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:18401] 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 I put on the record that National will be supporting the amendments of Mr Dunne because they are sensible. We want good consumer protection legislation but this is not it. I rise to take a call in relation to Part 2 which relates to the Real Estate Agents Authority but I would like to just mention a couple of things that the Minister in the chair the Hon Clayton Cosgrove has said. First of all he said I did not like the appointment of Murray Giera on the board. The Minister might like to recollect that actually I was approached by the Christchurch real estate agents wondering what the delay was in making the ministerial appointment on the board in the first place. It was not until my office contacted the Minister’s office that that board appointment was actually made. So I think it is a little trite of the Minister to suggest that I did not like it. 
Then he challenged the National members to come up with one case—just one case. Well I will come up with two and if he cares to read them rather than just quoting some populist bylines he might know more about the industry and might learn more about the industry. Those cases were Sime and Lethbridge in 2002—both High Court cases. In both those cases the High Court noted that the alleged misconduct was insufficiently serious to meet the high statutory criteria for suspension and cancellation and would have been more properly dealt with by the regional disciplinary committee if it had been operating. 
One can ask why we do not have a regional disciplinary committee. The reason is that the Government did not appoint one. It was its responsibility but it did not appoint one. In fact I see that it has not appointed one for 10 years. So the delay that has been referred to by the Minister is a delay of his own making and not a delay by the Real Estate Institute. 
The answer was “because they had other priorities”. In fact 4 years ago—even then 4 years ago—Dr Worth asked the question: “Is it correct that there is a review of the Real Estate Agents Act 1976 in progress and if so what is the status of that review?”. That was 4 years ago. The response was: “The review was suspended at the start of the 2004/2005 financial year due to other legislative and policy priorities.” So any question of delay is certainly not due to the Real Estate Institute of New Zealand. It is due to the Minister’s own department. 
In fact we talk about the fees fines and small quantum of fines that are provided for under the old Real Estate Agents Act. I will come to that issue later but I have corroboration that there were 4 approaches—officially—in the last 10 years when the respective Minister responsible had been approached to increase those fines. So any suggestion of delays on behalf of the Real Estate Institute is frankly quite fatuous. 
Turning to the Real Estate Agents Authority that is to be established as a Crown entity under Part 2 of the Real Estate Agents Bill I say that we support measures to have good consumer protection legislation. But this is not it. As Mr Dunne has rightly said if the Minister in the chair had bothered to set up regional disciplinary committees and had bothered to increase the fines we would have had some workable legislation but instead he has taken a huge sledgehammer to what is just a nut. 
The authority’s functions are set out in clause 16 and it is really rather interesting because throughout the bill it talks about a registrar. This shows the incompetence of the Minister in the chair to be honest because throughout the bill it talks about the registrar but it had no provision whatsoever as to who that registrar was and how that registrar was to be appointed. That had to be amended at the Justice and Electorate Committee. 
I would like the Minister in the chair to seek the call. He did not seek the call in relation to my queries on Part 1 as to what exactly real estate agency work was what the definition of residential property was—whether it did or did not include lifestyle properties—and what the definition of transaction was so I would imagine that he will not seek a call on this question either which is in relation to the membership of the authority. As has already been pointed out by my colleague the Hon David Carter the authority is to have a membership of no more than seven members. Members will recall that in the original draft of the bill there was going to be no industry representation on this authority whatsoever. Nobody with any knowledge whatsoever of the real estate business was going to be a member of this authority and when we think of what the authority’s function will be which is to administer the whole regime for the agents we see it as totally negligent to have even thought about having an authority appointed by the Minister with no industry representation. Admittedly there now is industry representation and the Minister must appoint at least two members who are licensees or former licensees. So at least now there will be some industry representation on that authority. 
I would like to ask the Minister what he means in his Supplementary Order Paper when he is amending clause 17 to say that the Minister must consult with the Real Estate Institute when making the first appointment of licensees or former licensees. Why just the first appointment? I would like the Minister in the chair to answer that. Why just the first one? Surely the consultation should also apply to the second appointment and the third and subsequent ones. Why just the first appointment? That question may be too difficult for the Minister in the chair but we still hope that perhaps he will take this matter seriously. 
The other issue I would like to raise is in relation to the practice rules. Clause 20 in Part 2 states: “Practice rules are made by the Authority with the approval of the Minister . . . ”. If it is anything like the code of ethics and conduct under the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act I suspect there will be considerable delays in the Minister approving even those. Under the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act it took over 6 months for the code to come off the Minister’s desk with some sort of approval. If that is the sort of expeditious treatment that this Minister will seriously give the real estate industry then I suggest that perhaps he should take another look at it. 
Clause 24 also relates to the prescription of fees that the authority can impose. There are fees payable from time to time. There is then an operational levy to fund the costs of the authority and a disciplinary levy. That is three different types of fees. The question that has to be asked is what sort of quantum of levy and fee the Minister envisages because with the bureaucracy he has built into this real estate agent regime which is similar to what he built into the housing and building regime we might expect a somewhat hefty operational levy disciplinary levy and fee. As we know those fees will be handed down and passed on to the consumer. At the end of the day it will be the consumer not the industry who will be paying for this legislation. If this bill is being enacted for the protection of the consumer—to give the consumer confidence in the real estate industry to promote public confidence in the performance of real estate work and to protect the interests of consumers—then it seems to me that one of the striking things this legislation will do is increase the costs to that consumer. I wonder whether it is the consumer the Minister has in mind or whether it is just more political posturing.