Ryall Tony: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
Ryall Tony: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6896] 
Hon TONY RYALL (NZ National—Bay of Plenty) 
: The National Party in Opposition will be strongly opposing Part 3. It deals with the Fair Trading Act an amendment to which we debated in Committee prior to going into Committee on this bill. Part 3 of the Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill proposes to include gas electricity water and computer software as goods for the purposes of the Fair Trading Act. 
Just as my colleague the Hon Dr Smith was able to ridicule the inclusion of gas water and electricity in the Consumer Guarantees Act through reference to the fact that there would be guarantees of “spare parts” for water and “title” for water and electricity similarly we should raise concerns about what is being proposed in this bill. This bill proposes that the provisions of the Fair Trading Act which refer to the safety of goods simply cannot be sustained in respect of electricity and gas. Electricity and gas are inherently unsafe substances or matters and it is only through an appropriate use of the equipment delivering electricity or gas that these goods can be rendered safe. So for the Fair Trading Act to have to cover gas and electricity and the requirement therein relating to level of safety is quite ridiculous. I agree with the concerns raised with the select committee by the New Zealand Law Society with regard to this. The society raised concerns only in respect of electricity but I think it is just as relevant to gas. 
What is foolish about this bill also is the requirement relating to the quality of supply etc. We simply cannot provide the perfect electricity or the perfect gas on a continuous basis. With continuous supply as one would understand there are no interruptions and no difficulties with the voltage. But the fact is that these will be issues with electricity from time to time and to have any guarantees or warranties provided is foolish. 
 The National Party in Opposition also says to the Government that the Government does not know the cost of what it is proposing to do because this bill was presented to Parliament without a regulatory impact statement or a compliance cost statement both of which are required under Cabinet guidelines and neither of which was provided to the Commerce Committee. We raised the matter of costs on business and consumers as legitimate issues because we have been able to reveal to the Committee tonight that Local Government New Zealand says that councils are planning to spend $400 million over the next 5 years to get water quality up to a standard that is acceptable to be covered by the Consumer Guarantees Act. Earlier today we tabled a report that shows that it would cost $750 million for all councils to upgrade their water supplies. The point is that the Government did not even know. The Minister told us to prove the figures and we tabled them. The Minister did not even know. 
The previous bill the Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) sat around in the select committee for years and took less than an hour of consideration. This bill which did not take much longer for consideration sat on the agenda for months and months and months. It is now being passed under urgency and the Minister in the chair Judith Tizard cannot even tell us the cost to consumers of those decisions. I alert the Labour members opposite. They should understand that the Hastings City Council is putting $16 million aside to upgrade its water. Palmerston North is putting aside a similar amount and consumers will pay for all of that.