Dalziel Lianne: Consumer Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dalziel Lianne: Consumer Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 09 February 2012. Volume:677;Page:285. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
:  
I am pleased to speak in the first reading of the Consumer Law Reform Bill as the Opposition spokesperson on consumer rights and standards. Because this bill traverses both the consumer rights aspects and some product standards issues I am really pleased to be able to make this contribution. 
I want to reflect a little bit on the journey that this bill has taken to get to here. I have in front of me a copy of a speech that the Hon Heather Roy gave in November 2009. In that speech she talked passionately as she often did when speaking for the Association of Consumers and Taxpayers; I think we forget that the ACT Party is an acronym for the Association of Consumers and Taxpayers. She was delighted to be the Minister of Consumer Affairs and to see that portfolio sit with the ACT Party. So I certainly look forward to Minister John Banks’ contribution to this debate because I am sure he will want to make a substantial contribution recognising that both Heather Roy and John Boscawen after her took on this really important role. 
When Heather Roy spoke she spoke about One Law-One Door—I guess a variation on the “one law for all” that the ACT Party was normally referring to. The One Law-One Door concept was actually one that I think had some resonance in this field because there are a myriad of pieces of legislation. There are I think seven consumer laws and two business laws that this piece of legislation relates to and I think that the concept of bringing them together into one legal framework is a very positive one. So we are very pleased to be seeing the bill in front of the House and obviously we will be supporting it to the select committee. 
The “one door” though does not necessarily find itself addressed in this particular legislation. I think it is interesting that the Minister concluded I think by referring to some of the things that were not in the legislation particularly in relation to some of the Australian issues—unconscionability and making claims that cannot be substantiated which are unfair practices. The Minister I think was indicating that the select committee could actually have a serious look at those issues and that he would be willing to— 
Hon Chris Tremain 
: Unsubstantiated claims are in it. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: They are in it but unconscionability is not and that is certainly something that is reflected in the Australian legislation. I think with the general focus on the single economic market it would be a good thing for the select committee to have some detailed look at that. I know that for myself when I was a Minister of Commerce it was something that I was quite keen to see us pursue in the legislative frameworks that we were considering at the time. 
So I think it is helpful when a Minister does say that there are opportunities within the select committee to hear what submitters have to say and then potentially report back something with some significant changes. I think that is a positive thing so I am very pleased. That certainly was the history of the relationship that we had with the previous Minister of Commerce and the previous Minister of Consumer Affairs as well so I am pleased about that. But I should reflect on the fact that this bill was on the legislative timetable in 2010 and in 2011 so it is a little bit of a shame that we have waited until 2012 before it has actually been introduced. But it is here and I want to speak positively about it because of what it is attempting to do. 
But I want to do something even more important. I know that none of the people on that side of the House are going to be surprised at what I am going to refer to and that is the two regulatory impact statements. I just want to say that these are the best regulatory impact statements I have seen in my time in Parliament. They are the best and I would like every single Minister in this Government to have a good look at these regulatory impact statements and think to themselves about how they might want to ensure that all regulatory impact statements meet this standard. This has set the bar in my view and that is because the regulatory impact statement—the first one that was prepared for the legislative timetable in December 2010—started off with the preliminary work. 
I really do want to congratulate those who have put it together. It is probably not surprising that the Ministry of Consumer Affairs sits with the Ministry of Economic Development and the Ministry of Economic Development would certainly have been looking over its shoulder in terms of the detail of this. I am sure the deputy secretary would want this to be as good as it has been. But to set out what the status quo is the status quo actually identifies what the regulatory frameworks are at the moment. So you have got a very simple snapshot of what all of those pieces of legislation do in a nutshell and I think that is an incredibly useful starting point. 
But then the most important part of the process—because you cannot get to the end point until you do this—is problem definition. And I have to say it warmed my heart to see a document that actually said “problem definition”. The problem definition talked about a number of factors that had been brought to the Government’s attention by way of some analysis around consumers’ knowledge of their own rights and where they could go to have them addressed. So I just cannot really applaud loudly enough the extent of the work that has gone into these statements. 
The next is the regulatory impact analysis and what it has done is look at consumer and business detriment as a result of consumer laws not meeting the objectives that are set out using the OECD  
Consumer Policy Toolkit 
 framework. That analysis looked at unfair contract terms and standard form contracts unconscionability making claims that cannot be substantiated lay-by sales unsolicited direct sales unsolicited goods and services Consumer Guarantees Act statutory guarantees and auction conduct and licensing. Then the document goes through each and every one of them and it does it in a very simple form that people can follow. It says: “What is the problem?”. It talks about the measure of consumer detriment and the magnitude of that problem. It then talks about the nature of the detriment the scale of consumer detriment and the measure of business detriment and then the likely consequences of taking no policy action—namely the cost of the status quo. That identifies the cost to consumers the cost to businesses and the cost to the Government. I mean I honestly have not seen a document more significant than this in considering a regulatory impact analysis. 
The policy options are then set out: no change or to add provisions to the Fair Trading Act—the same as in the Australian consumer law—and then to add provisions to the Fair Trading Act on unfair contract terms or to add provisions to the Fair Trading Act on “unfair contract terms similar to …” etc. The ministry favours a particular option and sets out both the benefits and the costs. It goes through each one of those headings on the same basis. Again I think it is absolutely extraordinary that it has gone into this extent of detail and I am very pleased to see it. 
The second regulatory impact statement relates to the changes the additional options that were identified to address problems that have been identified with consumer laws not adequately meeting the objectives of consumers who are able to transact with confidence and businesses that are able to compete on a level playing field. Again this identified areas where the public did not know what their rights were and in fact businesses found it difficult to work their way through a myriad of issues. One of the classic ones is the extended warranty. I do not know how many members in this House have had the experience of buying an appliance and being offered an extended warranty—which is completely and utterly meaningless if you do not comply with the obligations under the legislation. 
So I think that the Ministry of Consumer Affairs can take great credit for the background work which I think will facilitate the work of the select committee. Labour will be supporting this legislation’s referral to the select committee and we look forward to its progress.