Ryall Tony: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
Ryall Tony: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6872] 
Hon TONY RYALL (NZ National—Bay of Plenty) 
: The National Party in Opposition has moved a number of amendments on the commencement date of this bill and I would like to explain each of those amendments which are in the name of the honourable John Carter. 
One of the points that we intend to make during the process of this bill is that there is quite considerable concern in local government about the inclusion of water and waste-water provisions in it. Those concerns stem from a number of situations. Possibly the most important of them is that councils feel that they have not had sufficient time to prepare their operations for the passing of this bill. As officials advised the Commerce Committee many councils supply water that is not of a saleable quality. The document I have here gives the exact phrase: “water has to be supplied of an acceptable quality”. We believe it is appropriate to give councils an opportunity to come to terms with the full ramifications of this legislation and we have an amendment that proposes that. While the Government can get its way with the rest of the extension of goods and services we would pull out water and waste water and allow those to be brought into the bill at a later date by way of Order in Council. That would provide that Government and local government—in the sort of love-in partnership that they like to talk about—could equate this bill with the reality of the challenges that face councils that supply water. It would allow them sufficient time to do so before that “acceptable quality” issue really raises concerns for them. 
We also have another couple of amendments that would move the start-date of this bill beyond the next election because I am quite confident that the next National-led Government which will be returned to office in 2005 will— 
David Benson-Pope 
: Even the  
Herald 
 says you haven’t got a chance. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I do not take my directions from the New Zealand Labour Party  
Herald 
 thank you very much or from the Television New Zealand Labour Party. But I know that when the National-led Government is back in power in 2005 we will have to remove those definitions that include water and waste water because we think they are wrong. We have put forward these amendments for a number of reasons. We want to defer the start-date so that the next Government can remove the ridiculous parts of this bill in time to avoid a huge consequence for consumers. We have put forward another amendment that would exclude water and waste water from the requirements of the Consumer Guarantees Act the Commerce Act and the Fair Trading Act. 
While it is not particularly relevant to this debate on the commencement there is a considerable concern amongst members on this side of the Chamber about the proposition that amendments are being made to these bills for the avoidance of doubt. Frankly there is doubt and the only way that the Government can claim that those matters are already covered by the bill is through the opinion of officials. That is not good enough and we will be talking about that later on. 
When we look at the costs to local government we need to remember that we have an official document here that says that local government will have to spend $400 million over the next 5 years on water and waste-water services. That is an incredible cost per ratepayer. We are seeking information to try to equate that for each district in New Zealand so that members opposite can be aware of what that cost will mean. Because of the confusion about what the cost will be for the Christchurch Dunedin and Palmerston North city councils and other authorities to bring their water up to an acceptable standard as required by the Consumer Guarantees Act the Fair Trading Act and the Commerce Act we should defer the start of those provisions in this bill. 
I urge the Committee to support the amendment in the name of Mr John Carter because it just makes sense. There is considerable confusion. Even the Minister cannot take a call to explain what will happen with water and that is why this action should be taken. 
JOHN CARTER (NZ National—Northland) 
: 
 I want to take an opportunity to speak to this part because as my friend and colleague the Hon Tony Ryall said there are three amendments in my name. The first is to ask for the bill not to come into force until 1 January 2006. I ask the Minister to give this amendment serious consideration because there are some issues of major concern in the bill and those who are likely to be affected do need time to get a better understanding of it. It seems reasonable that the Minister could give some time for those people to get an understanding of and therefore a feel for where this bill will go and what impact it will have. So I say that the date the bill should come into force is 1 January 2006 and that means that when the Government changes at the next election we will be able to repeal this bill so that it will not have any impact at all. That seems to make a whole lot of sense to me. 
In the event that I just cannot persuade the Minister to accept that date I have a fallback date of 1 July 2004. One should always have a back-up. The reason for that is that I know that the Minister in the chair Judith Tizard is a reasonable person. She considers very sensible— 
Hon Mark Burton 
: Can you write that one down? 
JOHN CARTER 
: Now I did not say that—it was not me who said that! This Minister considers serious amendments and I am absolutely certain she will very likely allow this one to be accepted. Changing the date by 12 months to 1 July 2004 will not make a significant difference. It is a genuine amendment to allow people at least 12 months to get their heads around what this measure means and what impact it will have. 
As the Hon Tony Ryall has already told the Committee there is the issue around the matter of water and waste water and the very genuine concern that has been put forward by Local Government New Zealand. I wonder whether the Minister could take a call. In the last few minutes of my speech she may get some advice from the officials as to what communication they had with Local Government New Zealand on this matter. Did the officials fully understand the impact this would have on ratepayers across the country? I am not certain that that has been understood. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: It could be $30 million in Dunedin alone. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Good grief my colleague the Hon Tony Ryall is now telling me it could be as much as $30 million in Dunedin! Bless my soul—$30 million! I wonder what the member for Dunedin South David Benson-Pope thinks of imposing $30 million on the Dunedin City Council as a consequence of this bill. That is just the Dunedin City Council—just one city. I wonder whether the Minister in the chair has told that member that this bill could have an impact as great as $30 million on Dunedin City. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: And $7 million in Southland district. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Well let us just focus on Dunedin City. If it is going to be $30 million in one city alone over a 3-year period— 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Until 2005. 
JOHN CARTER 
: So it is basically 2 years. That is $15 million extra a year that the ratepayers will have to meet. This is to upgrade the water supply one assumes to meet the standards set in this legislation. We have to ask ourselves what is wrong with the water. How many people in Dunedin are dying every day because they drink Dunedin water? I know it does strange things to one or two people who live down there if we have a look at the member but the point is that if this bill imposes that sort of cost on the people of Dunedin they have a right to know. 
If this bill is passed tonight at least it is not unreasonable to allow my amendment. At least the people of Dunedin can then be advised of it plan for it and put it into their accounts because this bill will have a significant impact on each of them individually as ratepayers. Maybe the Minister will take a call and explain to me why it is not going to happen like that. I would be pleased to hear. We would probably think it was OK if there were a rational reason for it. If I have it wrong I would like the Minister to take a call and tell me I am wrong.