te Heuheu Georgina: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
te Heuheu Georgina: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6878] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (NZ National) 
: I am very pleased to take a call on this bill. Although I was not here to take a call on the title I will say that there could not be a title that was more in opposition to what this bill proposes to do. However we are now debating the commencement date and as my colleague said previously National does not support the commencement date and there are a number of reasons for that. 
We supported the bill in its first and second reading and we did so because we thought that the underlying intention of the bill was right. But now we have it here for its Committee stage and presently for its third reading and we have come to the conclusion that if the bill were to pass there would be too many unfavourable repercussions. The bill has a reasonable intention but National thinks that the unintended consequences will be substantial and we do not support the commencement date for that reason. 
I make reference to the amendment that has been proposed by my colleague John Carter. There are three parts to it. The first puts the commencement date out to 1 January 2006 and the reason is that first of all—[ 
Interruption 
] Well of course we will be the Government by then and we will repeal it. Underlying this debate is the concern that this bill does not protect the consumer at all. Indeed it will lead to increased compliance costs for the electricity and gas suppliers. Let us be honest—they are not going to absorb those costs. They will pass them on to the consumer and that is why I said at the beginning of my speech that the title of this bill is so wrongly stated. There is no protection at all for the consumer. 
My colleague John Carter has proposed that we change the commencement date to 1 January 2006. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: That makes sense. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: Of course it does. My colleague John Carter would not have proposed it if it did not make sense. It makes absolute sense. We have a situation where Dunedin is budgeting $30 million to upgrade its water to meet the quality required by this bill and that is a huge amount of money. 
David Benson-Pope 
: It has been doing it for years. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: It is a huge amount of money—and why should Dunedin be forced to do that when we could come up with a better result if we thought about what we are doing here a lot more carefully? 
David Benson-Pope 
: Dunedin wouldn’t have to do that if it hadn’t been made to sell its dam by the National Government. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: Mr Chairman is that member going to take a call or is he just trying to close this debate down? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: He may do. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: He may do but my experience is that he never does so I would appreciate it if he would let me have the rest of my say in peace. In any event as I say that is what Dunedin is budgeting for. Goodness knows what all the other local authorities will have to budget for this but suffice it to say that if Dunedin is budgeting $30 million then the major metropolitan areas will have to budget that same amount if not more and I do not think that is at all fair when ultimately the cost of that will be passed on to the consumer. There was an issue about the Rotorua eastern suburbs— 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: It gets an “E” for water quality. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: It gets an “E” for water quality. How much will that cost Rotorua? Perhaps the member for Rotorua will be able to take a call and enlighten us on that because that is a real concern. Smaller places like Rotorua cannot afford those sorts of costs. Rotorua might look like a wealthy place but it is not. There is a lot of unemployment there and this Government has not done anything much about that since it has come in. I come back to my original point which is that National thinks that the commencement date should be delayed. If the Parliament is not in agreement with a delay to 1 January 2006 then it should be delayed until 1 July 2004.