edithatogo/nz-hansard-corpus huggingface dataset:
Simich Clem: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Simich Clem: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18437] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The question is that schedule 1 stand part. Those who are of that opinion please say— 
Kate Wilkinson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I would like a call on schedule 1 if that is possible. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No that will not possible—nor on schedule 2—but you may have a call on clauses 1 and 2.
Vote: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18437] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 6 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand National 47; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Part 6 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18436] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 53 
New Zealand National 47; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 243 in the name of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to Part 6 be agreed to.
Vote: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18437] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand National 47; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Amendments agreed to.
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:18436] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I rise to make one point and it concerns the point Ms Wilkinson made about residential property. She will know that clause 4 states: “ ‘residential property’ means any property used or intended to be used exclusively or principally for residential purposes”. Of course it depends on the principal use. In case she is thinking of concocting some fear amongst the owners of lifestyle blocks in my wonderful electorate of Waimakariri I just say that the only impact of whether their properties are deemed to be commercial or residential is that if they are commercial the agent of which those people are a client does not have to provide them with a guide as to their rights and responsibilities and bits and pieces and the maximum 90-day provision does not apply. Just in case Ms Wilkinson is thinking of banging out a press statement and frightening all the lifestyle blockers in Swannanoa where she lives and in other places I say to her that there is no material effect on them at all. If their property is deemed to be commercial they are dealt with in the same way effectively that they are dealt with now. If their properties are deemed to be residential then they sign up for 90 days and they are protected because they have the option of pulling the pin on the sole-agency agreement. Also the agent must provide them with a guide in respect of their rights and responsibilities. 
Just in case any scaremongering was about to happen—as the member is wont to do from time to time in my patch—those comments should allay her fears. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne to clause 155 be agreed to: 
to omit clause 155(a).
Vote: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18433] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 5 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand National 47; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Part 5 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18432] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand National 47; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Amendments agreed to.
Pillay Lynne: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Pillay Lynne: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18428] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 What an appalling speech from the previous speaker. I will take a very short call on this part. Opposition to it comes from the party that is not a party of compulsion. What are we seeking to do with this regulation? We are seeking to have some transparency some clarity and what is wrong with that? But again from the party opposite anything that puts any duty for any clarity for consumers is seen as over-regulation. As I have said before to treat protection for consumers so flippantly in relation to the most important and biggest purchase they will ever make in their lives is just downright appalling. 
There were many submissions on the bill and the Justice and Electoral Committee did a lot of work on it. Kate Wilkinson contributed quite a bit of common sense to the bill but at the end of the day National members see some political gain in opposing it. What is so terrible about a provision whereby parties want the money held for 10 working days? This is about accountability in the system but I expect nothing more from members opposite who are members of a party that in no way believes in compulsion of any kind. They just leave it to the free market.
Vote: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18425] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 4 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand National 47; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Part 4 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18424] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand National 47; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Amendments agreed to.
Pillay Lynne: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Pillay Lynne: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18424] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Nathan Guy 
: Party vote. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I am sorry; I said “All those that are of that opinion say ‘no’. ” I heard nothing and then declared the result. I am sorry.
Guy Nathan: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Guy Nathan: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18424] 
NATHAN GUY (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I was having a glass of water at that point in time then I put my glass down. I ask the Committee that we recast the vote because it is vitally important that National votes against this legislation. I raise it as a point of order that you please recast that vote. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: This is a procedural motion. You will have a chance to vote against the legislation. I am sorry. If every time I had to do a procedural motion I had to watch whether people were drinking—I know it sounds very unfair but I took the procedural motion and I cast the procedural motion. [ 
Interruption 
] To the member who makes these comments I would rather you take a point of order than constantly chip from the side. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 243 in the name of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to Part 4 be agreed to.
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:18417] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I want to make a couple of brief comments on Part 4—in particular on the Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal. I would like to address two issues. 
