Worth Richard: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Worth Richard: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18382] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 At the moment we are dealing with Part 1 of the Real Estate Agents Bill which National opposes. I certainly support what the previous speaker Mr Roy said about the deficiencies of this particular part. I do not want to deal with the purpose provisions because they are now the subject of some amendment. But I would like to deal with what is clearly a gap in this legislation—a gap that others have recognised—relating to residential letting leasing and property management because if the bill were to be extended the extension would take place in this part in substantial measure. 
Members have heard the argument that residential letting leasing and property management should be brought within the coverage of the bill. That would not be very difficult. It could be done by removing the phrase “(other than a tenancy to which the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 applies):” from the definition of “transaction” in clause 4 and by amending the definition of “real estate agency work’’ or “agency work” in clause 4 to include something that might be expressed in this way: “does include the management of leases and tenancies on behalf of another person including the collection or receipt of rent money”. If those changes were made then that would be sufficient to deal with the issue that has been identified as a looming lacuna in this bill. 
Some would say that those changes might carry with them a need for substantial adjustment of the transitional period—and there has been a minor change to that transitional period—but I question that because I think only a very short transitional period would be needed to bring property management under the regime. Why do I say that? Because the current residential property managers’ code of practice and the current property management strands in the National Certificate in Real Estate for salespeople can be very easily adapted to suit this purpose. That was the issue Mr Finlayson was trying to get across to the Minister when he made those points in his second reading speech. I also think there is a strong case for commercial and industrial property management to be included in the legislation. It should not be simply limited to residential letting leasing and property management. 
I would like to pick up on another important point that Mr Finlayson made in the course of his comments on this part because he usefully drew our attention to a series of omissions that have been made with regard to clauses 9 10 12 and 13 in Part 1. These include an exemption for Landcorp Farming Ltd an exemption granted by the authority and some other provisions. What does remain? As Mr Finlayson identified what remains is clause 11. To the challenges that Mr Roy laid down to the Minister in the chair the Hon Clayton Cosgrove—which I hope he will respond to—I would just add that I invite him to look for a moment at clause 11. Clause 11 now states: “A person who is exempted by a regulation made under section 155(aa) may in accordance with that regulation carry out real estate agency work.” So there is a reference to later provisions contained in a later part that will be the subject of debate. But if we look at clause 155(aa) we see that in very broad terms it enables the Governor-General in the case of any person or class of persons to make an exemption. 
The challenge I am throwing down to the Minister is to briefly explain what the current exemptions are but more specifically to invite him to consider the work that has been done by the Regulations Review Committee relating to the use of exemptions. I ask why in this case it has been deemed to be appropriate to depart from the Legislation Advisory Committee recommendations and guidelines for exemptions of this type because I believe that the power to grant general exemptions to people or classes of people from the requirement to be licensed should be removed from the bill. If exemptions are to be made then they should be expressly provided for in primary legislation and clause 11 therefore should also be omitted. The Minister should comment on that. It is simply not appropriate to confer by way of delegated legislation a privilege on a person or a class of persons for no good reason. 
If the power to grant exemptions remains then surely the bill should be amended to require a clear code to be established for the circumstances in which exemptions should be granted. There should be an obligation to consult with affected parties certain factors should be laid down that can properly be considered consideration should be given to the effects of granting an exemption on persons who are licensed under the legislation and are not subject to the exemption reasons should be given for the granting of the exemption and of course it should be clearly recorded that the Minister who will in effect be promoting the regulation is satisfied that granting the exemption will give effect to the purposes of the bill. I ask why it is appropriate to depart from the clear guidelines laid down by the Legislation Advisory Committee in the way that has been done here. 
Those are the issues that I seek the Minister’s response to. He cannot sit there lamely not responding to the issues that Mr Roy and I have laid down by way of challenge.