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:18439] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I rise just before the dinner break to answer finally an issue on the commencement date. My learned friend Mr Charles Chauvel a lawyer of some eminence has pointed out to me that the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act which has been aptly quoted in the Committee as having a 2-year transition includes some 50 sets of regulations and rules that require ministerial and Cabinet approval etc. With this legislation there are 16 matters—not sets of regulations but matters—to be regulated and there are also practice rules to be put in place. 
I have been asked whether I am confident we can achieve the objective within 14 months. Yes I am. Why? Because it is core business of the Ministry of Justice. We are blessed with officials who have guided this process and have provided very very sound advice—despite the Opposition’s nay-saying. I am confident the objective will be met given that there are precedents for the setting up of these agencies. 
It is interesting to note in passing as we debate the title that there are a number of titles we could have given this bill. We could have called it the “Consumer Protection Bill” or we could have given it a name showing that the Labour-led Government was doing something that the National Government—by Mr Worth’s own admission—did not do even though throughout its 9 years in office the real estate folk had asked it to do something. It had other things to do so it did nothing about this issue. I may be doing Dr Worth a disservice; it was one of the National Party members who said that. So yes the Real Estate Institute came to this Government yes we have acted and no we have not acted I suspect in the way that certain people in the real estate leadership wanted us to. One learned lawyer in this place—I do not think he is here—advised me that they spent about a million dollars of their members’ money on hiring the most expensive lobbyists in New Zealand. I even saw a video that those lobbyists—who I am told also represent those eminent and morally upstanding party pill manufacturers—made on how to make a submission and 1300-plus people wrote submissions. 
We have got to a place now where we could quite rightly if we wanted to call this bill consumer protection legislation because it has been endorsed by Sue Chetwin of Consumer New Zealand and before her by David Russell who was pre-eminent in drawing a number of these issues to my attention and to the attention of others. We could call this bill a number of things. 
The Government started this process not 2 years ago. We took it from an idea to reality. Issues had been raised by people like Deb Leask and other victims and by the real estate folk who wanted the name of their profession restored. We put out a discussion document we met on several occasions with the Real Estate Institute we put a bill before the House and here we are. I believe that the extra 2 months—because of the legislative schedule there will be a delay of a couple of months; we are moving to an election—will allow a little more flexibility. 
To come back to the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act I think it is erroneous to compare this bill with that Act—and I suspect the lawyers on that side including Ms Wilkinson may have worked this out—because that Act is major legislation. This bill is basic consumer protection legislation. This is not rocket science. This is basic consumer protection legislation in which standards are set and monitoring is put in place. People who run amok can be hammered—I make no apology for it—victims can be compensated and the name of the profession can be restored. But I think it is a bit rich for members opposite to say we should make consumers wait 2 years when those members were approached by the Real Estate Institute time and time again when they were in Government and in 9 years did nothing. 
It is interesting that today throughout this lengthy debate not one member of the National Party or anyone else who opposes this bill has come up with one alternative proposal. I look forward to National announcing its real estate policy and telling us whether it would repeal this legislation. I look forward to that. Do those members have an alternative? Does the eminent lawyer Ms Wilkinson present an alternative to us? Oh no those members bleat on and bemoan the fact that this Government has got off its chuff and actually looked to protect consumers. I respect the fact that those members do not agree with the vehicle. That is fine. I respect the fact that they do not agree with a lot of the propositions although I still do not know why—apart from the fact that they keep levelling at me that I have a vendetta against real estate folk. Well I understand that to have a vendetta one has to have been wronged I think—the eminent lawyers to my right will tell me. Normally with a vendetta—if one wants revenge—one has to have been wronged. Well I have been involved in real estate transactions and I have had no problem at all with any of the real estate folk I have dealt with. There is no vendetta.