Editorial: Mitsubishi doing the right thing

It is small wonder that Mitsubishi Motors NZ has come to the party and will pay for both parts and labour to fix about 1200 vehicles affected by its parent company's safety recalls.

The weight of public opinion and the displeasure of the Government were more than enough to convince the company that it made sound commercial sense to foot the bill for these defective used imports. Had it not done so its future sales of new vehicles might have been adversely affected.

It comes down to a company's willingness to stand behind its products. While there may have been no strict legal liability on Mitsubishi Motors because the vehicles were imported second-hand, it has a responsibility to manufacture safe vehicles and that onus should not disappear simply because of a change of owner.

In New Zealand law the burden, under the Consumer Guarantees Act, falls on the dealer which sold the second-hand vehicle. While used vehicle dealers do not usually elicit large amounts of public sympathy on consumer issues, in instances such as this they are victims, too.

Unless they knowingly sold buses, trucks or cars after a recall notice had been published, they could be no more aware of the design or manufacturing defects than could the unsuspecting buyers.

There is no suggestion that any of the dealers were aware of such defects when the vehicles arrived here and no importer would be foolish enough to bring knowingly defective vehicles to New Zealand. The message is clear: responsibility for repairing these faults sheets home to the source. And that source is in Japan.

The New Zealand arm of Mitsubishi Motors might have felt caught in the middle. Reading between the lines, the New Zealand office had to lean on Tokyo to have New Zealand vehicles even included in the initial truck and bus recall.

It then seems to have persuaded the Japanese company to pay for the cost of replacement parts but it appears that only widespread displeasure at the refusal to cover labour costs led to a change of heart. None of which looks good for the Mitsubishi brand.

Managing director John Leighton has clearly seen the problem and has moved to reassure owners of new and used Mitsubishi vehicles that his company would stand behind them "one hundred per cent" by paying both parts and labour costs.

Another company spokesman said Mitsubishi wasn't going to have its brand "torn apart". That is precisely what it risked by its initial approach and the apparent indifference of its Japanese parent.

Mr Leighton was careful, however, to deny any legal obligation to cover all of the cost of making good the recalled vehicles. That suggests a problem that has yet to be solved.

Associate Transport Minister Harry Duynhoven has stated that the Government is looking at ways to ensure manufacturers have legal responsibility for defects in the future. Legislative remedy cannot come too soon.

It is unacceptable that owners of second-hand Mitsubishis here have to rely on a vehicle manufacturer's sense of moral responsibility to avoid major expense simply to render their cars, buses or trucks safe to drive.

Safety is, of course, the central issue here. The Mitsubishi Fuso trucks and buses were recalled to check that they did not have a wheel hub design flaw that led to a fatal accident in Japan.

High-performance Galant and Legnum VR4 vehicles were ordered off our roads after a brake failure and it then transpired that a recall had been ordered in Japan. Both episodes suggest the need for a regulated environment to ensure that recalls in countries of origin are communicated immediately to this country. That should entail strict liability on the manufacturer.

Equally binding should be a legal requirement that manufacturers' responsibility for parts and labour to correct design and construction faults attaches to used imports.

Not only their owners but everyone on our roads - and footpaths - has a right to expect to be safe. Yesterday's Ford recall is a timely reminder that manufacturing faults will not simply disappear.