One relates to the composition of the tribunal. The Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 243 would add to clause 97 a requirement that there be consultation with the Real Estate Institute of New Zealand when making the first appointment of a licensee. That is a useful provision I think on reflection. It probably only restates the requirements of the Crown entities legislation which would apply in any event to the tribunal—that the Minister should appoint only properly qualified people to the tribunal. Clearly in order to determine who was properly qualified the Minister would have to go through some sort of consultation exercise and it is likely that one of the bodies with which he would consult would be the Real Estate Institute. I think it is a useful restatement in effect of an existing requirement on the Minister and it is to be welcomed. 
The other point that I want to make briefly is to deal with the suggestion that somehow the legislation allows insufficient time to set up the various bodies that are required under it. The analogy that has been drawn time and time again by ill-informed members of the Opposition is with the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill. Well what members who cite that legislation clearly do not know or have not bothered to check is that about 50 or 60 sets of different regulations and rules were required to be promulgated under that legislation in order to bring it into force. It was a very different exercise from and of a very different order of magnitude to this legislation which has got a much simpler set of bodies that are required to function under it. The time allowed for those bodies to be brought into being is ample in my submission.
Vote: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18415] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 47; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to.
Hobbs Marian: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Hobbs Marian: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18416] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: The debate includes schedule 1.
Vote: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18415] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand National 47; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the remaining amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 243 in the name of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to Part 3 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to.
Vote: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18414] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand National 47; ACT New Zealand 2; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 243 in the name of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to clause 34 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Peter Dunne’s amendment to clause 34(1)(e) is ruled out of order as it is now inconsistent with a previous decision. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne to clause 34 be agreed to: 
to insert in paragraph (c) of subclause (2) “in the interests of the public” before “is a fit”.
Vote: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18415] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand National 47; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
34AThe Industry Training Organisation for the real estate industry shall prescribe the qualifications necessary before a person is entitled to be licensed as an agent branch manager or salesperson.
Vote: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18414] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 47; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne to clause 34 be agreed to: 
to insert in paragraph (c) of subclause (1) “in the interests of the public” before “is a fit”.
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:18414] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Dean Jacqui: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Dean Jacqui: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18412] 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) 
: 
 The real estate industry is already reeling from the description of it given by Minister Clayton Cosgrove. He described real estate agents as land sharks and cowboys. The real estate industry knows that it does not have the confidence of the Minister because he has told it so. The real estate industry has a view of the Minister because of that position and the grandstanding of that Minister on real estate agents and their profession. Now the Minister brings to the House a bill called the Real Estate Agents Bill which we oppose. The bill intends to provide good consumer protection but it contains some glaring omissions. I raised one omission during the debate on Part 2 and that was the exclusion of property managers from the regime which of course creates inequalities. Minister Cosgrove’s response to that was I suppose typical of him. He indicated that he would conduct a review. When? We do not know. How? We do not know. Who will be conducting that review? We do not know. 
That brings me to another part of Part 3. Part 3 is to do with licensing and how to become licensed. There are a number of clauses dealing with how to become licensed the provisions relating to licences the effect of licences the status of licensees and the renewal cancellation suspension and surrender of licences and so on. The person who considers the granting of licences to become a real estate agent is of course the registrar. The person who appoints the registrar who grants licences is somebody who has been appointed by the Minister. Given the recent occurrences against all the conventions of this Parliament in the appointment to boards— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I just wonder whether I can stop this. I have been upstairs and I have been in this Chamber and that issue really was addressed in Part 1. We are here talking about licensing. You are trying—as did the first speaker on this part—to link it back to two steps back. I think that is really pushing the definition of what is talked about in Part 3. Thank you. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: I think it is important to the real estate agent who is coming under the regime of becoming licensed that he or she has confidence in the person or body that is granting that licence. That is why I raised that issue in the context of the debate on Part 3. We are talking about people’s livelihoods here. We are talking in the debate on Part 3 of this bill which concerns licensing about people’s professions. There are real estate agents in New Zealand who take the profession of real estate agent for a number of years of their working lives. There are real estate agents who are in the job in the long term for maybe 20 years. They enjoy the role and they are good at the profession.
