14 years with effect from next year.
“You don’t have to be a mechanic to realise many cars deteriorate as they age. One-in-three vehicles between eight and 10 years old already presents with safety-related issues every year.
“Vehicles only needing a warrant every two years up to the age of 14 is going to mean more on the roads with dangerous faults such as worn tyres and brakes. The reality is many motorists simply don’t keep a close eye on their vehicle’s condition and rely on the WOF to find safety issues.”
For that reason, the MTA recommended the first warrant to last three years – not four – and for the twice-yearly check to end at seven years.
The association highlighted industry concerns on the proposed changes last year and placed a full-page letter in newspapers around the country. Click here to read that submission.
