Goudie Sandra: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
Goudie Sandra: Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:611;Page:8725] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (NZ National—Coromandel) 
: 
 We open the bill at Part 4 “Enforcement and remedies” and under Subpart 1 “Preliminary provisions” the first thing we see is compliance programmes. So here we go in Part 4 we immediately get into the costs—the compliance costs—for lessors. Clause 59 provides that they must have a compliance cost programme to ensure that their employees and agents are following the procedures or have implemented automated procedures that are designed to ensure compliance with the Act and the regulations—we must not forget the regulations—and to ensure that there are in place methods for systematically identifying deficiencies and the effectiveness of the programme. Here we have a direct compliance cost staring us right in the face in this bill. This will be substantial because this is an ongoing cost not just a one-off cost. It is not just an interim cost but is an ongoing cost for monitoring the effectiveness and compliance in accordance with the Act. 
Then further on in Part 4 clause 62 deals with the jurisdiction of disputes tribunals. Given some of the complexities of these issues we are concerned about the capability of those people taking part in a disputes tribunal and dealing with some of these issues. I am aware of the effects of disputes tribunals—particularly in the agricultural sector—and they are not always as judicially objective as they might be. The experience of participants adjudicating through a disputes tribunal is sometimes questionable. There has been considerable concern expressed through my office about the way and the manner in which disputes tribunals operate. That is certainly an area that I would say needs to be addressed and probably given an overhaul in time to come. 
The other matter I want to refer to is clause 69(2) and the ability to take a person to court. One of the submitters actually talked about double jeopardy. This concerns clause 69(2) which talks about persons being able to take a provision to the courts. Anyone can take an objection to the courts in relation to the courts’ general power to make orders against a person. It talks about double jeopardy by making clear that exemplary damages cannot be awarded in respect of a breach that has already been the subject of a statutory damages order. Inappropriate risk of double jeopardy continues to exist because it would still be possible for non-compliance to result in a criminal law sanction as well as in either exemplary damages or statutory damages and that was a concern. 
It was felt that it was not appropriate for clause 83 to give “Any person”—and that is the term used in this bill—the ability to seek a banning order given that the bill already makes ample provision for enforcement by borrowers and by the Commerce Commission. It is laudable to see that the Commerce Commission has been strengthened. I note that the Minister sought an additional vote for 2003 with regard to the Commerce Commission and that is a laudable effort. There is a concern which I have already expressed about needing more vote for educational purposes but that might come in time. 
However in coming back to this part I say that it is not desirable for the provisions in clause 82 for example potentially to be able to be used by one lender against a competitor and that is a possibility. It may be that groups and organisations representing self-appointed guardians of the public interest could be in such a position to seek such orders also because the provision could be used spuriously. It may be that someone has been convicted previously and that was an error on the person’s part but he or she has seen the light. I tell Mr Adams that perhaps that person has come to God and realised there are better more honest ways of functioning in his or her life. Although that person is going to operate in a much more socially conscious and morally based manner he or she could still be victimised by the provisions of this bill.