Dunne Peter: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Dunne Peter: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18399] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I draw to the Committee’s attention a string of amendments that I have moved to various clauses in Parts 2 3 and 6 of the Real Estate Agents Bill. The amendments are designed to achieve two principal objectives. There are amendments to clause 16(3) to clause 19(c) to insert new clause 34A and to omit clause 155(a) because of the provision in new clause 34A relating to industry training procedures. Those amendments are designed to ensure that the industry training organisation for the real estate sector is actually consistent with all other industry training organisations in the tertiary sector in terms of the way that it operates. 
One of the amendments for instance—that to clause 19(c)—proposes the radical suggestion that “The authority must consult with the industry training organisation for the real estate industry.” It is very hard to see how that will be opposed but I suspect the Government and the Minister in the chair the Hon Clayton Cosgrove who gave my original amendments not even cursory consideration because he is so committed to the future of this industry will find a way to oppose it. He will also find a way to oppose my amendment to clause 16(3) which omits the words “subsection (1)” and substitutes “this Act” because that is clearly subversive. Those amendments are in the best interests of making this unworkable legislation more workable than it could ever hope to be as it stands at the moment. I have also included amendments to three provisions in clause 34 relating to consumer protection. 
I would have thought the Minister and this Government would relish these amendments because—as we have heard right throughout this debate—this is a consumer protection bill. It just imposes more costs on consumers and it will not work but according to the Minister it is a consumer protection bill. So anything that is in the interests of consumer protection I would have expected this Minister who clearly knows all and understands all to be supportive of. I would have expected the Minister to embrace my amendment to clause 34(1)(c) which inserts the words “in the interests of the public”. That is what he says this bill is all about. 
I submit those amendments for the consideration of the House and I make the observation that the Minister who professes such concern about consumers is actually engaged in a political vendetta. I have heard the cases that he has cited as evidence. The trouble is that they are the same cases I have heard cited for the nearly 18 months that this bill has been on the drawing board. In my 24 years as a member of Parliament I have not had one case involving a real estate agent drawn to my attention. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Doesn’t that say something about you? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: The member says that says something about me. Well that is actually a wonderful summary of what this member actually believes that this legislation is all about. The issue— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: You’ve dished it out for the last 2 days so don’t get holier-than-thou. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: The Minister is indulging in all sorts of petty abuse when he should actually be indulging in making this bill workable. 
The Minister has presided over complete disruption: a regime that is unworkable and a bill that will have to be amended irrespective of whatever happens in this Committee because of the bull-at-a-gate way in which he has gone about it. If he wants to say to the homeowners of New Zealand that that is the standard he seeks that is well and good. If he wants to say to the real estate industry of New Zealand that he does not care what it thinks that is well and good. But let him be up front in the House and say those are his motivations not resort to crocodile tears about a few a handful of cases that have been drawn to his attention. Earlier on when this bill was around in its early stages I made a criticism of the Minister and I received one public response in support of him—one public response that supported his stand. 
There is a need to tidy up the legislation. I think we all accept that. But this bill does not do that. The amendments I am proposing will actually make an unworkable piece of legislation workable. If the Minister was serious in his intent he would adopt them but I bet that he will not.