Dunne Peter: Real Estate Agents Bill — First Reading 
Dunne Peter: Real Estate Agents Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:644;Page:13826] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 There can be no argument that as service providers real estate agents ought to be accountable for their actions and for the service they provide. We will be supporting the reference of this bill to a select committee for one reason and one reason alone. In the debate that has unfolded over the last year the one organisation that has not in our view had a significant opportunity to put its case forward and to be examined and tested upon that case is the real estate industry. We think that an opportunity before a select committee for those issues to be teased out is the appropriate way forward because when we look at this bill we see that it takes us a long way from what we would regard as an acceptable regime for the regulation of the real estate industry. 
The Real Estate Agents Act dates back to 1976. It is outdated. It does need to be reformed but this bill goes way beyond that. This is not a reformation; this is a complete replacement. It is a revolution and it is an unnecessary revolution; the case has not been made for the measures that this bill contains. 
For example there is no doubt that there needs to be in place an adequately structured and resourced disciplinary regime for real estate agents. Under the existing legislation for 30 years there has been a provision for the appointment of regional disciplinary committees but none have ever been appointed. So the Minister has said that because no Government has ever implemented this Act the Act is not working and it should be replaced. Worse still the Government will veer away from what has been a long-established principle when it comes to industry regulations in New Zealand and that is the principle of industry self-regulation. We hold industries accountable for the activities of their members. The Law Society the Institute of Chartered Accountants and any other professional body has its own internal rules procedures and accountabilities. In this instance this bill effectively nationalises the real estate industry because it says “We do not trust you to regulate your affairs and the conduct of your members in a way that is appropriate. We will therefore put in place a statutory environment that you will not have control over but that will be independent”—and that is a double-edged word at the best of times—“so that we can ensure” allegedly “a standard of public performance.” 
The Minister said tonight that we should not worry as the taxpayer will not pay for this; the industry will pay for it. What that means is that the consumer will pay for it. People have spoken tonight Mr Brown and others about the young couple going out to buy their first home but I say that every time they buy a first home or shift up to another home they will be paying for the regime put in place by this bill. 
We have around 19000 or 20000 real estate agents in New Zealand. By my count the so-called bad eggs—and I am not going to use the language the Minister has because I do not think Ministers should use extravagant language to describe situations—or the non-performers would be by the most charitable of counts fewer than 100 and probably around 50 out of 19000. So here we are putting in place a regime to curb the excesses of the few by controlling the many. But we are going to go beyond that and say that we no longer trust the industry to regulate its affairs. We are going to impose statutory regulation on its affairs and the costs will be borne by the users. If we think about any other set of professions in this country and apply the same yardstick we know there would be uproar. It is totally unnecessary. 
As I said the only reason for supporting the introduction of this bill is to allow the real estate industry the opportunity to put its case before a select committee to be examined in public and to be able to answer some of the charges and allegations that have been made by innuendo in the main over the last 12 months. I say very clearly that if this bill emerges from the select committee looking as it is today then we will not be supporting it any further because it is simply a step too far. 
The good real estate agents that we have heard referred to tonight provide an immense community service for a large number of people. I know from my own electorate that a number of real estate agents are involved in local service clubs and their companies are involved in funding or supporting a myriad of local activities because they need to be part of their communities in order to provide a service to those communities. They need to know about schools community organisations and neighbourhood set-ups in order to advise clients and give them confidence when they are buying in a particular area. People want to know about the type of neighbourhood they are buying into and what facilities are available to them—how the system basically runs. So it is in the interests of real estate agents to be in tune with their communities. It is in their interests to provide a good service a professional service and an ethical service to the people they serve. 
I repeat that there will be bad eggs in all cases and there does need to be an effective disciplinary regime put in place. Everyone agrees with that point. But the way to do it is to update and modernise the existing legislation not to throw it out and impose a State-controlled bureaucracy in terms of the way in which this industry is to be regulated in future. I am not going to speculate upon the Minister’s reasons for what he is doing but I think they are grossly excessive. I do not think they are necessary I think they go way beyond the types of steps that need to be taken and unless the measures in the bill are radically reformed then it will not be worthy of further support. 
But I say to members of the real estate industry that over the years I think they have in many senses been their own worst enemy. I think they have been complacent in terms of the representation of their interests. I think they have believed that basically they could just drift along. They do need to put their case they do need to be heard and they do need to be tested. At the end of the day I am certain that the process will show that the best way of dealing with the issues that consumers politicians and I suspect the general public are concerned about—and good real estate agents in relation to the credibility of their industry—is through far less Draconian measures than are contained in this bill. If this bill proceeds in this form then it will do so without United Future’s support.