I would have thought that the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 in New Zealand would only apply to businesses - but reading the document I could not see anything that would exclude government entities from being bound by the act.
The act talks about a supplier, and defines a supplier to mean "
means a person who, in trade,— (i)
supplies goods to a consumer by— (A)
transferring the ownership or the possession of the goods under a contract of sale, exchange, lease, hire, or hire purchase to which that person is a party; or (B)
transferring the ownership of the goods as the result of a gift from that person; or (C)
transferring the ownership or possession of the goods as directed by an insurer; or (ii)
supplies services to an individual consumer or a group of consumers (whether or not the consumer is a party, or the consumers are parties, to a contract with the person); and (b)
includes,— (i)
where the rights of the supplier have been transferred by assignment or by operation of law, the person for the time being entitled to those rights: (ii)
a creditor within the meaning of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 who has lent money on the security of goods supplied to a consumer, if the whole or part of the price of the goods is to be paid out of the proceeds of the loan and if the loan was arranged by a person who, in trade, supplied the goods: (iii)
a person who, in trade, assigns or procures the assignment of goods to a creditor within the meaning of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 to enable the creditor to supply those goods, or goods of that kind, to the consumer: (iv)
a person (other than an auctioneer) who, in trade, is acting as an agent for another, whether or not that other is supplying in trade
So, if I purchase goods (eg a Passport or Birth Certificate from Internal Affairs or Water from the local council) am I covered by the Consumer Guarantees Act if they loose the document / don't supply water that is up to standard?
I feel sure the government must have carved a loophole out for themselves, and I've never heard of anyone using the CGA against the government, so I must be missing something. Maybe people can use the CGA but courts lack jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter?
Also relevant -
Section 3 of the act says "This Act binds the Crown".