Brownlee Gerry: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6864] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: This title is completely inadequate for this bill. 
Government Members 
: Ha ha! 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Labour members immediately start thinking: “My gosh the member is on to something!”. We see them—the few there are here—suddenly sticking their heads up and thinking: “Heck maybe our Minister has made a mistake.” I have to say the Minister of Consumer of Affairs has made a terrible mistake in suggesting that this is a consumer protection bill. It is not about consumer protection. This bill seriously disadvantages consumers in New Zealand by containing a number of provisions that define certain goods and services as being covered by the relevant principal Act. It should be called the “Consumer Opportunity Denied Bill”. That would be a far better way to describe what is inside it. Over the next few hours as we discuss the various parts and clauses it will become evident to anyone who wants to listen that this bill is not good for New Zealanders. 
 The first point I want to make is about computer software being included as a good. I think that is the right way to go. When consumers buy software of course they should be able to expect that it will work. Of course they should be able to expect that that software will do the job that it is claimed to do. But in the same bill we see that telecommunications of any form are removed. I do not know how much members on the other side of the Chamber know about modern technology but let me make it very clear to them that unless there is good telecommunications access a large amount of the software that those consumers buy will be absolutely useless because it will not work without the telecommunication connection. So the poor old software manufacturers are being beaten about the head and told they have to meet the onerous requirements being put upon them by this bill but the people who actually deliver their service are not included. 
Similarly I note that water is now included in the bill as a good. 
John Carter 
: Water? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Water. A lot of people will say that that is a good idea and that of course water that is delivered to people’s homes and residential areas should be of a particular standard. But I come from Christchurch and we have some of the best water in the world. Guess what? Our water will not comply with the requirements of this bill. 
John Carter 
: Why not? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Because we do not have all sorts of purification chemicals tipped into it. We do not turn on taps in Christchurch and smell chorine. This bill will require that the Christchurch City Council tip buckets of chlorine into our drinking water in order that it comply with the water standards—that it get to the so-called A level—and therefore comply with the bill. I want to know whether Tim Barnett is going to vote for the Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill which in this particular instance is a clear attack upon the water that we in Christchurch drink daily weekly or as often as we can whenever we are there. He and I know— 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: It’s not often for that member. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Clayton Cosgrove also knows—no he probably does not—that when we go to other parts of the country and taste the water which probably has an A standard we find that it is full of chemicals full of all sorts of junk that has been tipped into it. Because in Christchurch we have nothing other than pure water that comes straight out of our beautifully clean aquifers— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: This is a narrow debate. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: —our water will not comply with the Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill. So I cannot vote for it. This bill also includes a whole lot of electricity services.