Bradford Sue: Real Estate Agents Bill — First Reading 
Bradford Sue: Real Estate Agents Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:644;Page:13822] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party welcomes this bill and will support it going to the select committee. Like the Government and many people in the community we too have concerns about whether homebuyers and sellers currently have adequate rights and protections in relation to the activities of unscrupulous or incompetent real estate agents. 
Buying or selling a house or other property is the biggest commercial transaction many ordinary citizens undertake in their lives. Often people do not fully understand what they are getting into when they sign agreements with agents even if they have been in the property market before. It is an even more perilous exercise for the many people for whom this is the first time. Buyers and sellers can and do at times become the innocent victims of wheeling and dealing at a level of which they have little or no comprehension. As non-professionals in the world of real estate most of us tend to take real estate agents at their word and when something goes wrong we have only a dim notion of what if any remedies are available to us. Some of the more notorious cases for example that of Deb Leask in Napier have appeared in the media but many never see the light of day. All too often people do not make a complaint at all because they do not understand the processes involved and/or because they have no faith that they will receive any redress at least without having to take on potentially expensive litigation which would undermine the purpose of the action in the first place. 
We appreciate the effort the Government is taking to reform real estate law and institute a range of new consumer protection measures including the establishment of an independent Real Estate Agents Authority that will oversee licensing complaints and disciplinary and enforcement processes and provide information to consumers. The new authority will have broad investigative powers along with the ability to order a wide range of penalties and remedies. The bill before us tonight also includes the establishment of a Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal that will be separate from the authority. This tribunal will investigate all charges laid by another new body called the complaints assessment committee whose job it will be to sort out which complaints are serious enough to go forward and where necessary refer them to other bodies too like the police or the Commerce Commission. 
At the moment the system is run almost entirely in-house by the Real Estate Institute of New Zealand. The Government says that only nine complaints out of the 507 received by the Real Estate Institute in the past 3 years have actually gone to the independent Real Estate Agents Licensing Board for resolution. Although these figures may for all I know be contestable—I have not extensively researched this—it is still of concern that so few complaints reach any independent body for action. Most complaints meanwhile go to subcommittees of the institute where the maximum penalty is $750 rather than the $5000 that can be applied by the licensing board. The new authority will be able to fine an agent up to $10000 and an agency up to $20000 and will have the power to publicise its findings and the sanction imposed. It will be able to demand an apology order terms of settlement on a house deal and if a criminal offence is committed the fines rise to $40000 and $100000 respectively. 
Further major measures contained in this bill include the establishment of a public register of real estate agents and sales people recording any breaches of industry standards on their part a requirement that licensed agents have ongoing professional development training and an obligation on agents to give consumers educational information about their rights plus a written statement disclosing any conflicts of interest they may have. 
The Real Estate Institute and its members are of course affected hugely by this bill. I note that the institute “welcomes those reforms in the bill which remedy real problems in the current regime but is concerned that the bill goes too far in changing the law where there is no problem and not far enough in other areas which require more regulation.” The Real Estate Institute appears to endorse the purpose of the bill in further protecting consumers’ interests raising industry standards providing an independent and transparent disciplinary process and introducing compulsory continuing education for agents. The Real Estate Institute also appears to be happy that the bill makes no change to the employment status of salespeople within the industry although I note that this will be reviewed within 5 years of the legislation becoming law—a measure that the Green Party definitely welcomes. 
However the institute as the National Party has pointed out also has a number of major issues with the bill including what it sees as its failure to include property management and letting within its scope a perceived lack of industry consultation on the setting of levies and fees the aforesaid requirement to review the employment status of agents within 5 years and the proposed changes to the education of real estate agents—an issue where I have a particular concern about what is going on. I look forward to hearing further from the institute on these matters and the other matters it raises along with hearing from all the other submitters who will I am sure come forward with all viewpoints during the parliamentary process ahead. 
In summary I think the bill is about justice not only being done but being seen to be done. In this day and age most of us are keen on some real independence and transparency in complaint and review functions whichever body of Government we are dealing with—something by the way I would love to see applied to the operations of the Ministry of Social Development. Meanwhile I think there are some aspects of the bill before us that may need tidying up. Although fundamentally supporting the bill the Green Party will as ever remain alert to the possibility of helpful amendments during its passage through the House.