Vote: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18408] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 47; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18408] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand National 47; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 243 in the name of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to Part 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to.
Vote: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18407] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand National 47; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne to clause 19 be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (c) and substitute the following paragraph: 
(c)The Authority must consult with the industry training organisation for the real estate industry.
Vote: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18407] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 47; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne to clause 16 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (3) “subsection (1)” and substitute “this Act”.
Cullen Michael: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Cullen Michael: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18407] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
.
Vote: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18394] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 47; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.
Vote: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18394] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 47; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendments agreed to.
Vote: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18393] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand National 47; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause.
Vote: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18393] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand National 47; ACT New Zealand 2; United Future 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 243 in the name of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to Part 1 be agreed to.
Vote: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18393] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand National 47; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to insert in paragraph (a) of the definition of transaction “grant” before “sale”.
Vote: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18393] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 52 
New Zealand National 47; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 68 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit subparagraph (v) of paragraph (c) of the definition of real estate agency work or agency work.
Dunne Peter: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Dunne Peter: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18389] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I will take a brief call to give notice to the Committee of four amendments that I will be moving to various clauses in Part 1 of the Real Estate Agents Bill. There are three amendments to clause 4 and I just want to draw the attention of the Committee to those. The first amendment relates to clause 4(c)(i). The proposal is to omit that wording because what that definition does is define the scope of activities of real estate agency work or agency work. The amendment effectively says that the removal of a prohibition on the provision of general advice or materials to assist owners to locate and negotiate with potential buyers is actually logical. If we say that that activity by agents is excluded from the definition then in fact one of the major areas of concern that people might have is also being excluded. 
My second amendment relates to clause 4(c)(v) and that is to remove the reference to the provision of investment advice. At the moment we have this rather strange situation where real estate agents providing what might be described as investment advice to clients is permissible. That is permissible under this bill because it is deemed not to be a definition of real estate agency work or agency work. It seems that that is actually a major omission. It may well owe something to the rather negative way in which this particular clause has been drafted. 
The next amendment is a more technical one to the definition of a transaction being “the sale purchase or other disposal or acquisition of a freehold estate or interest in land:”. I am proposing to add the word “grant” because otherwise we do not have any capacity to deal with the issue of letting and leasing. An amendment along those lines would bring in the scope that the legislation intends. 
My final amendment to this part relates to clause 8. I simply propose the deletion of clause 8 for a very simply reason. Clause 8 as it stands introduces an exemption for licensed auctioneers. In fact in the bill as it stands auctioneering generally is excluded yet it is a major part of the real estate industry and the amendment would bring the auctioneering side of the business into the scope of coverage of the legislation. 
I have some other amendments to subsequent parts of the bill and will deal with those as we come to them. But I would ask the Committee to give consideration to those matters. I do not think they are in the main contentious. I think they are designed to make this legislation work as intended and laying aside one’s opposition to the principal Act it is always a responsibility of the House to make sure we get the best legislation in place. I simply ask the Committee to give consideration to those amendments.
Vote: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Vote: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18376] 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Real Estate Agents Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 47; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Bill read a second time.
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Meetings 
Cullen Michael: Business of Select Committees — Meetings 
[Volume:649;Page:18361] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave that notwithstanding Standing Order 195(1)(c)—and this is pursuant to a unanimous agreement of the Privileges Committee this morning—the Privileges Committee have the power to meet on the evening of Wednesday 10 September. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member has sought leave. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none. Leave is granted.
Business of Select Committees — Meetings 
Business of Select Committees — Meetings 
[Volume:649;Page:18361] 
Business of Select Committees 
Meetings 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave that notwithstanding Standing Order 195(1)(c)—and this is pursuant to a unanimous agreement of the Privileges Committee this morning—the Privileges Committee have the power to meet on the evening of Wednesday 10 September. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member has sought leave. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none. Leave is granted.
Henare Tau: Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Henare Tau: Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:18355] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 Can members remember going to the dentist when they were kids? You know they had those horrible dental nurses in schools— 
Hon Members 
: Oh! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Well not dental nurses but dental clinics—sorry. And we used to have the feeling that we could either do things the easy way or the hard way. Well we can do this bill the easy way or do it the hard way. 
