Wilkinson Kate: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Wilkinson Kate: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18425] 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak in relation to Part 5 of the Real Estate Agents Bill. This part deals with the duties relating to real estate agency work. I will refer to a few issues in relation to this but not on a clause by clause basis. The first is in relation to clauses 137 to 141 which I appreciate are being deleted pursuant to the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 243. I think it is important for the record to know what we are deleting. We are deleting the clauses providing for the bidders record for auctions the proof of identity for anybody who wants to bid the confidentiality of the bidders record and bids being taken only from registered bidders. This shows a huge ignorance of how auctions are conducted. It was so impractical and so unrealistic it was just not going to be workable. 
For example if one turned up to an auction and decided to bid for a property—bearing in mind that it is the auctioneer’s duty to get the best possible price—unless one had filled in the bidders record one would not have been able to bid for that property and the vendor might have missed out on the top price. But not only that bidders also had to fill in details identifying who they were and provide proof of identity which was limited to a driver’s licence a New Zealand passport an overseas passport or other proof of identity as prescribed by regulations whatever that might be. 
The Real Estate Agents Bill then stated that the person engaged to conduct the auction had to keep the bidders record for at least 3 years. Why on earth would one want to keep for 3 long years a bidders record of unsuccessful bidders who might have been interested in a section or house? At least in relation to this provision and these clauses some common sense has prevailed and those provisions will be deleted with our endorsement pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 243. 
But I come back to something I mentioned when I spoke about Part 1 the interpretation and definitions clause because it relates to clause 129 in Part 5 and that is the definition of residential property. I point out to the Minister that residential property has been defined twice. It seems that it has been replicated both in clause 125 and in clause 129 where it says exactly the same thing. We do not need both of those definitions so for the sake of saving a few words maybe one of those definitions—which are word for word the same—could be omitted without seriously affecting the integrity of this part. I see that the Minister in the chair the Hon David Parker is looking at the bill with some interest because he at least is a lawyer and does know the importance of having sensible readable legislation that has some sense of professionalism about it. 
I asked earlier for the then Minister in the chair the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to take a call on the definition of residential property. Residential property has been defined in the interpretation clause as “property used or intended to be used exclusively or principally for residential purposes.” It has been further defined and this is both in clause 125 and in clause 129 where it is replicated by excluding “property that—(a) has been developed with other properties in a continuous area; and (b) is proposed to be sold or otherwise disposed of by a vendor who also proposes to sell or otherwise dispose of or who has sold or otherwise disposed of some or all of those other properties.” 
During the select committee process submitters were concerned about this provision because the relevance of it is that a sole-agency agreement for residential property can be cancelled 90 days after it has been entered into. This provision deals with residential property such as for example subdivisions that may take longer to sell than the 90 days or staged developments that could take longer as well. It recognises that there are some types of property like those staged developments that may take longer than 90 days to sell and some that will be staged over several years. It recognises that exception to the cancellation of the sole-agency agreement but what it does not do is adequately define residential property so we do not know what property can or cannot be included in that sole-agency agreement that can be cancelled 90 days after it has been entered into. 
During the debate on Part 1 I gave the example of lifestyle property and asked whether the definition of residential property included lifestyle property. So far I think that question has been too difficult for the Minister to address but it is an important question because in relation to agency agreements as I said earlier many of the difficulties are that a person will sign up with a sole agent wanting to sell a property and may then want to choose another agent further down the track. After 90 days that person can cancel the first sole-agency agreement and enter into another with a separate real estate agent but if there is confusion as to the definition of residential property that person might end up having in effect two agency agreements neither of which is cancelled and may end up being responsible for paying double the commission. If the Minister thinks that is unlikely I can tell him that it is not. There have been several disputes that involve two agents or more claiming commission for one sale. One of them is entitled to the commission not both but it is a dispute and an action that vendor clients do not want hanging over them especially if it can be clarified by the Minister in the Committee stage before it is entrenched in legislation. 
I think that is an important point; I do not think it is filibustering. It might be too technical for the Minister who seems just to want to make personal comments about National members but it is a serious point that should be addressed by the Minister or perhaps he could get advice from his officials. It is irresponsible to pass legislation through this House that contains uncertainties especially as to such basic definitions as residential property. I seriously ask the Minister to address this point without being too emotive about it because it is a sensible point. 
I have had 28 years of conveyancing experience so I have read several agency agreements and I have had several conveyancing transactions and I have to say that the signing of agency agreements is one of the most fraught issues that vendor clients have. There is fine print in the agreement and people are often confused as to whether they have a sole-agency or a multi-agency agreement who works in with whom how to cancel that agreement and after the cancellation of the agreement whether the sale has been affected because of what that agent did and whether the agent is still entitled to the commission. A very important practical point from the point of view of selling one’s property is what the agency agreement entails and what the definition of “residential property” includes and excludes.