Brownlee Gerry: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
Brownlee Gerry: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6903] 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: The previous two speakers have raised the very interesting issue of where the licence fits in. The Minister in the chair Judith Tizard can sit there and huff and puff and yawn and carry on and act as if she is completely uninterested and as if she has no care towards consumers in New Zealand but I have two questions to ask her. Is this just another attack by the Labour Government on property rights in New Zealand? 
Government Members 
: Oh! 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Well that is the way it looks. Or can the Minister stand up and tell us how a licence holder is protected by this bill? Much of the question that has been raised by the Hon Tony Ryall—the country’s last decent Minister of Justice—and Mr Catchpole the New Zealand First member who spoke just a few moments ago would be solved if she simply explained where a licence fits in. I think this bill got drafted in this dreadful way because the officials who are required to draft such bills have been instructed to surreptitiously attack the property rights of New Zealanders wherever the opportunity presents itself. Day after day we come into this Chamber and see the Labour Government having a go at property rights in whatever way it possibly can. 
For example how would a New Zealand firm fare that developed a piece of software and went out to sell it—a firm that does not have the same clout as Microsoft or any of the great producers of software in the world such as Oracle or some other producer; just a small software writer selling a licence to use its programme? There appears to be no protection in this bill for either the person owning it or the person who purchases the licence. I hope I see shortly the officials sneaking up to the Minister with a bit of paper to explain that I am wrong. 
Paragraph (c) in clause 13 “Interpretation” states: “to avoid doubt computer software”. It would be a good idea if the Government itself moved an amendment to add the words “and licence to use computer software”. What does the Minister think of that proposal? She simply laughs turns her head away and I think confirms that the Government has no intention of protecting the rights of the owners of computer software or any product that is sold under licence. 
The other interesting thing about this part is that the entire bill now becomes part of the principal Act the 1908 Sale of Goods Act. I have to ask a perhaps indelicate question in this Chamber: Where does that leave the now legitimised sex industry? Where are the bounds between a good and a service? 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: You’re totally obsessed. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The Minister makes a rather silly comment. Last week the same Minister voted with Helen Clark for that new legislation on the basis that it was something that New Zealanders needed. We know now from the polls that they were wrong and we were right. They will not make any progress as a result of it. However if that is going to be a legitimate activity—and apparently it is since last Monday—where does it fit into the provisions of this bill? 
I understand that a matter in here deals with client satisfaction. I do not want to go any further in discussing what that may mean for the bill. However it does show once again that the Labour Party when it comes to legislation that deals with anything relating to commerce the interests of the consumer or to small business has no idea whatsoever no care and no concern. It simply wants to put in place a number of regulations that make it feel happy about things and make it hard for small business in this country.