There was a question by my colleague Chris Finlayson about how the ex gratia payment of $6 million impacts on the ratchet clauses in the Ngai Tahu and Tainui settlements. I am sure the brother-in-law has the calculator out right at this moment. But it is an interesting question that I think the Minister in the chair the Hon Mita Ririnui might want to explore if he wants to go down the easy track. He might wish to focus his mind on that issue as we move on this settlement—and I congratulate the Government on moving at pace on other settlements and agreements in principle and signing deeds of settlement in the rush before the election. But the question remains of how now that the quantum has increased that has affected the total dare I say fiscal envelope or multi-year appropriations and how it affects the ratchet clauses in the Ngai Tahu and Tainui settlements. 
So that is the easy way. The hard way is that we draw this process out a wee bit. And I would not want to do that. I am not known in this House to be a filibuster— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Spell it! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: P-h … That is a serious question and I hope the Minister can give us a steer. I am not expecting him to give us a policy statement on the quantum or on the Ngai Tahu and Tainui ratchet clauses but I ask him whether there has been any thought on how it impacts on any other settlements and on the ratchet clauses in both those two settlements.
Paraone Pita: Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Paraone Pita: Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:18354] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Chairperson. I think it would be very remiss of any member of New Zealand First currently in the Chamber not to speak to this part of the bill and in particular to the clause where references are made to the Treaty of Waitangi and more important—as quoted in the bill—to its principles. I do not need to reiterate what our concern is but in terms of reading the actual clause itself one can easily suggest that it is implied that previous clauses actually outline the principles. I do not believe that that is the case; I certainly went through the previous clauses and they do not outline the principles. I will quote from clause 8: “The Crown profoundly regrets its breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles as detailed above and seeks to atone for those breaches.” Again I take the opportunity of inviting the Minister in the chair to articulate what those principles are. However having said that we know that we are required to make some reference to them because they are actually included in the apology. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: Well there’s no bill if you don’t do it. 
PITA PARAONE 
: Well that is the argument but it is not beyond the ability of this Parliament to rectify that concern anyway. That member perhaps perceives herself as becoming the new Minister—I do not know; I will not go down that line. My apologies Madam Chairperson for digressing but I just wanted to point that out and to be consistent with the contributions that New Zealand First makes in regard to these bills. 
I also agree with the previous speaker; we do not have any concern about the Supplementary Order Paper and the suggested amendments submitted by the Minister. In fact we believe that the amendments actually give clarity to clause 82. I will also take the opportunity to make reference to the definitions in clause 11 “Meaning of Te Roroa”. As it reads “(1) Te Roroa—(a) means the collective group composed of—(i) individuals descended from 1 or more Te Roroa tupuna; and (ii) individuals who are members of the groups referred to in paragraph (c)(i);” which are “Te Roroa Ngati Kawa Ngati Whiu and Te Kuihi;”. 
I refer to this clause and do so because of the allegations made by One New Zealand about my right to participate in this debate. One of the original claimants on behalf of Te Roroa is a first cousin to my father; his mother and my grandmother are two sisters. So in view of the Maori perception of genealogy and relationships that provision makes me a link by whakapapa to Te Roroa but I am not a beneficiary in terms of this definition of who Te Roroa claimants are. I just want to clarify that point. Suffice it to say New Zealand First has no difficulties in terms of Part 1 of the bill.
Finlayson Christopher: Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:18354] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I will just take a call to talk very very briefly about the Supplementary Order Paper that seeks to amend a couple of clauses. We totally agree with it. Clause 14 of course has to be amended in that way because there is a new way of recording settlements in the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 and we have no problem with that. We also have no problem with the amendment that inserts new clauses 82A 82B and 82C after clause 82. It simply inserts additional clauses relating to the alteration of place names and the clauses follow the model of the Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill. So that is all good technical and sensible. 
