Ryall Tony: Third Readings 
Ryall Tony: Third Readings 
[Volume:609;Page:6921] 
Hon TONY RYALL (NZ National—Bay of Plenty) 
: It would be fair to say from reading the commentary on the legislation that it is apparent it simply was not given the level of consideration by the select committee that it should have been given. There are quite considerable issues in this legislation that make a mockery of it and I will be touching on those during this report back to the House. 
It is disappointing that even though we had about 2½ hours’ debate on this legislation last night the Minister in the chair Judith Tizard took only one call to respond to any of the Opposition parties’ concerns. Frankly I do not think that is the way a Minister who is supposed to be on top of her portfolio and able to address the issues and concerns raised in Parliament should behave. 
This legislation seeks to include electricity gas and water in various consumer legislation: the Commerce Amendment Bill the Consumer Guarantees Amendment Bill the Sale of Goods Amendment Bill and the Fair Trading Amendment Bill. The National Party will be opposing the progression of this legislation because it will cost consumers dearly. It will require providers to invest significant new amounts of money into upgrading the provision and quality of the services that they provide for customers even though many of the customers may not want to pay extra money to get a level of quality they do not desire. 
For example let us look at electricity. As the select committee was advised but seemed to do absolutely nothing about retail companies now have an extended liability under the Consumer Guarantees Amendment Bill. Previously their liability was limited to ensuring there was no negligence or limits to availability. Now electricity needs to be of an acceptable quality. So what does that actually mean? Electricity cannot be delivered perfectly. We cannot have a perfect level of electricity with continuous supply and no interruptions and with consistent voltage frequency and waveform. It is simply not possible to offer that level of assurance in electricity. If it were possible to do that it would be extremely expensive. 
The consequence of this legislation will be to push up the price of electricity on top of the power tax that this Government is implementing which is one of the new 15 taxes and levies that it has introduced in the last 4 years. The Government said it would have only one increase but in fact it has had 15 increases in levies and taxes completely contrary to what it promised—and the electricity tax is another. Electricity manufacturers who previously had a duty of care will now also have to guarantee electricity of an acceptable quality. That will require a significant investment by them and again will cost taxpayers dearly. 
Then we come to the extraordinary circumstance of the Government’s decision to include water as a good under the Consumer Guarantees Amendment Bill. The Ministry of Consumer Affairs advised the select committee about the guarantees consumers will now have in the supply of water. I would like to recite those guarantees to the House and members can decide whether the Government has been foolish—as the Opposition says—in providing some of them. There is going to be a guarantee of acceptable quality reasonable care and skill employed; a guarantee that water complies with its description; a guarantee that goods such as water comply with the sample; and a guarantee as to price. But here is one of the ridiculous things: there is going to be a guarantee as to title. There will have to be a certificate of title for water and electricity. But here is the weirdest thing. Why would a member move an amendment to the Consumer Guarantees Amendment Bill to say that when it comes to water and electricity there is now a guarantee of repairs and spare parts? The Government is guaranteeing that people who purchase water will now have a guarantee of repairs and spare parts. 
John Key 
: It’s ridiculous 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: It is ridiculous but that is what this legislation does. The suppliers of water must now be cognisant of the fact that they must give a guarantee to repairs and spare parts. That is absolutely ridiculous. 
What is the consequence of making that decision whereby local authorities and other water suppliers will now have to have water that is of an acceptable quality? We got out the Ministry of Health documents which state that it has gone through and tested the water supplies in a myriad of regions throughout New Zealand. It is clear that it is going to be expensive. My colleague Georgina te Heuheu tabled a report that shows that to get water supplies in New Zealand to an acceptable quality which will be required once the Governor-General signs this legislation will cost up to $750 million. 
We tabled the report. The Minister stood in the House and said: “I’ve looked at the report and I can’t see the figure.” That is because she had not turned over the page. The figure was on the second page but she said: “I can’t see the figure.” 
Stephen Franks 
: Too long; no pictures. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: That is right; no cartoons. We say it will cost up to $750 million. Why were local authorities not allowed to have time to get their water supplies to an acceptable standard? Local Government New Zealand reported to the select committee that local government will have to spend $400 million over the next 5 years to get the quality of water up to acceptable standards. We also know that the Dunedin City Council is budgeting $30 million over the next 2 years to get its water standards up to an acceptable level. This is important because the legislation states that water must be of an acceptable quality. The fact is that much of the water supplied to New Zealanders is not of an acceptable quality. If councils are to provide a guarantee under the consumer guarantees legislation then it will be very very difficult indeed. We have moved a number of amendments that would have provided for a much more realistic way of dealing with that. 
It is very easy for the Government to say that this is nonsense but we also have reports given to the select committee by the Government’s advisers that people will be able to take action against councils on the quality of water. Government departments say that if they are faced with this liability which they do not want to incur they can stop supplying water to their customers. The councils can turn off the taps. That is ridiculous. 
We also raised an issue that this Minister glossed over and I can understand why—the issue of computer software. This legislation provides for the apparent avoidance of doubt. Computer software will now be defined as a good under the Sale of Goods Act of 1908. That Act requires some actual validity to the title that is being passed on in order to complete a sale. What the Opposition said—with the support of the New Zealand Law Society—is that no one has title to various pieces of computer software. What people actually buy is a licence to buy the software. The Government is proposing that titles can actually be bought from Bill Gates. Bill Gates is not going to transfer the title of Windows but he will give people a licence to use that program. So we cannot have legislation that says people are buying computer software when in fact they are not. They will be buying a licence to use the computer software. Whereas other legislation refers to the licence to use computer software the Government is proposing in its amendments to the Sale of Goods Act that people can purchase computer software when in most cases they cannot. 
The National Party has moved amendments and says that this legislation will be back before the House within the next 2 years because the silly decision on computer software will cost consumers dearly. The ridiculous decision to include electricity gas and water in the legislation will also have to be revisited by the House simply because of the expense to consumers.