Mapp Wayne: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
Mapp Wayne: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6904] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (NZ National—North Shore) 
: I want to deal with the issue of computer software. When I look at this legislation it seems to me that the Government is relying entirely on judicial discretion. For instance it has not decided to define it as the Hon Tony Ryall pointed out as a licence for computer software. It has described the software itself as the good. It has ignored the submission of the Law Society that states that: “By defining software as goods”—and I am quoting directly from the submission on page 4—“there is a potential for confusion to arise regarding the property rights of the purchaser.” There was a possible solution that I thought the select committee would have taken the opportunity to apply—or at least the advisers to the Government or perhaps an alert Minister such as the one perhaps not in the chair—by referring to licences for computer software. We are now left with this only resolution to the problem. We are relying entirely on the courts to get it right and that they will interpret the words as in fact meaning a licence for software rather than the literal wording here. In the past when the Sale of Goods Act was enacted— 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: In 1908. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: People tended to allow the courts to do that sort of thing. However today legislation is supposed to be specific. That is why thousands of law draftsmen are employed to achieve precisely that. Have they got that right? No they have not. Why are hard-working New Zealanders paying taxes to the Crown? Because they want good services under the charge of this Government. Yet poor legislation is presented to the House that has not been properly considered and does not take into account the submissions of the Law Society. Hence we are now thrown upon the mercy of the courts to get it right. 
They are the same courts that said that there was title to the seabed—and look at the chaos and confusion that has caused this nation and this Government. Ask Nanaia Mahuta. She and her colleagues know the chaos and confusion that it has caused and we read about it in the paper on a daily basis. Yet the Government is repeating the same error in the amendment to the Sale of Goods Act. 
One other point is the confusion about water. Part 3 refers to water being included as part of the Fair Trading Act. The select committee said that in the Sale of Goods Act it is understood that water includes potable water. Potable water is drinking water. I presume the term means essentially the same in both pieces of legislation. Is the Government now saying to New Zealanders that they will have rights for drinking water or water that is fit to drink but in respect of any other water—such as agricultural water water flowing through the proposed Project Aqua all of the irrigation projects throughout the South Island that may or may not be potable for humans depending on quality—that there are no rights other than common-law rights of course in relation to that; and that it is only the processed water through the municipal systems that has the statutory protections. 
I would have thought that in amending the Fair Trading Act to include water one would at least have defined it as a particular category of water. The select committee—and the judges will read this—is clearly of the view that water is only potable water so far as the Sale of Goods Act is concerned. That is yet another source of confusion. We on this side of the House have been saying that New Zealanders have been paying far too much in taxes for poor-quality government.