MOD on new consumer law

MOD writes at Stuff:

It’s seldom that I feel sorry for politicians, but I found myself feeling that way last week for the nine members of the Commerce Select Committee, and Consumer Affairs Minister Simon Bridges.

After a three-year policy gestation period that chewed up and spat out five ministers , and a submission process that saw 90 organisations vent their spleens, the final form of the Consumer Law Reform Bill was delivered back to the House last week.

The Bill proposes changes to six acts and knocks another three on the head as it seeks to make sure New Zealand’s basket of consumer laws is still fit for purpose.

The jewel in the crown here is the Consumer Guarantees Act (CGA), the first line of defence if we get ripped off with crappy products or poor service.  This Act, along with that well known bodice ripper the Fair Trading Act (FTA), has had a thorough spruce-up to ensure they remain relevant in an online age.  The end result is nothing less than breath-taking in its potency.  

The CGA will apply to all transactions between professional traders and consumers, anywhere and anytime.  It doesn’t matter if you buy your widget at a high street store, online venue, or farmers market; if you buy from a trader you are covered.  And you will be covered from start to finish – including all seven specific guarantees within the CGA covering acceptable quality and fit for purpose.

Sounds good.

Put together – comprehensive CGA protection in any venue and the requirement for online traders to identify themselves – it’s hard to see how such fundamental benefits could be anything but good for consumers, and a recipe for economic confidence.  But despite this, the good news got drowned in a chorus of confusion

Some of the confusion came off the new requirement for online traders to identify themselves online as bringing supposed new tax obligations.  This is simply incorrect.  
And the idea that the IRD doesn’t already make full use of the giant indexation and caching machine that Google provides them is laughable.

There have also been grim warnings about the emergence of a black market among car dealers, where car dealers will offload worn cars to unregistered traders because they don’t want the responsibility of honouring far-reaching guarantees.   Again this is doing the proposals a disservice.  The acceptable quality guarantee must be a contextual one, relative to what is reasonable to the age and history of the item.  

The Select Committee’s job was to iron out any wrinkles in the draft Bill and try to stand strong on behalf of consumers as they were subjected to a withering barrage of submissions and lobbying by everyone from power companies to direct marketers.  
Basically everyone who reckoned they had an irresistibly good reason to create an exception to the principles of the CGA.  The good news is that the Committee appears to have done its job.   

Consumers will benefit from full CGA protection whenever and where ever they buy stuff from professional traders, it’s a simple concept to understand, and a worthy outcome in its own right.  Ethical traders will benefit from the “flushing out” and removal of dodgy traders who have tried to fly under the radar by not declaring their trader status or have made use of legal auction loopholes to knowingly sell poor quality items to consumers, knowing they wouldn’t be held accountable.  

A useful reminder than standing up for consumers doesn’t always win headlines, but generally is the right thing to do.