Chauvel Charles: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Chauvel Charles: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18446] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to be able to speak in the third reading debate of legislation that provides for a long-overdue overhaul of the Real Estate Agents Act 1976. It delivers on the Government’s promise to bring accountability transparency and openness to the real estate sector and to establish an independent complaints system that really does protect consumers and supports honest real estate professionals who as the Minister has said time and time again and as we saw at the select committee constitute the vast majority of participants in this industry. It is correct and right that this bill should put an end to the industry’s self-regulation and introduce a range of consumer protection measures including compensation on a proper basis for consumers who have been ripped off. I was astounded to hear the previous speaker say that this legislation waters down existing protections. All one needs to do is read through the bill to see that in fact the protections are massively strengthened and that is great for consumers and for those honest hard-working real estate agents who form the backbone of the industry. 
The select committee process was robust and I was really pleased to participate in it as a Government member. I think the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee my colleague Lynne Pillay did a terrific job of making sure that people had dignified hearings and understood that they were being listened to with respect which is an important part of the process of Parliament interacting with the people. I am also interested in the reforms that are enacted in the Supplementary Order Paper and on reflection I think they are sensible. 
Rescinding the requirement to review the employment status of salespersons is appropriate but I do not think we should lose sight of the issue that alone in New Zealand employment law along perhaps with sharemilkers real estate agents have this odd statutory provision that entitles them to be regarded as employees whether or not all the other indicia and tests as to employment status exist. We heard evidence in the select committee that this leads to a race to the bottom in boom times. We are not in those times any more so it might be that we have a temporary reprieve from the problems that having a compulsory employment status lead to. Let us face it the reality is that should a review of the status of real estate agents be required at some point it can always be done at the behest of the Minister. It does not need legislation to require it. It is probably appropriate given the circumstances that we find ourselves in to rescind that requirement. 
I think also on reflection the decision to rescind the regulation of the conduct of auctions is probably the right way to go. The major evil that the original provisions were designed to deal with was the issue of dummy bidding not that that seemed to register with the Opposition ironically. But we did hear evidence that the real estate industry is taking significant steps to clean up its act in that area. I am very confident that through its consumer-education role the new Real Estate Agents Authority which the legislation will create will ensure that consumers are aware of the issues that may affect them if buying or selling real estate through auctions for example. Again we can be confident that there are measures in the legislation that will deal with the evil that it was intended originally to address by regulating auctions in the way that was intended. 
I think the decision to raise the experience criterion for a licensed agent or branch manager from 2 out of 10 years to 3 out of 10 years is the right way to go. Clearly we need to address the concern we heard in the committee that 2 years’ experience over the last 10 years is not sufficient. 
Finally on reflection the decision to formally require consultation with the Real Estate Institute of New Zealand over appointments to the authority and the disciplinary tribunal is appropriate to ensure that the transition between the current regulatory regime and the proposed one is smooth. As I said in my Committee stage speech that was probably going to be a requirement on the Minister anyway given the provisions of the Crown Entities Act to appoint appropriately qualified people. That would have required some sort of consultation process with industry anyway so we will probably end up with the same sort of result. 
I have already acknowledged the sterling efforts of the chair of the select committee. I mentioned the work of the officials in my second reading speech and I will not name them as the Minister refrained from doing but I do want to express gratitude to them on behalf of the committee for their hard work. I would also like to acknowledge the majority of agents who came before the committee and made responsible submissions. They showed us that they intend to muck in and work through the issues that they need to in their industry to make sure that there is proper public confidence in that industry. I wish them well in the tougher economic times that we are experiencing. 
I did want to comment on one other matter though. I refer to the praise that was heaped upon the Supplementary Order Paper moved earlier in the House by Peter Dunne and supported by the National Party. There is a regrettable trend in this House in my respectful view that persons who do not attend select committees none the less come into the House to speak move amendments and vote as if they are somehow greatly informed by the consultation process that we have been through. The reality is that the committee process exists for a reason and my money generally will go with the amendments that have stood the test of the select committee process rather than on a fly-by-night basis without having heard the evidence. I am afraid that Supplementary Order Paper clearly comes into that category. 
It is a matter of regret that the National Party has chosen to maintain what I regard as its pro forma opposition to this legislation—just opposing for the sake of opposing. But the public is wising up to the National Party as the Roy Morgan poll shows tonight with a gap closing from over 21 percent to just over 6 percent and over half the people saying the country is on the right track. That is because this is a Government that is in touch with what Kiwis want unlike the Opposition. The Opposition has only three approaches: copying the policies of this Government keeping secret what its policies are from ordinary Kiwis and just going through ritualistic opposition on bills like this one. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member knows it is not appropriate to mislead the House. There is no way that we are copying Labour Party policies because there are none on its website. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Brownlee. I was looking for a point of order but not that one. I thought you might think the member was being irrelevant. That being the case yours was not a point of order and the member will continue. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am worried about the member’s relevance but I did notice that one of the Ministers took time to release one of our policies tonight. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: OK Mr Brownlee. Thank you for that. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: I am sorry I have upset Mr Brownlee so much with the good poll news that the Labour Party is enjoying at the moment. 
All I would say in conclusion is that Kiwis are not fooled by the National Party’s approach and they will rightly welcome this legislation.