Cunliffe David: Consumer Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cunliffe David: Consumer Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 11 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7422. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I reciprocate the good wishes of the member opposite Tim Macindoe and wish him and his colleagues a merry Christmas too because we are in fact here in the dead of morning. It is the dead of morning which may not be as dead as tomorrow morning because of course we have got the press gallery party tonight but we are in the dead of morning. That is spelt m-o-r-n-i-n-g but of course in the National Party they put a “u” in the word because I have been looking at the latest opinion polls that show the National Party heading downhill with an inexorable slide to the Opposition benches. 
But you know we are a fair-minded Labour Party. We are here to help the Government tidy up what it has obviously put in the bottom drawer to just scrape through at the end of the year. This Consumer Law Reform Bill is important to consumers. This is one of those bills that stand up for the little guy for the ordinary Kiwis who are often vulnerable in the face of unfair trade practices commercial bullying monopolies etc. You would think it would be a priority for these guys. 
Let us ask ourselves when the bill was introduced—20 April 2011. It was one of those feel-good things National members talked about before the last election to tell New Zealanders that they were on their side and then suddenly it was just not a priority any more. How long did it take for the bill to get its first reading? It was not until 9 February 2012 that it went to the Commerce Committee and it has languished all the way through the process until the very last day of the parliamentary school term. The Opposition is playing pooper scooper here helping it get all the loose ends the rats and mice tidied up and we were not going to let this one by. 
We were not going to let this one by because this one is really important to ordinary New Zealanders. Why is that? Well you know the goals of the bill could not be better really could they? They want consumer protection law and consumer practices which are No. 1 fair. Who can argue with fairness? In fact I think it is part of Labour’s constitution. No. 2 is that it brings in effective competition—effective competition. “Effective” means that it may not be perfect but it will get the job done. And that does not mean monopolies rule the roost as they have so often under the National Party. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: And they’ve changed the wording. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: And we have changed the wording. We have improved it to ensure—and this was the work of the Commerce Committee; we are quite proud of this—it is the interests of consumers that are protected. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: They forgot that in the original bill. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: You would think that that would be implicit in the title of the bill but in the Government and the Minister’s first draft they forget to put “consumers” in the purpose clause. Well it could have been that they were there to protect the monopolies. But we were not going to have it. We ensured that the Consumer Law Reform Bill was here to protect consumers—what a good idea— 
Moana Mackey 
: That’s novel. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: —exactly right—and to ensure that businesses compete effectively. Well in the history of National Governments that has not always been the case has it? We remember the way that for 10 years at least Maurice Williamson was—remember—the “Minister for Telecom”. What Telecom wanted Maurice Williamson would agree to. There was no effective competition there until the last Labour Government came in and sorted it out. 
The electricity industry under Max Bradford was a kind of pseudo competition. New Zealand had an electricity system that worked he split it up into a group of local monopolies that added cost and complexity and the consumers’ costs went up and up and up. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: That’s because they privatised a lot of them. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: That was a typical National Party combination of deregulation and privatisation. New Zealand consumers know it has been toxic. It has hit them right in the wallet and this bill is a small way of making it up to Kiwi mums and dads and saying: “Actually have a merry Christmas because we caught this egg before it hit the floor. We’re here to support it through the House on the last day of school.” 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: It’s not even going through the House on the last day. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Well this is at least getting a second reading. We are trying to help here—my colleague is quite right. It is not going all the way through; this is the second reading. God knows at the current rate of knots when the third reading is going to be. On this Government’s timetable it might just go into the next election promising to pass this bill. Well that would be a help. 
So what does the bill deal with? Well the first thing is that consumers are very seldom on a level playing field. It is really important that we as politicians just recall to the public that we understand why that is. If you go to the doctor the doctor knows more about your illness than you do. The doctor has got more information. When you go to a specialist provider of goods and services whether it is for a vacuum cleaner or a TV they will know more about what they are selling than you probably do about what you are buying although the internet helps even that up a bit. 
Monopolies oligopolies and cartels are another sort of problem. I want to acknowledge the Government actually for one thing. I am being nice to it this morning. I want to acknowledge it for the efforts to have a look at the shipping industry in the Commerce (Cartels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill that is currently before the Commerce Committee. That may help limit some of those cartels but often it is consumers who are the ones who suffer. 
How do they suffer? Well here is the content of the bill. We deal with things like “unsubstantiated representations”. What a wonderful phrase that is—“unsubstantiated representations”. That means telling porkies. That means when someone is trying to sell something to someone they say things that are just not true like oh I do not know: “We will not raise GST.” That would be an unsubstantiated representation would it not? Especially if you then turned round and said: “Hey I think we’re going to raise it after all.” And then you said: “Well we never promised we wouldn’t.” That would be an unsubstantiated representation. 
What about: “Climate change is a hoax.”—climate change is a hoax—followed by: “Oh we’re going to have a world’s best practice emissions trading scheme.” followed by: “Well we’re going to withdraw from the follow-on negotiations of the Kyoto Protocol.” What a national shame that is and another unsubstantiated representation. 
Unsolicited goods—well we certainly could not top our good colleague Mr Cosgrove’s contribution earlier who talked about the brown bag that turned up on Jonathan Archibald Banks’ desk. You know helicopter rides free iPads the whole palaver but he could not remember a thing about it. It certainly is a mystery to us why those unsolicited goods and services were not recalled. Unsafe products product recalls and safety officers are also all in here. One of the advantages of this worthy little bill is that it draws together regulatory standards from a bunch of different Acts and puts them in one place. 
Thirdly it harmonises our law with that of our Aussie mates. We on this side of the House are not one-eyed about that proposition. We do not believe in a knee-jerk response to harmonise with Australia just because it is Australia. But where Australia has sensible law that provides better protections for consumers as it does in this case and a better labour law would be another example we are happy to see the benefits of harmonisation. 
There are a number of specific and substantial changes that were made by the select committee to this bill on the way through. If I just perhaps mention a few in passing: firstly the introduction of a new prohibition on the use of unfair terms in standard form consumer contracts. That is when you go to a shop and you are given a form or you might get it on the internet when you buy something online a bit like getting a standard rental agreement on premises. The terms that are in there because they are standard form agreements ought to be terms that ordinary New Zealanders can rely on without having to sweat and worry. This bill thanks to the work of the select committee provides that. 
In relation to those unsubstantiated representations there is a new test that it should be representations that a reasonable person would expect to be substantiated. We might call that the “no crap” clause. There is a new provision in the Consumer Guarantees Act that business transactions must be fair and reasonable. We have increased the maximum penalties from $60000 to $200000 for individuals and from $200000 to $600000 for bodies corporate. We have enhanced the enforcement powers of the Commerce Commission and we have removed changes related to the Carriage of Goods Act which were too complicated to bring into force in relation to when a limited carrier’s risks end and the purchaser’s take place. There is a new guarantee as to delivery on the other hand in the Carriage of Goods Act. So that is the kind of perhaps unspectacular perhaps worthy but none the less really important stuff that is in this bill. 
May I in closing offer Christmas good wishes to you Mr Speaker and all your colleagues in the Chair to members opposite and all around the House and to our wonderful staff who keep us safe fed clothed and watered around this building. I wish you all and the public well for a very merry Christmas and a happy and peaceful New Year.