Key John: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
Key John: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6899] 
JOHN KEY (NZ National—Helensville) 
: I rise on behalf of the National Party to address the bill’s definition of goods and services— 
David Benson-Pope 
: The National Party is in Opposition. 
JOHN KEY 
: The National Party is in Opposition at this point but that is OK. I rise on behalf of the National Party in whatever position one wants to put it to discuss this bill’s definition of goods and services—particularly Part 3 which relates to the Fair Trading Act. Students of the Fair Trading Act will know that it deals with representations made about particular goods and services as defined by the Act. In particular it looks at different definitions but it includes product safety and it deals with false representations made about a particular product. Members will know that if this legislation is passed into law it will add to the definition of goods and services as interpreted by the Fair Trading Act gas electricity water and computer software. 
I want to spend a moment talking about computer software because not many members have discussed that tonight. As we look at computer software in relation to the Fair Trading Act let us think about product safety. What aspects of product safety do members think a consumer would be looking for under the new definition of computer software? For instance if a consumer buys a software package puts that into his or her hard drive runs a system for Internet-based trading and loses money or if that package does not give the consumer the best and most information available would he or she have a claim under the Fair Trading Act? That is the international trend in financial services—people are buying financial services online through computer software packages. They are buying stocks shares bonds unit trusts and funds. They are investing worldwide with computer software packages that will now be covered under the Fair Trading Act and they will be relying on its definition. I simply put it to the Committee that that will create a great deal of ambiguity because they will be looking through to the test of reasonableness. 
Secondly I want to look at what might lead to an action of false representation under the Fair Trading Act in respect of gas and electricity. Let us take water as a good example. As water is supplied out of the consumer’s tap it may fit nicely within a reasonable definition of good usable water. It may be drinkable fine for the swimming pool or watering the garden and it might fit all the general criteria but if a consumer uses that water to irrigate high-quality tomatoes and those tomatoes do not come up to the quality standards would that be a false representation under the definition provided in the Fair Trading Act? 
John Carter 
: It would. 
JOHN KEY 
: It would. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: There would be only one standard. 
JOHN KEY 
: That is exactly the point—there would be only one standard of definition. So what might be deemed to be reasonable for one consumer might not be deemed to be reasonable for another consumer. My personal opinion is that there will be a great deal of litigation over the definitions of gas and electricity. Who will bear that litigation? I can see councils being brought into such litigation. 
John Carter 
: Who pays for that? 
JOHN KEY 
: Consumers pay that through their rates. 
John Carter 
: So they will pay themselves? 
JOHN KEY 
: They will be charging themselves. Thirdly I want to look at safety as it relates to electricity. What happens in the example where the 3-year-old goes and puts his or her fingers in a socket and gets an electric shock? 
John Carter 
: The 3-year-old won’t care much about it. 
JOHN KEY 
: The 3-year-old might not care about it but the parents will. What is the issue as it relates to product safety for electricity under the Fair Trading Act? 
John Carter 
: The 3-year-old will have a stiff finger. 
JOHN KEY 
: The 3-year-old will have a very sore finger. The obligation of safety is clearly covered under the Fair Trading Act.