Clendon David: Consumer Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Clendon David: Consumer Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 11 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7426. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 I am pleased to make a few brief comments on this bill the Consumer Law Reform Bill. I was on the Commerce Committee in fact when it was first introduced and so it is good to see it make one more step. It was interesting at the time to recognise that a lot of the Acts that this bill amends are actually quite dated—dating back to the 1970s and 1980s—and one Act the Sale of Goods Act actually first saw the light of day in 1908. It has been amended since of course but it is something like a quarter of a century since we had a serious look at consumer law and on this bill I think the select committee has done a good job. 
Clearly a great deal of work has been done and there are some quite major revisions but I do think it is a good piece of legislation which we are pleased to support. It seems to me that one of the guiding themes perhaps of the committee’s work has been in a sense to follow the money. By that I mean that I think it has sort of hunted out situations where a seller a less than scrupulous trader might be looking for opportunities to extract more money from a consumer without offering value in exchange. I think that is a pretty good theme to pursue in this sort of context. 
I am particularly pleased about what have been referred to as “unsubstantiated representations” which is a wonderfully florid phrase basically describing people who are seeking to rip off or mislead. The particular concern obviously or one of them form our point of view is the whole issue around “greenwash”—people making unsubstantiated claims about some environmental or social quality or characteristic of a product or service that simply is not there and simply is not able to be backed up or supported. Not only is it unreasonable and unfair on consumers but also it undermines the very good work done by companies that work very hard to offer genuine brand value. They actually work very hard to invest in the sustainability or the ethical in terms of a product or a service. 
Of course there is an ongoing battle in the banana market in New Zealand which is not a trivial market. Collectively it seems we spend about $150 million a year on our favourite fruit. Of course when you get a company like All Good which invested a considerable amount of money to get third-party fair trade certification for its bananas being undermined by a company Dole coming in and putting on its product a sticker that says “Ethical choice”—a claim that has absolutely no substance and no third-party verification—it is essentially “greenwash”. We ought to be driving that out of the market to the extent that we possibly can and I think this bill makes a useful contribution towards that. 
I recall when this bill first came up that I was quite surprised to learn the extent to which a recipient of unsolicited goods actually has some degree of responsibility for those goods despite not having asked for them. I am pleased that there are some provisions in this bill that just push that responsibility back to whomever might be giving or distributing unsolicited goods. It is reasonable that yes if something comes to you you ought not to seek to destroy it but equally I think that if I do not ask for a product to be sent to me if I have not indicated a wish to receive it I ought not to have too much in the way of responsibility for those goods. That should remain with the individual who saw fit to send them to me. 
This bill certainly brings up to date the relatively new phenomenon of internet trading which is quite commonplace. We all do it. Most people now resort at some point to purchasing on the internet. The provision for people who are in trade is good—professional sellers of goods as opposed to somebody just clearing out the garage and getting rid of something they do not want. It is important that we understand who we are dealing with whether it is another private individual or a company as our expectations are reasonably different in terms of support. So I think that is a good improvement. 
The final comment I would make is to say I really applaud the effort that has been put into the whole issue of extended warranties. Consumers are not just being offered so-called extended warranties; often they are pressured. Often consumers purchasing electronic goods for example are put under considerable pressure to purchase these extended warranties that in fact offer very little protection and often less protection than is already available in the consumer protection law. So it is good to see—I think it is an excellent idea—that a summary must be offered highlighting what if any value is included. So this is good legislation. Compliments to the Minister of Consumer Affairs and the select committee. We are happy to support it. Kia ora.