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:6884] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (NZ National) 
: Two of my colleagues have already signalled that I will seek leave to table some papers so I shall do that at the beginning of my contribution. First I seek leave to table a report from the  
Southland Times 
 of 30 October 2002 headed “Water standards low” part of which refers to a report that the cost of upgrading all the water supplies in this country has been estimated at about $750 million. The second one is an extract of figures from the Rotorua area that refer to— 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Clause 4 “Interpretation” is where a lot of the trouble starts. For the first time water is included as a good. As I said that is where local authorities see enormous difficulties for themselves and that is exactly where the National Opposition sees negative spin-offs to consumers right across the country. Clause 4(1)(b)(vi) states: “to avoid doubt water and computer software”. So they are included and one knows straight away that that provision is to be regarded with some suspicion. Actually no suspicion is required because it signals immediately to water suppliers just exactly what they are in for. 
The Southland District Council’s group asset manager one Dave Adamson said that the proposed legislation makes the current guidelines become standards thereby putting an onus on the council to take all reasonable steps to supply wholesome water and all practicable steps to comply with the guidelines. That implies a duty to undertake risk management plans of course—because that is what it does—and liability for relative penalties should anyone get sick or die as a result of drinking contaminated water. It is clear that countrywide the water standards are low. That is why we proposed to have the commencement date of this legislation put out to 2006—to give councils a reasonable time to get themselves organised for it. But that is not to be because this Government is doing what it is good at under urgency which is bringing in legislation for which nobody is really prepared and for which the overall impacts are not at all clear. 
The Southland District Council had planned to have all 13 of its water schemes upgraded by 2009 at an estimated cost of more than $2 million. Two have been done but the council’s guess is that this legislation will probably require the completion of all 13 schemes by 2006 or 2007. That is a very tight time frame. As I say the council had estimated it could do that work by 2009. So clearly this legislation will result in huge quite substantial additional costs. Who will carry that cost? The consumers will carry it. That is what this issue all boils down to. As I say the local authorities have not even estimated what some of their schemes will cost to upgrade. That is a problem. 
As I said earlier and as the paper that I have tabled shows the situation in Rotorua is not good. It is not a wealthy area by any means. A number of suburbs register very low on the scale of water quality—at grade D. That standard is deemed to be low quality. So somebody has to pay for that. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Grade E is the lowest. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: I am informed by my colleague Sandra Goudie that grade E is the lowest. So grade D is almost up there. Somebody has to pay for this work and we know who that will be: the poor old consumer. The bill does not give protection to consumers at all. It will lead to increased compliance costs for electricity and gas suppliers. Once again the consumer will pay. To include water in this way when we all know that water standards across the nation are relatively low is not fair. It is not right and it does not give councils time to upgrade their schemes.