Coddington Deborah: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — Second Reading 
Coddington Deborah: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:607;Page:4712] 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ) 
: 
 The ACT party will be opposing this bill which changes the definition of goods and services. This bill is the child of the Labour-Alliance coalition Government and that should have been known as “Labour-Alliance Takeover”. I notice that this bill was introduced to the Houseby Laila Harré on behalf of Jim Anderton—and what an unhappy alliance that was. This legislation will bring only unhappiness to consumers in this country—because consumers will all end up paying higher prices under this legislation whether or not they can afford it. The high prices are what they will pay for what this Government sees as a gold-plated standard. 
This Government has said that it wants to protect consumers but at what price? The price will be severe. Just like the bill I opposed earlier today—the Banning of Parallel Imports Bill—this bill will punish consumers by raising the price of goods and services right across the board. I notice from the  
Hansard 
 that when Laila Harré introduced this bill she said that it would extend the definition of goods and services to include electricity gas telecommunications water and waste-water removal. It is interesting that the definition of telecommunications has been taken out of the definition of goods but it has been left in the definition of services. When the Luddites in the Alliance rushed to bring in this bill they forgot about the Internet and how that affects so many people’s lives now and how the Internet works and how an Internet service provider could well be held liable for losses that a consumer might suffer if he or she had relied on information gained through a web page that was incorrect? 
There is no guarantee that a web page will be correct. Everybody knows that or should know that. Just because something is on the Internet does not mean to say that it is correct. Anyone who has marked his or her children’s homework will know that. But as it is a service a consumer still could be liable under this legislation because the legislation is so unclear and so nebulous it is difficult to tell what would happen if someone made a claim to a telecommunications provider under a service. 
When I was going through this I wondered whether the Alliance had actually got the idea for this legislation from a website and thought that that would be a good idea and let us pass a law that makes us look like we are caring sharing neo-socialists but it will actually make goods and services expensive and put them out of the reach of many poor people in this country. 
Laila Harré spoke absolute tripe when she introduced this bill and despite its going to the select committee and being reported back tripe it still remains. Steven Franks said when he spoke on this bill in October 2001 that this Government is giving no regard to the most sweeping law in this country—the law of unintended consequences. I think that is a good quote. I ask the member whether he remembers saying that. It is a wonderful phrase—“the law of unintended consequences”. 
The arrogance of this Government is truly gobsmacking. Those members sit there and pass legislation like this; legislation that changes definitions and adds applications. They sit back thinking that there will be no negative consequences only positive ones. Well I hate to disappoint them but there is absolutely no such thing as a free lunch. 
If we look at the current Consumer Guarantees Act we see that it covers things like quality durability safety and a number of other assurances. Under this bill as I have said that cover will extend to electricity supply. As I see it this is just a knee-jerk reaction to the power crisis of 1998 in central Auckland. For a start we are now 5 years on; it is 5 years ago that that happened. Power companies have long since made changes and carried out work that minimises the chance of a repeat of that. But just as this Government is trying to do with its transport legislation it thinks it can buy votes in Auckland at the expense of the rest of the country. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Oh! 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: Obviously I am keeping Dr Cullen up. What happens if the power goes off for 2 hours? It is fine for someone who is wealthy enough to own heaps of electronic goods—I understand that spa pools are very popular with this Government—and video games. The gas supply is included in this bill as well and as John Key added just a minute ago under this bill when the power and the gas go off while one is cooking for a dinner party then people will probably be affected quite badly. The spa pool will get cool and the Chardonnay will not chill so they might be in deep trouble. But the people who have all those things would be most likely to be covered by insurance. They can afford to minimise the risk for themselves. 
What this legislation will do is allow those insurance companies to renege on their responsibilities under the cover that those people will have because instead the supplier of the electricity or the gas will be liable under this legislation. This is typical of this Government which tries to eliminate all sorts of risk in people’s lives. It just cannot be done. Sometimes people cannot be protected from themselves no matter how much one might want to try. 
Also this bill will lead to increased compliance costs for the electricity and gas suppliers. Will they absorb those costs themselves? No they will pass them on to consumers. We can expect everyone’s electricity and gas bills to go up so that the electricity retailers are able to cover themselves for the stream of claims that will undoubtedly result when this bill is passed and of course that will be another godsend for the lawyers. 
As Stephen Franks said a minute ago the people who cook in a hangi or on a barbecue will be paying for those who like to cook on a Smeg or in a microwave oven and want a guaranteed uninterrupted power supply. This legislation is nothing more than self-congratulatory nonsense and the people who have to pay for it will probably never benefit from it. The people with a television a freezer a hot-water cylinder and a radio—basic electrical goods—are not actually adversely affected when the power goes off for a couple of hours. Every sensible person who owns a freezer knows that if the door is kept shut the food is OK and that if the hot tap is not run then the hot water is OK. Even if people do not have insurance to cover the contents of the freezer they are fine. But the people who cannot afford the very goods and services that this bill protects will be paying for those who can afford them. 
There was some talk in October 2001—and I am glad to see Dr Cullen in the House because perhaps he will take a call and clarify this situation—about the inclusion of shares in this bill. I cannot tell whether shares are included and neither can Stephen Franks. Section 2(1) in clause 6 states that the definition of services “ (a) includes any rights (including rights in relation to and interests in personal property)”. At first glance that appears to include shares. So does this mean that a purchaser of shares will have to be guaranteed; that for instance the supplier of those shares—and it is unclear whether that would be the company or the promoter of the shares—would have to guarantee that say in 35 years’ time those shares will be a safe nest egg for the consumer? 
David Parker 
: No. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: Well that is not clear in this legislation. It is impossible to tell from that clause and someone will have great fun with it one day because of all this. This is actually crap legislation and we are opposing it.