Goudie Sandra: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
Goudie Sandra: Consumer Protection (Definitions of Goods and Services) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:609;Page:6886] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (NZ National—Coromandel) 
: I greatly appreciate the opportunity to be able to speak to Part 1 because I too have some further concerns to raise about local government. I acknowledge the fine contribution made by the Hon Nick Smith. He raised a really important point about this bill treating water as a tradable commodity. I understood that this Government did not seek to do that with water supplied by local authorities; that it wanted the ownership to remain with local authorities for communities. But I do not see that intention being signalled in the tenor of this bill. 
In Part 1 we see water described as a good. Local government is concerned about water being identified as a good particularly with regard to sections 6 and 7 of the Consumer Guarantees Act and the guarantees that are to be provided in relation to goods. Local Government New Zealand outlined in particular the guarantees dealing with goods—for instance those relating to titles descriptions and samples. I guess local government could give the worst water samples in the world yet its water would be considered safe. As for guarantees as to repairs and spare parts I do not know where spare parts enter into it and clearly Local Government New Zealand did not know that either. It was concerned that water that was identified as a good was not excluded from those guarantees identified in sections 6 and 7. Perhaps the Minister in the chair would like to take a call to explain why there was no identification of how water was going to be addressed with regard to those guarantees or indeed why water could not have been excluded from those guarantees. Of course we have no idea of what is specifically meant by “water” itself and there is no splitting out of what is provided in terms of an urban water supply and a rural water supply. 
In considering these guarantees we do have a concern about them. For example we have a concern about the guarantee as to acceptable quality and ask whether water will comply with that guarantee if it complies with the yet-to-be-promulgated drinking water standards that it is intended will raise the threshold. 
 The standards are meant to detail how to assess the quality and safety of drinking water and thereby reduce the risk. The standards are also intended to define drinking water that is intended to be for human consumption. However there was a court case in which the court observed that those with special needs for water of greater purity than that required by the wider community—of course we are talking about an agreement entered into by the wider community and the local authority and that is decided by a majority not by an individual consumer—can actually put in their own facilities to purify the water to a greater degree. Here we have water being identified as a good and subject to those guarantees under the consumer guarantees legislation. 
Similarly will the guarantee of fitness for a particular purpose be appropriate? We query what the particular purpose would be when water is actually used for many purposes such as drinking home appliances gardening washing the car and washing the boat. Some recognition needs to be given to the effect of the guarantees with regard to water. 
In cases where there is a failure to comply with a guarantee the consumer’s right of redress is to refuse to pay more than a reasonable price. I referred to that before. The Minister did not respond to the challenge that she actually answer which provision would prevail: the ratings legislation or the Consumer Guarantees Act. So I challenge the Minister to take a call to give us some indication as to where local government actually stands and which legislative provisions are actually going to prevail because there definitely is some confusion.