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:6865] 
Hon TONY RYALL (NZ National—Bay of Plenty) 
: The National Party in Opposition will be strongly opposing not only the title of this bill but the content. During the Committee stage when we hope the Minister of Consumer Affairs will take a call we are going to bring to the attention of the Committee a number of examples of the increased cost to consumers that this bill will provide. This bill will increase the cost of services to all New Zealanders and that is why it would be better described as the “Consumer Protection (Increase in Costs) Bill”. That is exactly what this bill is going to do. 
During the debate on the other parts of this bill we are going to outline the cost to various local authorities in New Zealand of the foolish decision of this Government to include water and waste water as goods under the definitions of goods and services in the various pieces of legislation involved. The consequence of that is to say to the local authorities that supply water to New Zealand consumers that it must be of merchantable quality and for it to be of such a quality will require a number of local authorities— 
David Benson-Pope 
: What authorities? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: —including that member’s local authority—to lift the standard of their water at a considerable cost. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I am prepared to table a document which relates to the title of this bill that shows that local government bodies may be faced with a bill of $400 million to lift the level of their water supply so that it meets what is required in this bill. I bet Judith Tizard did not tell the Labour caucus that when she was briefing it on this bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: We are debating the title. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: This bill will mean extra costs of $400 million over the next 5 years and that is why this bill should be called the “Consumer Protection (Rark up the Rates) Bill”. The sum of $400 million—that is what local government says—will be spent on upgrading water supplies in the next 5 years in order to meet the standards required by this bill. 
Georgina Beyer 
: That’s right! 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Georgina Beyer from the Wairarapa is absolutely right. The sum of $400 million will be spent over the next 4 years and that will rark up the rates. 
This title does not reflect what is being proposed in this bill. This bill is about so much more than just adding items to the definitions of goods and services; it is all about gold-plating electricity gold-plating water and gold-plating gas and consumers will pay the cost. I have not met a consumer who has raised with me as an issue the quality of the gas he or she receives. I have not met a consumer who has raised with me as an issue the fact that he or she wants to pay a lot more to get a higher quality of water. I have met very few consumers who are in favour of paying higher electricity prices but that is what this bill will require. 
It is wrong for the Government to bring in a bill that does not correctly describe what is being proposed. The bill is complex and the Opposition requires the opportunity to take multiple calls in order to seek comment from the Minister because there are many many New Zealanders who want to know what is going on. Later I will table documents that show that local authorities that are found to be in breach of the guarantees of acceptable water quality standards may even though they have told their consumers about the problems with their standards still be found to be in breach of the quality standards and subject to considerable liability under these Acts. As a result they will be forced to spend substantial amounts of ratepayers’ money in order to meet drinking water standards. The Government has not thought through the consequences of this bill. I will also table documents from a gas company in a Labour member’s electorate that argue lucidly why the extension of this bill to gas is unnecessary has not been thought through and will cost consumers. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Before I call the next member I point out that I have tried to indicate to members the narrowness of the debate on the title. I draw to members’ attention Speaker’s ruling 90/1 which states: “... when a bill has been considered by a select committee the debate on the title clause in committee is limited strictly to the elements of that clause and any amendments proposed to it.” That ruling was made by Mr Speaker Gray and also by Chairman Braybrooke. I am going to watch that very carefully.