I just have two questions for the Minister in the chair the Hon Mita Ririnui and I would be most grateful if he would answer them. Then I think we could just move through the remaining time in the Committee stage very quickly. The first issue relates to the deferred selection properties. Can the Minister give the Committee an indication of the date at which the properties are to be valued? Will it be December 2005 or some other date? I have a concern about that issue because of the delay in dealing with this matter and the possible increase in land values that has happened over the last couple of years. So if the Minister could deal with that it would solve a bit of a problem I have. 
In relation to the second issue I am grateful to the Minister for his confirmation to me of the way in which the settlement is to be implemented but I ask whether he could perhaps explain to the Committee what the impacts are on the Tainui and Ngai Tahu ratchet clauses where the Crown provides settlement redress outside the Treaty settlement process. Is it accounted for in triggering those ratchet clauses? I am not quite sure about that. So if the Minister could provide some answers to those questions—very simple questions—I am sure we could move on very quickly and get through the Committee stage. We must get this legislation signed into law.
Finlayson Christopher: Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Finlayson Christopher: Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:18352] 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I endorse everything my friend Mrs te Heuheu said and I believe we could move very quickly through the Committee stage and third reading of Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill if we had some answers. But I will make a few preliminary points. First I join Mr Henare in what he said about Mr Paraone. We have been receiving volcanic emails from the One New Zealand Foundation. That is not helpful and I think that what the foundation did to him was totally unacceptable. It is a source of some regret that there are people in this country who do that sort of thing. 
The second point I will make is that the Associate Minister generously indicated that he would be prepared to apologise for the insufficiency of consultation. Well as Mrs te Heuheu said where is the insufficiency? There was no consultation. 
The third point is that we want to move on from a culture of complaint. If I set out the detail of what I understand to be the position and the Minister in the chair the Hon Mita Ririnui could condescend to confirm some of it we will be able to move through the Committee stage very quickly. As I understand it in about June this year the Minister in the chair and the Hon Shane Jones had a visit to Dargaville and a further Crown offer in settlement of the claim was made. I further understand the proposal is that the offer be implemented outside the Treaty claims settlement process. That is the first point and I ask the Minister in the chair whether that is correct. 
The second issue dealing with the consequences of the Minister’s visit to Dargaville involves the increase in quantum. The settlement provided for about $9.5 million. Our understanding as a result of discussions with various claimants is that it has increased to around $15.5 million to enable the purchase of certain farms. I ask the Minister whether he can confirm that and confirm what the farms are. 
The next element is that the Crown indicated it would purchase and vest in the iwi the portion of the Kaharau wahi tapu of about 1400 to 1500 acres of land known as “Bob’s” and we would like to know whether the property has been purchased. 
The final element is that there would be a continued discussion between the parties regarding the Te Roroa taonga the burial chests that are held by the Auckland Museum. If we are dealing with those elements it is good because it does deal with certain key issues that the Maori Affairs Committee was very concerned about but I would really like to know before we move into the other parts of the bill just what exactly the components of the settlement are. 
I say to the Government it should not worry about an apology or about a mea culpa. Let us move on from there. Let us look at the substance of the amended offer so that we can get through the Committee stage get through the third reading and ensure this bill is signed into law as quickly as possible.
Ririnui Mita: Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Ririnui Mita: Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:18352] 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I take the member’s point and I think that in the interests of moving on and getting a closure motion on this particular part of the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill in respect of the preamble it probably is important to highlight some of the changes that have been made. I think it is also important to say first that these improvements as we might classify them did not require an amendment to the settlement legislation. 
As the member pointed out he was of the view that an ex gratia payment had been made in respect of the deferred properties that Te Roroa had expressed an interest in. As the member knows and as members of this Parliament are aware a number of issues were highlighted by Te Roroa throughout the negotiations and the select committee process and we discussed these in some depth in our deliberations. The issues related to certain wahi tapu as they were classified and there was a desire by Te Roroa to have their history in relation to those properties acknowledged in a more tangible way—and I mean by that to have those properties wherever possible returned to them. Steps have been made through my colleague the Minister of Maori Affairs to allow that to happen. And yes there is an ex gratia payment of about $6 million to allow Te Roroa to purchase a particular property that is identified in the deferred properties schedule. 
