Lee Melissa; Mallard TrevorMELISSA LEE (National): It is a pleasure to rise in the first reading of Dr Shane Reti's member's bill. Just to comment to the member who has just sat down David Shearer I have to actually commend the member Dr Shane Reti. He is a conscientious member. When his bill was drawn from the ballot he actually came around to my office with the bill and the explanatory note all ready for us to go to debate this bill because he was sending it to the Commerce Committee and he wanted to brief me. As David Shearer who is the member for Mt Albert has said he has tremendous respect for Dr Shane Reti.I have tremendous respect too for David Shearer. He has had a worldly experience but I am slightly confused as to how he thinks that a bank that lends customers money to buy certain consumer goods can be jointly liable with the seller of the good. What he is actually literally saying is that if banks loaned money to people who purchased homes in Christchurch which was devastated by earthquakes and those people have earthquake damage then those banks are liable for the damage as well. I think that is what he is saying. I am a little bit confused by his analogy as to how a third party who is the lender of the money to consumers can be jointly liable for something that goes wrong.You may not understand but some of us girls have to get shavers for our hairy legs as well. Recently I had the experience of purchasing an epilator that did not actually work. I had to go back to the shop to return the good and say that it did not work. If I had in fact borrowed money to purchase that epilator and it was not just the shop that sold me a bung epilator that was liable but also the bank that loaned me the money to purchase that epilator was jointly liable—that just does not make sense. This bill is about separating the supplier of the good and the financier—the lender of the money—because they are the unrelated third party who should not be liable.Jami-Lee Ross: You can tell that Shane Reti wrote this speech.MELISSA LEE: Ha ha! He is listening. I am not so sure he is actually liking the examples. I do not know why I actually said that.The aim of the bill is to amend the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 by changing the definition of supplier" in the Act to exclude the lender who is an unrelated party. As Dr Shane Reti said if they happen to be related—for example if I am purchasing something from let us say David Shearer and I think he actually mentioned Hyundai and he happened to be also a financier in that company maybe as "David Shearer Finance" or something and he is the seller of that good as well as the financier then he should be liable. Both of those companies should be liable because he is effectively that one person who is selling as well as financing. In that sense we are joining in one and separating in another. What we are actually saying is that when they are unrelated parties they should not be liable but if they are joint and relatable parties then they should be liable. I think I got that Shane? I am looking forward to the submissions process in the select committee and I am hoping that lots of people will submit on the bill.National believes in well-informed borrowing practices and good consumer law and smart lending policy. This bill will in fact clarify the Consumer Guarantees Act by making an amendment and updating the responsibilities of traders and lenders. I think Dr Shane Reti has done himself proud with this little bill and I think he has actually been very proactive in meeting with members to explain what the bill is. It is a real shame that he did not have a catch-up with David Shearer because obviously he never got the message. I think it is a little wee ripper of a bill and I look forward to hearing the submissions in the select committee. I commend the bill.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Well I am actually tempted to call Mr Bakshi after that contribution but I think I had better call Mojo Mathers."