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:18418] 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 Thank you Madam Chairperson and it is an honour and a privilege to follow from the oratory of my colleague the Hon Tau Henare. I rise to speak to Part 4 of the Real Estate Agents Bill which relates to complaints and discipline. Really if one thinks about the Minister’s preambles about the so-called “carnage” in the industry and land sharks and cowboys then really this should be the most important part of this bill that we are debating in Committee this afternoon. I have to say that it is disappointing that the queries we have raised and the calls we have asked the Minister to take have been very serious sensible questions and the Minister in charge of this bill unfortunately has failed to answer any of them and doubtless will not be here to even listen to the discussion on the complaints and discipline provisions of this bill. 
I want to talk about the complaints assessment committees. Under the original bill as presented to the Justice and Electoral Committee there was to be one complaints assessment committee of three members. The complaints assessment committee was sort of replacing the regional disciplinary committees that were provided for under the 1976 Real Estate Agents Act. And I will just put on the record that section 101 of the 1976 Act basically stated: “a Regional Disciplinary Committee shall consist of— (a) a barrister or solicitor as its Chairperson: (b) Three members appointed by the Council from members of the Institute within the region for which the Committee is established: (c) One lay member (not being a real estate agent) appointed by the Minister.” Then it goes on to state: “Three members of a Regional Disciplinary Committee including its Chairperson shall constitute a quorum.” 
Now the difficulty that we have and I think some of the difficulties that have arisen with the complaints that have been made in this industry are because we do not have regional disciplinary committees approved by the Minister. I asked the Minister back in June last year who were the current lay members appointed by the Minister to each regional disciplinary committee—that is each disciplinary committee for the region. He said: “I am advised that there are currently no lay members appointed to the regional disciplinary committee pursuant to section 101.” The power of appointment resides in the Minister and for the last 10 years or so the Minister has totally failed to appoint lay members of the disciplinary committee and therefore have them properly constituted. It is no wonder there have been problems at that level in relation to the complaints. 
A Crown Solicitor’s letter addressed to the institute and dated December 2006 states: “The absence of the regional disciplinary committee has effectively left a significant lacuna in the disciplinary structure. Mid-range misconduct either had to be taken to the licensing board or the regional disciplinary subcommittee. In some cases the misconduct was deemed too serious to be dealt with by the regional disciplinary subcommittee but insufficiently serious to warrant an application for suspension or cancellation to the licensing board. This left the Real Estate Institute in a difficult and quite unsatisfactory position.” 
That “difficult and … unsatisfactory position” could easily have been fixed by the Minister merely appointing the lay members of the regional disciplinary committee pursuant to the powers contained in section 101 of the 1976 Act. We have to take with a grain of salt some of the criticism of the processes under the old Act which the Minister believes have failed. The failure is in some ways due mainly to the failure of the Minister to comply with the existing legislation. 
I really want to talk about the complaints assessment committee which is the lower level to where complaints are to be directed; it is the regional level. My colleague Mr Finlayson has already referred to the disciplinary tribunal which is for the higher level complaints. The complaints assessment committee is for the lower level of complaints. The original bill provided for one complaints assessment committee and that shows the Minister’s lack of knowledge and ignorance as to how the real estate industry operates. When we think about the nature of the complaints they are the smaller minor complaints. It might be complaints about a telephone call that was missed or not returned which meant that the person missed out on buying the property of his or her choice—it is those sorts of complaints anything up to misrepresentation rudeness or whatever. 
Some of those levels of complaint go to the complaints assessment committee. The select committee was concerned that if there was only one complaints assessment committee then there might be a logjam of complaints. The committee has made a recommendation but I have to say I am somewhat concerned because it will impose additional bureaucracy the costs of which will be imposed upon the consumer. The Real Estate Agents Authority appoints the complaints assessment committee and it appoints as many complaints assessment committees as in its opinion are required to deal effectively with complaints and allegations about licensees. 
The reason for the committees being appointed as required is that rather than being prescriptive and having a complaints assessment committee for each region it was dependent upon where the complaints were coming from. If there was a pattern then at least this gives the authority the power to enable it to form those complaints assessment committees. Each of those committees consists of three members. One of the members of each committee must be a member of the authority two must be appointed from the panel which I will come to in a minute and one appointee must be a lawyer of not less than 7 years’ legal experience. 
Then of course we had to have a panel of eligible complaints assessment committee members. The authority must maintain a panel of up to 20 persons who are suitable to serve as members of that complaints assessment committee. When assessing and considering their suitability the authority has regard to the person’s personal attributes and also his or her knowledge and experience of matters likely to come before the committee which include without limitation experience and knowledge of the law of the real estate industry and consumer affairs. So we have a panel of 20 persons who are eligible to be appointed to complaints assessment committees as required. The term of office is 5 years after which they resign from the panel. 
I have to ask the Minister what the difference is between this and the regional disciplinary committees under the 1976 Act. Surely when criticism of the real estate industry relates to two main aspects one of which is the regional disciplinary committees and the process when the regional disciplinary committees have not been approved by the Minister it would be a very simple exercise for the Minister just to have approved those regional disciplinary committees without having to go through all the paperwork involved in this major reformation of the industry. 
The other issue that was criticised and that the industry wanted reform on was the quantum of the fines. Again it would be a simple matter to amend the law just to increase the quantum of the fine from $750 to whatever is appropriate. There could be two small amendments rather than this major escapade of a sledgehammer to crack a nut that really has not been handled well. This legislation should have been easy; it should have been simple. The legislation was wanted by the industry and wanted by consumers but for reasons that have become apparent a meal has been made of it.