Chauvel Charles: Consumer Guarantees Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Chauvel Charles: Consumer Guarantees Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:664;Page:11810] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 As a Parliament we have the responsibility to ensure that New Zealand’s legislation is relevant to the context of our times. Sometimes that may mean tweaking Acts to bring them into line with technology that had not been developed when they were originally passed. This it seems to me is what Dr Jackie Blue’s Consumer Guarantees Amendment Bill aims to do in amending the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993. For that reason as my colleague Carol Beaumont has said Labour members will support at least its referral to a select committee. This seems to be a sensible bill in that it appears to ensure that the principle of protecting consumers is upheld in our modern day and age. 
I think it is important to note in passing that the National Party backbenchers from the speeches that have been given so far seem to be more on to it in relation to consumer affairs issues than the Minister of Consumer Affairs Heather Roy who has proven through the document that my colleague Carol Beaumont referred to earlier that she thinks the complexity of the issues involved is only an excuse not to act. 
One of the technological developments that we have to be mindful of in this context is online bidding on sites like TradeMe. This has become increasingly popular in recent years with many professional sellers effectively choosing to sell their goods and services via such sites. These sites have moved beyond just being fora for individuals to sell second-hand goods. With the increasing popularity of competitive online bidding we have seen the inconsistencies arise that other speakers have referred to. The Act was passed in 1993. It incorporates a principle that I think has broad support across the House: the protection of the consumer when buying goods. But there was no equivalent of online bidding at the time that the Act was passed so of course no consideration could be given to how the Act’s aims could be achieved in that context. 
As an earlier speaker said one of the inconsistencies raised in the bill and dealt with by it is the fact that on sites like TradeMe consumers are protected if they purchase goods in one way but not in another. If there is a bicycle for sale on the site buyers are protected by the Act if they hit the “Buy Now” button but not if they win through a series of bids. The bill will remedy that by amending section 41 of the Act. It will add a new subsection (4) to it to clarify that the rights of consumers under the Act will apply to the supply of goods and services through a competitive bidding process using an online trading facility. In this way the original intent of the Act of protecting all consumers will be brought into line with the reality of online trading and its increased popularity. 
The bill also seeks to improve the Act in relation to extended warranties. Generally these are sold to consumers who buy electrical appliances like fridges or washing machines but despite the name they generally do not give consumers any more rights than they already have under the Act. Clause 5 of the bill would insert new sections 15A and 15B to require suppliers to disclose any extra benefits as a result of offering an extended warranty to consumers. That makes for a fairer situation for them where they are able to assess whether to pay more on the basis of quality rather than because of the attractive sound of a so-called extended warranty that may not actually give them any extra protection as a consumer. The bill also allows for an innovation that is common now in New South Wales and other jurisdictions which is a cooling-off period immediately after the purchase of an extended warranty so that consumers can have fair time in which to consider whether they really wanted to make the purchase that they have under this legislation preliminarily concluded. 
All in all the bill seems to be sensible. It tweaks the Act to make it fairer and more relevant to the way in which things work today. The member has done a good job and should be congratulated on that. But I must ask why the Government is so willing to make changes in this area when it is currently failing to offer support to my colleague Carol Beaumont for her loan sharks bill because it is “an area under consideration”. Unfortunately I am led to the conclusion that the Government places petty politics above the importance of protecting our most vulnerable consumers. It would be really nice to be proven wrong about that in 2 weeks’ time on the next members’ day.