Goudie Sandra: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
Goudie Sandra: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8692] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (NZ National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I am absolutely delighted to be able to follow on from my learned colleague the Hon Tony Ryall. He has done an excellent précis of the concerns that we have around this bill. To follow on from the excellent words he had to say I say that many submitters expressed huge concern about compliance cost. There was to be a compliance cost somewhere in the region of hundreds of thousands of dollars for some of the provisions. [ 
Interruption 
] OK. Members want me to speak to the bill. 
We are identifying the bill as the “CCCFB” bill. However we could call it some other titles as well. We could call it the “Additional Compliance Bill”. We could also call it the “Consumer Credit Disclosure Bill” because it is all about disclosure for people entering into what are called consumer credit contracts so disclosure is the predominant emphasis in this bill. It is about being open transparent and accountable in our transactions. However given the emphasis from this Government on disclosure we could also call it the “Do as we say not do as we do Bill”. I give a number of reasons for saying that it is the “Do as we say not do as we do Bill” because doing as the Government does would certainly mean that we would be happy not to disclose documents—as occurred in the “corngate” affair. That was where the Government did not do what it purports to want other people to do—which is to have full disclosure. It is all about the “lie in unison” issue in immigration. 
Jill Pettis 
: That’s got nothing to do with it. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: Well yes it has because I am saying that the title is the “Do as we say not do as we do Bill”. I am saying that “to do as we do” would mean that one would be able to lie. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: That’s not on. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: Well no it is not actually. The “lie in unison” immigration matter was not on either nor was the lack of disclosure under “corngate”. 
Mark Peck 
: That’s got nothing to do with the title. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: OK. The title was as I said the “Do as we say not do as we do Bill” and that is what I was referring to—all those other activities of the current Government when it says “Do as we say—have full disclosure—but we won’t necessarily do that ourselves.” In this bill one is required to have full disclosure so I will go back to the title of the “Consumer Credit Disclosure Bill” and we will stick with that. It means that Labour members will be a lot happier with that and a lot more comfortable about their own past activities in relation to the other title I put on this bill. 
If we look at the “Consumer Credit Disclosure Bill” there is absolutely no certainty that one will get full disclosure. The reason for that is that under “full costs”—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mark Peck 
: Full cost has nothing to do with the title. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: Yes it has because we are talking about consumer credit disclosure. Hello! Gosh do we need a dictionary here? Perhaps I could have a dictionary. “Disclosure” means providing information and that means that one is required to provide full disclosure. It is my understanding that that was the requirement of this bill and is what one wants to achieve—the protection of all those consumers who might enter into those credit contracts. They do not understand usually what is going on—they do not fully understand what is being disclosed to them—so that is why I am calling this bill the “Consumer Credit Disclosure Bill”. That is why this bill is being produced—so that there will be more disclosure to consumers. 
Do members understand the meaning of the definition of disclosure? Perhaps the Minister would like to take a call and elucidate on what disclosure actually means. I keep referring to the word “disclosure” because that is the word I am emphasising in my new title for this bill. Disclosure certainly is not paramount in the legislation—not when the bill refers in clause 15(1) to “disclosure of as much of the key information …”. Key information is not necessarily full disclosure. Under “full costs” the definition does not necessarily mean that one will get full disclosure either. 
This bill is meant to be about disclosure. That is why I am suggesting that the title should be the “Consumer Credit Disclosure Bill”. It should be but is it? That is the real question. Perhaps the Minister would like to take a call and give us her interpretation of what “disclosure” means why the definition of “full costs” does not necessarily mean full disclosure and why only key information comes within the definition for disclosure. So I think that my title for the bill—the “Consumer Credit Disclosure Bill”—is adequate.