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:6866] 
JOHN CARTER (NZ National—Northland) 
: Mr Chairman if you want to keep within the Standing Orders listen to this for the next 5 minutes. Here we go! We are debating the Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill. Is that OK so far? Very good—I have had the sign-off from the Chairman so I must be right. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: You have used 15 seconds. 
JOHN CARTER 
: That is OK; it is not a problem. I have had a read of this bill and I worry about the way in which it is titled. In fact if we think about the words “consumer protection”— 
Stephen Franks 
: What about your mother? 
JOHN CARTER 
: No we will not worry about my mother at the moment. We will worry about protecting my mother a little later on in the debate. 
The problem with this bill is that in itself it cannot actually work. It cannot protect the consumer. Let me tell members why. This bill talks for example about the fact that one of the things the Government wants to do—if members look at the commentary—is class electricity as a good. So the intent of the bill is to ensure that consumers are protected and to make sure that they get the supply they need. So far so good—that is the purpose of the bill. The problem is that that means if one is to protect consumers to make sure they get the supply someone has to make the supply. If that provider of the service does not make the supply—if there is a default—the provider then is liable because it has not supplied the service. That is what the bill says. It is called a “consumer protection” bill. 
I put it to the Committee that at the end of the day someone will be fined. The authority will say to the electricity supplier: “You haven’t supplied the service to John Carter. He needs the service. You’ve failed; you get fined.” I ask members who will pay. The authority will write a cheque out for $100000 or whatever it might be—I think we just heard in the Fair Trading Amendment Bill (No 3) debate an amount of $200000—but who will pay? John Carter will ultimately pay because John Carter will have that amount spread on to his bill and I myself will pay for a service I did not receive. 
Now I ask the Committee: how can that be called protection? It is not protection. As a consumer of power I do not feel that under this bill I will be protected at all. Of course I want the supply but I do not want it to cost me any more. I do not want some legislation in this Committee consumer protection legislation that would add a cost to my bill just because the lights went out at some stage when someone said I had to have them on for 24 hours and therefore the supply authority was fined under the Fair Trading Act. How can that be protection? The authority gets fined—and I pay! I do not think that that is that funny. It is like saying to the neighbour: “You shoot down to the nearest shop and have a good time and I’ll pay.” I do not think that that is very much of a protection. [ 
Interruption 
] Well I was not going to quite go there but one can jump to the conclusion. What sort of protection is that? Here I am without a condom and I send a neighbour down the street. I mean that is not much protection. I tell members to follow the logic. This cannot be a “consumer protection” bill. It cannot be. 
By its very principle the legislation might intend to protect the supply. In the case of water it might intend to protect the quality of the supply. It might well intend to protect the discharge of waste water but ultimately it does not protect me from anything at all. I say to the Committee that the Minister has got the title of this bill wrong. If one wanted to call it the “Consumer Continuity of Supply Bill” one might well have a valid argument. But if the Government calls this measure “protection” the bill should be called the “Consumer Protection of Goods Bill”—or of supply or whatever—not the Consumer Protection (Definition of Goods and Services) Bill. To suggest that the consumer is being protected which is what this bill suggests is not right. As a consequence I want to move an amendment to omit the words after “Protection” and substitute the words “(Extension of Provisions) Bill” or omit the words after “Consumer” and substitute the words “(Miscellaneous Consumer Law Amendment) Bill” or omit the words after “Consumer” and substitute the words “(Extension of Definition of Goods and Services) Bill” because there is no consumer protection in this legislation at all. That is the problem. That is when we run into trouble. We do not have a proper definition of the bill and it needs to be defined.