King Colin: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
King Colin: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18412] 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I am addressing Part 3 and I would like to pick up on a theme I was discussing in relation to Part 2. Part 3 “Licensing” deals with how to become licensed and again we see that it is done by the registrar as appointed by the authority. I see a very strong similarity here to the potential relationship that existed between the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board and the industry training organisation. When we look at the terms and reasons in respect of a person becoming licensed we find that it goes beyond a lot of what has been normal and into areas where the authority has the ability to cancel licences as one would justifiably understand it could. But when we actually look at it we see clause 53 states that the registrar must cancel a person’s licence and remove that person’s name from the register for various reasons and paragraph (c) states: “if the person has failed to maintain the prescribed qualifications;”. 
That in itself may not mean a heck of a lot but when we look at the relationship that can exist between an authority and an industry training organisation we find that there can be quite a conflict of relationships as was the case as I said earlier between the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board and the plumbers and gasfitters industry training organisation. That was borne out in Hazel Armstrong’s report which stated that there were strong personalities and in that case they were between the registrar and the chief executive officer of the industry training organisation; it just did not work. 
The question I raise is whether a shelf life is now being put on to the real estate agent qualification. It is understood that after 3 to 5 years real estate agents will need to resit to keep those qualifications whereas in the past there was an understanding that once people gained those qualifications they did what was reasonable around the variations of the industry at the time and as long as they were not bankrupt or were not facing criminal charges they were able to keep their licences. The basis on which that qualification kept rolling on was to do with recognising prior learning and current competencies. 
When I look at Part 3 I see that there will need to be continual conversation between the authority especially the registrar and the industry training organisation with regard to the construction of those qualifications. It could get quite personal and it could get very bitter especially if the relationship breaks down and in the end the Minister would have to step in as Dr Cullen did with the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board and sack them. That in itself creates its own reverberations around the industry and it does not do anything to instil confidence. We can see that there is a lot of good within the proposed framework. 
Again I come back to the other point. Are there conversations with Australia and developments along Australian lines so that we are developing similar standards so that these standards are compatible with New Zealand and so that we do not allow a standards issue to develop within the qualifications and start a division that could set the licensing authority up against the industry training organisation? That is the one point I think we really need to be very mindful of. 
The second point of course concerns the definition of a salesperson and how he or she must be supervised. That in itself I think opens a can of worms around litigation and confusion as will the aspect of the independent contractor versus “services of” and “services for”. The Minister has wisely taken the step to take away clause 50 and we certainly see that as being a positive move.