Franks Stephen: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
Franks Stephen: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6882] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: I rise for the ACT party to address Part 1 which in clause 4 amends the Commerce Act by including in the definition of goods “gas and electricity” and “to avoid doubt the supply of electricity gas telecommunications or water” in the definition of services in that Act. I would be very interested to know the effect of putting those terms into that Act. That seems to me to be a fair question to ask of the Minister in the chair the Hon Judith Tizard. The Minister has a whole raft of officials who have been patiently waiting with very little prospect of being required to give advice throughout this debate. Given that Labour is classically and typically uninterested in the welfare of workers it does not mind wasting the officials’ time. It knows that they do not have to be paid. They are on a salary and probably do not get either overtime or holidays in lieu so the Government is therefore quite happy to have them sitting here doing nothing while the Minister does not ever bother to answer questions or to participate in this debate. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: I have. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Not in this debate. 
In this debate a series of questions has been asked about just how it can be described as protection to add into the various Acts provisions that will require one-size-fits-all liability for standardised services where there are standard form contracts already in use and where usually if there is a failure the loss will simply be spread back across the community. How can that advantage the community? 
Mr Catchpole mentioned for example the power outages in Auckland. If the bill had been in force and it had been held that there was a breach of one of the warranties or that in some way liability should flow from the failures he mentioned in Auckland what would have happened? That is very instructive. The Minister should consider that and explain to us just how the position would have differed if this part of the bill had been in force during the failure of supply in the electricity industry in Auckland 5 years ago. That would probably help everyone in this Chamber to understand better why we are ramming this bill through under urgency. After all it was introduced in 2001 referred to the Commerce Committee in October 2001 sat with nothing being done about it right through the election in June-July 2002 and has finally come back to this Parliament to be shoved through under urgency by a Minister who does not think that it needs to be explained to anyone—not to this House and not to New Zealanders. 
All that the Government thinks it needs to do is to put a slogan in the title of the bill and then to go ahead with steps that were taken or were avoided for very good reason when the Commerce Act the Fair Trading Act and the Consumer Guarantees Act were drafted. The amendment of those three Acts by the insertion of these services most of which are still publicly owned does nothing except to give an opportunity to shift loss usually from those who can best afford to bear it to those who cannot. If the insertion of these clauses into the Commerce Act is intended to mean there will be new remedies that are not presently available for anti-competitive conduct surely someone at some stage could have explained that. Nothing in the select committee’s commentary on the bill even attempts to explain why these provisions are to amend the Commerce Act. The Minister has had officials sitting there all evening who could easily have been called upon to advise—it may be that only a few words from the Minister could explain to the Committee what this bill is about. But certainly from my knowledge of the Commerce Act—which at this distance is not as fresh as it once was but I suspect I certainly have more familiarity with that Act than most members do—I cannot fathom any advantage that Part 2 gives to anyone. I certainly cannot work out from the commentary of the select committee what advantage it gives to anyone. 
Brent Catchpole 
: Part 1. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: I thank the member. I could probably say the same thing when we get to Part 2; it will be just as true. 
But certainly it does absolutely baffle me as to just what Part 1 will achieve other than adding to the advantage of a political slogan that makes it possible for the Government to say it has amended X number of Acts and has added consumer protection Y number of times. The Minister in the chair may well have an easy answer. It may be that I have overlooked something that I should have known. But certainly after coming to this bill without having sat on the committee it is completely baffling as to what will be achieved by sticking these provisions into the Commerce Act. 
I also say that the drafting is a little bit of a puzzle.