Dalziel Lianne: Consumer Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dalziel Lianne: Consumer Law Reform Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 11 December 2012. Volume:686;Page:7412. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 As the Minister of Consumer Affairs has said Labour supports this bill the Consumer Law Reform Bill and has supported it since its introduction on 20 April 2011. I do want to comment just briefly on the length of time it has taken to get this law to this point in the House just concluding its second reading on the last sitting day of this year 2012. It was referred to the Commerce Committee on 9 February this year which does show that it sat on the Order Paper prior to the general election and was not dealt with until then. The closing date for submissions was 29 March 2012 and as the Minister has said they have received 90 submissions hearing 60 of them. 
Unfortunately I am not on the Commerce Committee so I am not able to traverse all of the detail of the legislation in terms of the response of the select committee but I do have one of the departmental reports which I do want to refer to in relation to the last matter that the Minister concluded on which is the question of unconscionability. I have been on the record as the spokesperson in support of unconscionability going into our law. I understand why the Government has adopted this particular point of view but I think that it is probably a little bit unfair just simply to mention that some submitters commented on it. I want to put on the record who supported the introduction of unconscionability provisions and who was opposed. 
Let us start with the list of those who were opposed to the unconscionability provisions and I am reading from the departmental report: “Various submitters opposed including the concept of unconscionability in the FTA”—not the free-trade agreement but the Fair Trading Act—“including Fonterra Business New Zealand Telecom New Zealand Retailers Association and the New Zealand Chamber of Commerce.” So those were the ones who were opposed to writing unconscionability into our Fair Trading Act as the Australians have done. “Submitters in favour of introducing unconscionability provisions include the Salvation Army Consumer New Zealand the Citizens Advice Bureau the Whitireia Community Law Centre the Commerce Commission and the Motor Trade Association.” What is the difference between those who support the introduction of the unconscionability provisions and those who oppose them? I would suspect that the ones who are in support of the unconscionability provisions being written into the Act are actually those who are dealing with people day in day out who are the subject of unconscionable behaviour. 
I want to talk about unconscionable behaviour because unconscionable behaviour is occurring daily in Christchurch. Every single day my colleagues and I are approached by people who are dealing with insurance companies that are trying to evade the obligations that they signed up to when they were perfectly happy to take the premia off our constituents—off the people of Christchurch—year in year out. What is happening now? We have elderly people being told by their insurance companies that they have no option other than to accept an unconscionable offer because they do not think that they are going to be around long enough to see their property rebuilt. So if the Government really wanted to address one of the major problems that is being confronted in Christchurch at the moment it would be looking seriously at this unconscionability provision and it would be looking at who supports it and who does not. On a daily basis as I say there are all sorts of concerns being raised. 
Let me just read into the record the purpose clause from the new fair trading legislation as it was introduced and then how the Commerce Committee has addressed it. It was: “The purpose of this Act is to contribute to a trading environment in which—(a) trading is fair; and (b) there is effective competition; and (c) consumers and businesses participate confidently.” This was changed in the select committee to read: “The purpose of this Act is to contribute to a trading environment in which—(a) the interests of consumers are protected; and (b) businesses compete effectively; and (c) consumers and businesses participate confidently.” I think that the select committee has actually got that right. I think it shifted the balance when it reasserted the purpose clause in the way that it has because I think there is an assumption—there certainly is in the case of Christchurch—that people feel that the market place is actually what they have been abandoned to on their own. 
There are instances where the Government actually does have to put its hands on and there are instances where the market does not actually supply the answer particularly when there is an inequality of knowledge so that there is a discrepancy between what the company knows and what the consumer knows and also when people do not think that they have got any real choices in the matter. That is where this question of the interests of consumers being protected comes in because it is not equal in the market place in all instances. If somebody walks into a shop and they see an item that they want to buy if the price is right then they will buy it. Their interests are protected in the market in that regard. But their interests may not be protected if the owner of the particular product or the service that they are buying knows more than that person about what they are buying and the owner knows that there is not fair value or that they are buying something that is not safe or up to a particular standard. 
That is an issue that is dealt with a little bit in this legislation but there is actually a little bit more work that needs to be done. What we have not managed to get to in this country—and I notice that the standards legislation has fallen off the Order Paper—and what we need to get to in this country is an ability to have the public-good standards written on behalf of the public good with public-good funding that is not dependent on the private sector or an individual Government department referring a matter to Standards New Zealand in order for a standard to be written. We actually do have to do better than that because there are instances where people could not possibly have the same amount of information as the owner of the product or the supplier of the service—could not possibly be in the same position as them—and we do need a law that protects them better than even this law will do. We agree with the original concept—and I think the Minister left it out of his list—of the Hon Heather Roy because in fact she was the one who was the enthusiastic individual who promoted the One Law—One Door mantra and we have not got there yet. That is something that we do need to think about—whether we can in fact get to that point. 
But I want to place on record that the Prime Minister of New Zealand told Christchurch that he would be there for them that he would walk alongside them. There are instances— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Nobody would be worse off. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Nobody would be worse off—that has long gone that one. I think the word that I hear more often in Christchurch in relation to that matter Mr Cosgrove is the word “disappointed”. Every single day I hear people saying that they are disappointed. There are others who are angry and feel betrayed. But in terms of the consumer rights the protection that he promised would be there has not been there. People have been abandoned to deal with their insurance companies alone and nobody is standing alongside them. We have people coming to us on a daily basis who are not coping and I am deeply concerned at the psychological damage that is being done. There are people in our areas who are suicidal because of the pressure that they are being placed under by the rapacious insurance companies. 
If we are seriously going to address consumer law reform then this bill does not quite go far enough. We will be supporting this bill. Of course it is an improvement on what the current law is but it does not by any means let anyone off the hook for the real reform that is yet to come.