Prasad Rajen: Consumer Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
Prasad Rajen: Consumer Law Reform Bill — First Reading 
[Advance Copy - Subject to minor change before inclusion in Bound Volume.] 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 May I also seeing as it is my first time in taking a call this Parliament congratulate you Mr Deputy Speaker and your three colleagues—the Speaker and Assistant Speakers—on your re-appointment. May I also acknowledge those who have given their maiden speeches and say how much I enjoyed those; it always reminds you of when your turn came 3 years ago to give a maiden speech. So there is a lot of feeling on our part—those of us who are not that old meaning not too old to this Parliament—of knowing where you were. I really wish those who are yet to speak the best for their speeches which we will hear in the next week or so. 
I also wanted to congratulate the Minister of Consumer Affairs Mr Tremain on his first bill. We were in the gym together over lunch and I noticed he was looking forward to introducing his first bill and— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: For how long? 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: I beg your pardon? 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: For how long? 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: For the full hour. I did not see you there Mr Brownlee. You know it is great—it makes the afternoon go a lot better in the House with a lot more energy. But Minister Tremain did enjoy himself. He was leaving as I was starting for the full hour indeed. 
I do want to acknowledge that I am new to consumer law so it was fascinating being asked to speak to this particular bill the Consumer Law Reform Bill and then reading all of the documents. But of course it does remind you that although one might be new to consumer law one is not a new consumer. So I am sure that many many times I have been ripped off as well but not known what one could have done about that. This bill brought those things to mind. 
But perhaps the one thing that it did make me realise was that the relationship between a consumer and a supplier of goods and services is a complex one. It is almost by definition an unequal relationship where often the supplier holds a stronger hand—often that is so; it might not be the case all the time—and consequently it is important to realise that it is a symbiotic relationship where progress can only be made by one with the participation of the other. Unless that happens progress is not made. So it is in the interests of suppliers of goods and services to maintain their competitive edge and to constantly redesign their modus operandi to maximise their return. It becomes then as I was saying a symbiotic relationship and both actors in the relationship are important. It has not often been the case but it is so here. 
Of course once we realise that we see that in advantaging one partner a number of allied professions have also developed to provide an edge for the suppliers of goods and services. Whether that is marketing or other marketing-related activities it is designed to give an edge to one side. Sometimes suppliers engage in practices that entrap innocent consumers while others give legitimate transactions. When people do this they give legitimate suppliers and honest suppliers a bad name. 
We were talking earlier in question time about loan sharks. Indeed when one follows the experiences of some who have gone through that process loan sharks come to mind as an example of where the relationship is totally unbalanced and I hope that this Parliament will do something about that. Sometimes those who are caught through these practices are vulnerable people and those are the ones whom many of us probably see in our out-of-Parliament offices. Clearly they have been taken advantage of by unscrupulous suppliers. Consequently as the system has got complex—and other speakers have talked about electronic purchase and what have you—it is important to modernise our laws to protect vulnerable people and at the same time enable legitimate transactions between parties to be conducted fairly and predictably. So this is what this bill sets about doing. 
Perhaps the most satisfying part of it is to realise that it is principles-based. It is a complex bill to get your head around because there are four Acts plus a new one that are being addressed through this particular omnibus bill. But certainly it should enable consumers to transact with good confidence protect suppliers and consumers from inappropriate market conduct and make it easier for those affected to access the provisions of the bill to get some redress—and the final one is to realign ourselves with Australia. 
But as I was saying the intentions are given effect in the purpose clause of the Fair Trading Act which is in clause 5 of this particular bill. The omnibus bill makes changes to as I said a significant number of provisions in the Fair Trading Act and clarifies the respective rights and obligations of those providing goods and services and those receiving goods and services. 
There are some provisions that were attractive to me because I could relate to them. This bill makes new provisions for sending and receiving unsolicited goods and services. I think the solution that is in this particular part of this bill is actually quite clever I believe and it might even be “elegant”. That word could be used in this sense. 
If somebody sends unsolicited goods to someone else then the receiver’s liabilities are reduced from 3 months to 10 working days. So if a person in trade sends goods that are unsolicited provided the receiver indicates the good is not accepted the receiver has no liability beyond those 10 days and has to indicate that. Of course that could be open for abuse; I do not know. What if you call on the ninth day to say it is not accepted and then the other party has 1 day to remove the good? But I am sure the select committee will follow this up. 
Additionally if the goods are not collected—and this is the elegant part—within 10 working days the good becomes an unconditional gift to the receiver. Well I wish people would send me rather expensive things unsolicited and after 10 days they become an unconditional gift to the receiver. So here the onus is shifting to the sender of goods and services. This is a good provision especially for vulnerable people who could be taken advantage of. 
The bill also adds some new provisions for particular goods being declared unsafe and other speakers have talked about that. That clause becomes important particularly today when so much of what we import is made somewhere else and often under different regulatory systems. When it comes to New Zealand that is another part that becomes important. Perhaps the advantage here is that a whole series of provisions are being addressed and I agree with Lianne Dalziel who said that the regulatory impact statement was very detailed and it does provide a very good way for the select committee to look at all of those things. 
There are some provisions here around contracts. The only bit that worried me a little bit and perhaps the select committee can look at that is that I noticed that the bill’s provisions require those things to be in plain English and easily understandable. But in a diversifying New Zealand where in Auckland there are now large numbers of people for whom English is not a first language will the provisions still be understood by those people? Some attention could be paid to see how those who are not familiar with even plain English can still be enabled to understand what the provisions are—so the select committee could be looking at that. 
Much has been said. We support this and we look forward to the discussions at select committee and further discussions when the bill is reported back. Thank you. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Commerce Committee.