Cosgrove Clayton: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Cosgrove Clayton: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18431] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I will take a very short call to answer quickly a couple of questions members have raised. 
I think Mr Roy and Mr Finlayson and latterly Mr Hayes had a question around clause 119. They asked what would happen if the two parties do not want the money to be held for the 10-day period. Well clause 119(2) makes it clear that the parties can sign an authority requiring the agent to pay the money before the 10-day expiry if there is mutual agreement. It is quite simple quite logical. I do not think many people would disagree with it. 
There were two other points. Mr Hayes lambasted my colleague Lynne Pillay in respect of the Justice and Electoral Committee and said that people who had come from Masterton had had only 5 minutes before the committee. Mr Hayes has been on select committees for a few years now and should know what happens—and I think Mr Finlayson who was a member of the select committee quite rightly made reference to this matter. I am advised that as there were a large number of submissions the members of the committee agreed that where submitters were going to make exactly the same point over and over again they would be taken as a group. That is not unprecedented in the life of this Parliament or of other Parliaments and it even occurred under a National regime some years ago. 
Similarly having chaired a select committee myself I agree—and I think most other members would agree—with the observation made by Mr Finlayson that where a committee receives hundreds of xeroxed submissions with different people’s names on them but saying exactly the same thing—either that one supports a proposition or that one is agin it—then hearing all those submitters is possibly not the most effective way to deal with the political process. Those submissions are noted of course but they are treated in a similar vein to a petition which is very valuable but serves a different purpose in a different process. I think that where submitters come in simply to make a point that is going to be made over and over again they should be grouped in order for the parliamentary process to be used in an efficient way. Maybe Opposition members of the committee would not say so publicly but I suspect some of them appreciated Ms Pillay’s management of the situation. 
The final point I want to make is that Mr Hayes waxed lyrical about the fact that he is in a professional relationship when he is doing a deal with a real estate agent and does not need any protection at all. 
Hon David Parker 
: Waxed dissonant. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: He waxed dissonant says my legal colleague—I was going to say my learned friend but he is a lawyer and I am not—about the fact that he was in a professional relationship with a real estate agent over a property he did not need any protection and all would go well. Other members have asked about caveat emptor; what about buyer beware? To heck with it if something goes wrong and to hell with the fact that some people in our society through no fault of their own do not have the legal qualifications or the professional skill to deal with these commercial arrangements; the market will sort it out. The market will sort it out Mr Hayes said. 
John Hayes 
: If the market can’t the nanny State will. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I would just make this final observation to Mr Hayes. He railed against our having any protection for the poor folk who may actually be done over—and there are many examples of that happening. I bet that Mr Hayes would have a completely different attitude if he were on the receiving end if he were being done over by an unethical person. I bet that Mr Hayes would stroll—I was going to say sprint—into the House and demand protection for consumers. 
If he does not demand protection for consumers what does he say to his constituents who come to him with exactly the same proposition saying that they did not think they needed any protection because they felt confident that all would go well? They will ask Mr Hayes as their local MP to help them because they have been dealt to and Mr Hayes will turn round and say: “Oh it is nanny State to provide any protections for you lot—my constituents in Wairarapa. Ii is nanny State. Go and fix it yourselves. It is your fault; you messed up.” I wonder what his constituents would then say to him or whether he could look them in the eye. 
It is a sort of global cliché to say that having any protection for consumers amounts to having a nanny State. Well if that is the case we would not need a legal system would we I say to Mr Hayes. We would not need a legal system or a court system to protect people. We would not need a small claims tribunal where people can take small issues—under a monetary limit—to have them sorted out because that would be nanny State would it not? I look forward to hearing what happens when Mr Hayes fronts up to his constituents. Well he will be protected now because we will have brought in this legislation but I look forward to his telling us what he would do if he were in that situation. Even with his great academic prowess his diplomatic career and his experience there is still a possibility that somebody in a professional relationship with him might act inappropriately. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 243 in the name of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to Part 5 be agreed to.