I reiterate that these improvements do not require an amendment to the legislation. I think that if we had had to go down that track we would have set the settlement negotiations back by some time. Through the foresight of Ministers and in particular the current Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations the Hon Dr Michael Cullen better ways of doing things were discussed and resolved. To that end I take the member’s point that it is important to highlight this for the benefit of the Committee and in the interests of time but I am glad that he does not want an apology because I do not do that very well. Thank you. 
Preamble agreed to.
Henare Tau: Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Henare Tau: Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:18350] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I thank the Minister Mita Ririnui for his humble apology. I accept the apology now because I do not think I will be at the Maori Affairs Committee this afternoon. Because we are in urgency one has to take what one gets when one can. 
I put these questions to the Minister though. The preamble to me means the beginning. It is the start of something. If we look at the preamble we see that 188 years are contained in 12 pages. That works out to about 16 years per page. If we look at the preamble we see right at the end of the 16 pages that it does not give us an indication of what is new. There is a little chapter missing if members understand my drift. So what is new? How much more? I know the Minister will address the quantum later on. Where are the changes? What about the valuations? This is the problem with not being given a briefing—we do not know what we are supporting or opposing. 
I think we have a very unfortunate situation. Like I said 12 pages cover practically 188 years of tribal history in a nutshell—little paragraphs here there and everywhere that I think should actually be put in a leather-bound book and be put in the archives for ever and a day. The preamble to a settlement bill is I think one of the most important parts. It does not matter what the quantum is and it does not matter who did what to whom. The preamble tells a story in a way that will enable people in subsequent generations to get a snapshot of what Te Roroa is. 
I want to digress a wee bit and offer my support to my whanaunga Pita Paraone after the abuse he has taken from the One New Zealand Foundation. I say to him: “Any time you want some back-up matua you know where we are.” 
It is really important when we are doing these things to get off on the right foot so I ask the Minister to take another call and finish the preamble as it should be finished. He should tell us what is new why we are here how much more there will be and where the changes are. He should also tell us about the valuations. He should do this only if he wants to—I will not die in a ditch over it. 
I make one final point and that is regarding the comments from the co-leader of the Maori Party about National. I suppose my comments are that we should not forget where we all started. By that I mean that I was a member of New Zealand First—and a very proud member of New Zealand First—back in the day. 
Pita Paraone 
: Then you got lost. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I may have got lost but I am found again—as I think the song “Amazing Grace” goes. But I say that members should not forget that Tariana Turia was also a Cabinet Minister in this Labour Government. Kia ora.
Ririnui Mita: Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
Ririnui Mita: Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:649;Page:18350] 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I stand to take a very brief call in response to many of the comments that have been made by members from the National Party in relation to the level of consultation that they claimed they did not have from the Ministers in charge of this bill. I am mindful that we are actually on the preamble of Te Roroa Claims Settlement Billand I want to thank the New Zealand First member Pita Paraone for his contribution in terms of the accuracy of the preamble regarding the treatment of the Crown and its agencies toward the people of Te Roroa over shall we say 160 years or so. 
I am standing for the benefit of National Party members to apologise if in any way at all they found the communication between me and them to be insufficient. But I say to the Hon Tau Henare that he is aware and I am aware that the Maori Affairs Committee will be meeting at 1 o’clock today for 1 hour and I will take that opportunity to give him a formal apology. I know he has some issue with the select committee sitting at that time but I am sure that he will make himself available as will his colleagues the Hon Georgina te Heuheu and Christopher Finlayson and at that time we can have an in-depth discussion around that particular matter. Their points are made very clear and I will respond to them formally at that time be they on the agenda or not. 
The matters around the issues that were raised by way of submissions and were discussed by the select committee in terms of the quantum and the adjustments that have been made to satisfy the claimant groups of representatives of Te Roroa I am sure we can discuss further along in the Committee stage of this bill when we get to the part where we actually talk about the quantum. I just wanted to clarify those points. Thank you.