Carter John: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
Carter John: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6900] 
JOHN CARTER (NZ National—Northland) 
: I want to carry on with the issue of litigation. When we look at Part 3 in relation to the Fair Trading Act and the part where it brings in the Consumer Guarantees Act there are a number of things that that Act supposedly guarantees. There are for example “Guarantees as to title”. The other day a constituent up in Northland brought me a case in which somehow or other a title had someone else’s name on it. My constituent does not know how it happened the council does not know and the deeds people do not know but it happened. What happens if something is wrong? Who will guarantee that but more important who pays? 
Guarantees of acceptable quality reasonable care and skilled employment? That is a good so yes there is a guarantee under the Act. Is it a service? Yes it is guaranteed under the Act but what happens if that service is not provided? Who pays? More important who pays if there is a dispute and there will be disputes because of these sorts of definitions? Perhaps the Minister in the chair the Hon Mark Burton who will be absolutely familiar with this bill will want to take a call to explain these very searching questions. There is also the issue of litigation to see whether there is a dispute. Who pays? That is the issue. The real worry with this legislation is the cost that this Government is putting on to consumers—the people it thinks it is protecting. The Government will end up causing the people of this nation huge cost. 
“Guarantees as to fitness for particular purpose”—what does that mean? Apparently it covers a good and a service. That is fine but how will the Government guarantee fitness for purpose? What if it does not comply? Who pays? If we go back to the supply authority or the local authority and they are found not to have come up to the mark and are fined who pays? It is the consumer who pays. The same people end up paying again. What are we trying to achieve here? We are trying to achieve something for the benefit of the people but all we are actually doing is loading a lot of costs on to them. I say to the Government that we have to stop this silly nonsense. We have already seen where the Government has taxed taxed and taxed. It has got into the habit now and I suppose it cannot get out of it. 
Let us look at the next thing: “Guarantee that goods comply with sample”—what does that mean? Who will guarantee that this Act does what it supposedly does? I ask Damien O’Connor what will happen when someone says: “Hang on no it doesn’t.” He or she gets into a dispute goes to a lawyer and ends up in a court case. Finally the authority gets fined but who pays? Not the authority! Of course in the first place it does but Damien O’Connor pays through his rates or through his water supply charges. The same consumer that this bill is supposedly protecting ends up paying the bill. Where is the advantage in that? It is just a silly nonsense. Why would one do it? One goes round in that ever-diminishing circle until one ends up in that place that people should not be in. Maybe that is where this Government is trying to get everybody to end up. It is the old ostrich head-in-the-sand thing but in this case the position is different. Nevertheless that is a real worry. 
There is a “ Guarantee as to price” in the Act so apparently the goods or service we get are meant to be a particular price. [ 
Interruption 
] It might be a reasonable price as well but that is another issue. But then we find that there is a dispute and here we go again—into litigation. There is an argument the authority says something is the case and no it is not. The authority goes to court loses and gets fined and the same people pay. 
What really worries me is the principle here. Why are we litigating to put people into cotton wool? There is a real world out there and people have to live and survive in it. We are constantly trying to stop people getting on with their lives. This is just another example of a Government that somehow or other thinks that people cannot stand up for themselves. I say to this Government and to the people who may be listening at home on their crystal sets that they should ask themselves this question: at the end of the day what do we actually get out of this bill? It is not a lot.