King Colin: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
King Colin: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18420] 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 In speaking to Part 4 of the Real Estate Agents Bill I draw the Committee’s attention to the issue raised in the National Party’s minority report that we have certainly got ourselves into a fair-old state around a bureaucracy structure. The interpretation of the various parts talks about complaints assessment committees and the Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal. After I had conversations with various real estate agents about industry training—and I had a short excursion into that particular industry—I saw that this aspect of it really did need to be tidied up but not with such a massive bureaucracy. 
If we look at some of the fines that have been attributed to the committees to determine we see that they have been stretched out to appropriate levels in a 21st century legislative structure. The fine is not to exceed $10000 for an individual and $20000 for a company. Clause 107 talks about what the disciplinary tribunal can do. Subclause (2)(f) states: “an order that a licensee who is an individual pay a fine not exceeding $15000 …” and for a company it is $30000. The clause covers the level of compensation that can be sought and a specified order cannot exceed $100000. When we stop and think about those sums of money we see that they certainly are a major deterrent in themselves. 
However it leads me to question the Minister as to whether we needed such a massive bureaucracy to achieve it. When making that comment I am raising the issue of the cost of supporting such a structure. We see that there will be a self-funding model. There will be a contribution from the membership—a general fee from the real estate sector. There will be an operating levy and there will also be a disciplinary levy. We certainly hope that we do not see an explosion of costs when we consider that the authority has the ability to appoint and maintain a panel of 20 people to be able to provide what it decides to be an appropriate level of engagement over issues. I would like the Minister to help me understand how he will be absolutely sure that that provision is meeting the intent of the Act. 
I would like to take the Committee’s attention back to clause 92 which talks about the members of the committees not being personally liable. We can appreciate that there needs to be some protection for members on a committee. The track that this process takes us down goes right through to the Court of Appeal. When that occurs anybody’s head can roll. Although we recognise the need to have some level of support and protection for the members of the committees I would like the Minister’s view on clause 92(2): “Subsection (1) does not apply if the person acts in bad faith.” There is an assumption that a person may act in bad faith; however we have not dealt with issues around conflicts of interest. We would expect those to be handled in a way that did not actually bring about vexatious and frivolous claims. I think clause 92 is just a little too robust in its protection of people who are not behaving in the best interests of the situation and not being transparent. Clause 92(1)(a) states: “any act done or omitted to be done in the course of performing or exercising any of that person’s functions duties or powers under this Act or done or omitted to be done …”.