Power Simon: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Power Simon: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18448] 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 It never ceases to amaze me how sure of themselves the Labour Party members are on these issues. Over the last 18 months while National has been so far ahead of Labour in the polls we have modestly gone about our work. Tonight the Labour Party members find one rogue poll and they are cock-a-hoop in this House telling us it is all over and they are on the way back. Well I have news for them: they should just wait another 10 days. That is all I have to say about that matter. 
The Real Estate Agents Bill is worth a few cursory remarks on the way through. I will start by saying the Labour Government had an opportunity at the first reading to get this legislation right. When the Minister came to this House and put this bill before the debating chamber National Party members pointed out at that stage the five or six things that would have to be changed in the legislation in order to make it work. Not only did we do that but we stood and told Government members which provisions of the legislation we supported. Our position on those matters and those factors has never changed; it has been perfectly consistent from the day when I and my colleagues stood up and took first reading speeches on this bill. 
What happened on the other side of the House? On the other side with regard to this legislation we had the Minister storming through the House and announcing the fact that there was to be legislation to wipe out land sharks; he announced that at least five or six times before the legislation was finally introduced. He stood in this House and told us that the Justice and Electoral Committee would do its work. The Government refused to listen to the advice of the submitters to that committee. It brushed them aside as though they did not understand the important points that they were supposed to understand. The officials struggled with the bill because of the practicality of what was being offered by the submitters but the directions from the Government made the officials be pushed and pulled in a completely different direction. They are to be commended for weathering the appalling arrangement that we had to endure in that regard. 
Then the Minister was so sure of himself and of the numbers he had to secure the passage of this legislation that the bill was reported back to the House. Once again National took the opportunity in the minority report on the bill to put on record the five or six things—the same five or six things that we had pointed out in the first reading—that needed to be changed in order for the legislation to work. The Government said no it knew best what would work and said it had the numbers to pass the bill. Let us pause in time. The Government did not have the numbers to pass the bill; that became apparent immediately upon the report back. What position did that leave the Government in? It left the Government in the position of having to negotiate—funnily enough—on four out of the five or six things that the National Party had said right from the start had to be changed in order for this legislation to progress. 
Now I do not know about the deals that were done with other political parties to ensure that the numbers were stitched together in order for this legislation to pass. But whichever political parties were involved I congratulate them on recognising that four of the points where the Government rolled over were matters introduced by the National Party—matters raised at the first reading of this bill raised by the National Party through the select committee and raised in the report back—and still being raised by the National Party today. The question is given that the Government knew those changes had to be made why it did not hear submissions on them. What an appalling process it was when the Government said it would not listen to any of the submitters or take any of their advice. It decided it was pressing ahead but if it had to do a deal to get the numbers to make the legislation work well at the ninth hour it would introduce a Supplementary Order Paper with all the changes on it that the National Party had suggested 4½ months ago. What an appalling process! 
The problem is that the Government has left out the most important changes and that is why the National Party continues to take exception not only to the procedural arrogance and deficiencies surrounding this bill but to matters of substance as well. We know for example that the short transitional period is nowhere near the length that was made available under the lawyers and conveyancers legislation which is an equivalent industry-based statute. This bill has provided for nowhere near that period. Property management is left outside the bill despite the Government being told time and time again by submitters that it should be included in it. The Minister had the ability to fix that during the Committee stage and he declined to do so. We also know that the experience requirement for a licence has been increased from 2 years’ experience in the previous 10 years to 3 years’ experience in the previous 10 years. But we have said all along that 3 years’ experience in the previous 5 years is a preferable formula. There were missed opportunities to deal with auctioneers and their particular regime but more specifically there is the missed opportunity relating to property managers. 
The process around this bill when compared with the way Lianne Dalziel dealt with the financial advisers legislation has been nothing short of combative and unnecessary. Right from the start had the approach by the Minister and the Government been to try to get workable legislation in place we would not have had to endure the farce that ended up with Supplementary Order Paper 243 in the name of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove being introduced at the very last minute as part of a political deal stitched together on four or five matters the Government had refused to listen to the National Party on right from the start. That just proves that no one political party has all the ability all the knowledge and all the right contacts to make the process work in a way that would have seen this bill advance in a much more satisfactory manner. 
I conclude by thanking the thousands of people in the industry who took the opportunity to make submissions. It is just a shame they did not have that opportunity with regard to the amendments on the Supplementary Order Paper. But they did make submissions on the bill at the select committee hearings chaired by the honourable member Lynne Pillay. I attended many of those hearings and I say the submitters who came before the committee were by and large extremely positive in the sense that they wanted to engage on the bill—because they probably had not had an opportunity to do so up until then—and they came along with some pretty constructive and positive suggestions to make. I just think it is a shame that because of the Minister’s blind adherence to a policy that was set up in a combative and direct framework we did not take the opportunities to make those changes earlier in a decent and coherent manner—changes that have ended up having to be made at the last minute by way of the Supplementary Order Paper. So National will continue to oppose this legislation on those substantive issues and process issues. The Minister when he made his contribution said he wanted to know our policy in respect of this matter so I will advise him of it again. If the Minister is listening I tell him that it is the same five points that we made at the first reading it is the same five points that we made at the second reading it is the stuff we had in our minority report on the bill and it is the same points that we are making here again tonight.