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:6880] 
Hon TONY RYALL (NZ National—Bay of Plenty) 
: The National Party in Opposition is strongly opposed to Part 1. We do not support the incorporation of gas electricity water and software in the Commerce Act nor do we support the inclusion of those items as services for the purposes of the Commerce Act. 
We have very real concerns for example about including electricity in the legislation. As I think the New Zealand Law Society pointed out to the select committee of its nature electricity is not the tangible sort of good that the Commerce Commission should be dealing with. The Minister will require such a high standard of electricity delivery that companies will not be able to meet it. Electricity is a good in a less than perfect way. For example if a lines company fails and one gets an unplanned outage how can that be deemed to be of an acceptable quality? Yet there will be a liability there for the electricity company. There might be a planned interruption to supply for which notice has been given to allow for maintenance work to be carried out. That is not the sort of thing that happens with any other goods. 
If members look at what this bill is proposing they will see that it states that those goods will be fit for the purposes for which they are supplied acceptable in appearance and finish free from minor defects and safe and durable. None of those things can be applied to electricity. Electricity is not “acceptable in appearance and finish”. Can it be free of minor defects safe durable and fit for the purpose for which it is supplied? Maybe but because of its unique features electricity cannot be geared to the specific needs of consumers. Electricity is inherently unsafe and can only be made safe by infrastructure and equipment which are safe services in themselves. It is inappropriate to try to include intangible items like electricity and gas in this legislation. The Government has agreed that telecommunications is an intangible that should not be included under the definition of a good. We say that the same should apply to electricity and gas. 
I stand with the New Zealand Law Society which told the select committee that the provisions in this bill are unlikely to provide any real advantages to consumers. As Mrs te Heuheu said the extra costs that will be put on electricity companies will be passed on to consumers. When there is an outage and people’s computers lose information fridges blow or microwaves fail consumers and shareholders will pay because of this legislation. It means that prices will rise. Not only will the price of electricity rise because of the special tax that the Government is putting on—that is one of the 15 new taxes or levies that the Government has applied since it came to power—but there will also be an indirect form of tax from this bill in the sense that prices will go up. 
The concerns we have made known in respect of electricity can also apply to water. In order to get its water quality up to the level required by this bill the Dunedin City Council is budgeting $30 million in the next 2 years. In Motueka the council is budgeting $6 million—that is $100 a ratepayer—to get its water up to the sort of quality that this bill requires. We know that Banks Peninsula is bracing itself for a $4.5 million drinking water upgrade under the proposed new laws—Banks Peninsula $4.5 million; Motueka $6 million; Dunedin $30 million. That is what this bill is doing—so much so that Mrs te Heuheu will table a document that estimates that it could cost $750 million for local authorities to bring their water supplies up to the level that will be required by these bills—that is the Fair Trading Act the Commerce Act and the Consumer Guarantees Act. This Government does not realise what it is doing with this bill.