Tisch Lindsay: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Tisch Lindsay: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18390] 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 I congratulate the previous speaker Peter Dunne on the amendments he is bringing forward. I think they add value to the bill. I do not find the bill as it stands to be a negative one. It is a gut reaction to a concern in the market place. I think the deletions the member proposes add value. I cannot speak for National as to whether we will support them but certainly from my point of view— 
Eric Roy 
: Yes we will. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: We will be supporting them. The first amendment he mentioned affects paragraph (c)(i) of the definition “real estate agency work” in clause 4. It was the next one that really caught my attention and it affects subparagraph (v) dealing with “the provision of investment advice;”. I am sure there are a lot of experts out there in the market who say to people that if they purchase such-and-such a property they will get a rate of return guaranteed cash flows or whatever. If members have ever been to property seminars they will know that those sorts of things are very much to the fore. Unwilling people have been captured by too-good-to-be-true growth potentials and returns. I am sure that if this subparagraph is not taken out we will have a problem. The issue goes back to other bills the House has been debating over the months. I think the Financial Advisers Bill also encapsulates it. The point the member makes in terms of his amendment deleting that subparagraph certainly would add value. I did not catch what the fourth amendment was but the other one I did pick up on was to omit clause 8 “Exemption for licensed auctioneers”. I am sure that when we further debate these provisions Peter Dunne will have the support of National for his amendments. 
I want to go back to the genesis of this bill. It is interesting that although there has been some concern about the cowboys out there—people who have not operated in the professional way that one would expect—that situation is not unique to this industry. It happens in every occupational class. One can identify it happening right throughout other professions whether it be the medical profession the accountancy profession or the field I come from. I am a valuer by profession. [ 
Interruption 
] I did not quite catch the point of the Minister in the chair the Hon Clayton Cosgrove; would he like to repeat it or is he going to mention it when he responds to my questions? Even in the valuing profession which I was a member of for many years there has been a question mark over some of the practices that have been carried out. The situation is not unique to real estate agents. 
The industry has said that some people should not have been in it and they have disengaged after bringing the industry into disrepute. There is no place for those people in the industry. It does not matter where such people come from; they should be removed. When I look at the interpretation of “agent” in clause 4 I see that it “means a real estate agent who holds or is deemed to hold a current licence as an agent …”. Well so what? What does that actually mean in the market place? To my mind it gives absolutely no protection. If this bill is designed to protect people who are using an agent I have to say that it absolutely does not do that. 
One has to ask where the mischief is. What has actually gone wrong that makes this bill necessary in the format it is in? Where is the harm? That question was put back on 11 December 2007 when my colleague Simon Power spoke in the first reading debate. I will quote him specifically. It is in  
Hansard 
 Volume 644 at page 13817. He quotes people as asking “Where’s the evil?” “Where’s the harm?” and “What is it that this legislation is trying to address?”. Do members know what the Minister said at that time? I shall quote the Minister’s response in an interjection: “A listening Government.” Well if he is part of a listening Government—and that is what we read on page 13817—if the Minister is in tune with and is prepared to look closely at the issues that have been identified he would not be making comments about agents being “land sharks” and “B-grade goon shows”. That is what the Minister said. It is mentioned here. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Just the bad ones. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: Well a “B-grade goon show” is not a way to describe this sort of industry. If one wants to build goodwill with an industry one has to get alongside the people in it and work with them. The Minister says the Government is a listening Government; I say he is out of tune. He is out of step— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Tell the victims. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: The Minister talks about the victims. What about the “willing seller willing buyer’ concept? What about caveat emptor? What about somebody who is about to make an investment actually getting some independent advice whether from an accountant or a lawyer? A lot of the problems have happened because people take at face value what they are told and believe that it is kosher. They do not look behind the scenes. We have always advocated— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: So it’s their fault. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: No it is not their fault; it is just that they do not understand and they do not know. But the Minister cannot label land agents a “B-grade goon show”. That does absolutely nothing I say to the Minister for the reputation of this Government in trying to work out a programme going forward. 
The industry is looking for change. It has identified that. It is not averse to change. It is saying that it wants legislation of the time. It wants to make sure that in this new century it meets the demands of the market and safeguards its customers. The worst thing that can happen is that agents get a bad name and people do not use them or look elsewhere. At the end of the day most agents are on a commission. Their jobs are based on a commission. They have to build up goodwill because if they do not they are down the road. Possibly the one good thing about the commission system is that only the good agents survive. 
Gerry Brownlee talked about the excessive fees paid to agents. Well there is no harm—and I have done this in the past—in negotiating a deal in negotiating a flat rate. That is acceptable. If people are in a position to do that then moving to a flat-rate arrangement can work extremely well. 
In the final minutes of my speech I want to ask the Minister a question. He can respond after the lunch break. The interpretation clause talks about “real property”; does that term include mussel and oyster farms? I do not know the answer to that. I have asked about it because we are talking about property. But if we are talking about leases on mussel farms— 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: I’m wondering whether real estate agents are involved in selling mussel farms. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: Well we are talking about property are we not? I am talking about a lease which is tradable. People have an interest in it. There are mussel and oyster farms throughout my area. There are farms in the Firth of Thames the Coromandel the Marlborough Sounds and in Big Glory Bay on Stewart Island. There are a lot of such properties out there. 
Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: I put to the Minister a question specifically relating to clause 4 “Interpretation” about what was included in the term “land” the definition of which talks about “real property”. The question I asked—and I would be interested in a response from the Minister—is whether mussel farms and oyster farms are included— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: No. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: Well I would like a more specific answer than just “No.” When the Minister takes a call he might like to explain it to the Committee to me and also to Tariana Turia who was interested in the question I was asking. If those farms are not included in “real property” we want to know why. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Only land. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: The definition talks about “interests”. A mussel farm does not just float there; it is actually on something and I want a more specific answer than just “No.” 
My colleague the very learned lawyer Kate Wilkinson who has interests in the real estate world and understands the complexities of it and who in her time as a lawyer handled many real estate transactions has asked some specific questions that we would like the Minister to respond to. Again they relate to clause 4 “Interpretation” and specifically to the definitions of “agent” “residential property” and “transaction”. Specific questions were put to the Minister by Kate Wilkinson. I hope that over the luncheon break the Minister’s advisers were able to come forward with some very clear answers to those specific questions. They are not difficult questions. We want to know what those terms mean because they form part of legislation that will be voted on shortly. 
I end with those words finalising what I was saying prior to the luncheon adjournment. I look forward to the Minister’s response. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit subparagraph (i) of paragraph (c) of the definition of real estate agency work or agency work.