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:18442] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Real Estate Agents Bill be now read a third time 
. I take great delight in doing so. I open the debate by making a couple of thankyous. Firstly I thank a number of people outside this place. I thank a woman called Deb Leask who is a victim of some of the disreputable behaviour of the minority of agents in the real estate industry. When these issues were brought to my attention she was brave enough to expose her personal issues in respect of her transaction and to demand that there be change. As for other victims who deserve to be noted I mention also the late Bronwyn Hilbron and her family who have yet to see justice for what she went through. I pay tribute to the Ottaways and to all the other folk who either wrote to me or went to the media and outlined situations where they felt rightly or wrongly they had been wronged. 
I also note that throughout the debate on this bill the National members have brought up only two examples of consumers who had been wronged. Rarely did they acknowledge that there was any issue in the industry to address. In the National Party’s view of course we have nirvana: there is no issue there is no problem and no real estate agent has wronged a Kiwi. I tend to disagree with that. 
It is often said that the three most important things in real estate are location location location. Well in just over an hour the four most important things in the real estate sector will be the consumer the consumer the consumer and as well those innocent and professional real estate agents whose professional skill and reputation is degraded every time one of their number runs amok. I have been accused in this debate of all sorts of things: of being vengeful and of having a vendetta—I think that colourful language was used. Even Simon Power cringes at that. Some of his colleagues actually used that term. 
Hon Member 
: Oh come on. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: No Simon Power did not use it. I make this point: I have no vendetta against the real estate industry. I have engaged in private real estate transactions and used agents before and they were outstanding. By definition to have a vendetta means that I personally have been wronged. Well I personally have not been wronged. I am one of the lucky people who have had good dealings with reputable professional agents. But I and this Government make no apology for perhaps using some colourful language. 
I respect Mr Dunne. He knocked off the common-sense Mr Nice Guy routine today put the boots on and had a good crack at me. That is OK—that is called democracy and I respect his view. But I make no apology for calling those who did consumers over land sharks and I make no apology for saying there are rogues in the industry because there are. Agents told me about and wrote to me with examples of them. I make no apology for taking the Queen’s shilling doing my job and as a public servant standing by every Kiwi who has been done over. That is called doing one’s job as a member of Parliament. I heard propaganda from National members who said I had lambasted everybody in the industry for being a land shark a rogue or whatever the term was. Well they will keep saying that; they will say it again in their repetitive speeches tonight. The facts are and the press statements show that that was never the case. That was a myth created by some in the industry and perpetuated and promoted by the National Party. But who cares about that? 
The most important people in this whole deal are the honest real estate agents and the consumers. Tonight they will have protection. There has been criticism for instance that this bill does not deal with property managers. Well we have announced that there will be a review—a review that will take place within the 14-month period before this legislation is implemented after it is enacted. If the review provides evidence and fact not hearsay and piffle—such as the ring-arounds from various people in the industry who said that one in five complaints was about property managers but who provided no evidence of that—and if legislation is required that legislation will be brought to the House enacted and implemented and it will come into force at the same time as this legislation in 14 months’ time. It will be a concerted measured approach to an issue on which very little evidence has been provided. 
I thank the officials. I will not name them because they may at some time want to buy or sell a property and they may get into some difficulty if it is known they worked on this bill with me. But the officials are from the Ministry of Justice and they know who they are. They did a stunning job under I might say some duress. I pay tribute to the Justice and Electoral Committee but I say one of the disappointments in the process concerned the way that committee members were treated by some people. There was some bullying of officials. I am told that highly paid lobbyists got a million bucks from the industry. I think Ms Chen was the key lobbyist—I am told that she also represents the party pill manufacturers so members should work that one out. I think those people did not act as they should have acted in terms of the pressure that was brought to bear on some people. 
I thank my colleague Lynne Pillay and Simon Power. We did have a difference of view but I respect Simon. Mr Finlayson who I think also became tired of hearing the rote submissions made a contribution as did Ms Wilkinson and others and on our side of the select committee of course Charles Chauvel a learned lawyer and Louisa Wall. They managed a very difficult process. The committee members managed a huge number of submissions and they came under pressure and took the hit from many in the industry. 
I look forward to working with this industry. I think this bill gives us a wonderful opportunity to get rid of the bad guys. We will restore recover and promote the positive work of those in real estate restore the faith that consumers in our community should have in this industry and people—men and women—will be able to hold their heads up high. This is not rocket science; this is basic consumer protection legislation. 
I just say to the National Party members as they warm up and put the liniment on getting ready to go into this debate that they have not served consumers or the New Zealand public well. They have talked about the industry at length promoting and safeguarding it; they have not talked about ordinary Kiwis. And I make this point to those who have listened to the debate on this bill: there has been not one policy not one idea and not one alternative from National. I do not mind criticism; I think it is good to have a contest of ideas. If Simon Power and Kate Wilkinson get into Government will they repeal this legislation? Will they tell us that? Will they announce their policy on the real estate industry? I do not think so. Once they go into the communities and talk to constituents and real people will they find people who disagree with having their biggest property transaction and the biggest asset in their lives protected? People will know that if something happens and they feel aggrieved they can go to an independent authority. If a person wins his or her case the offender can be struck off and can be fined and the victim can get compensation and feel good about himself or herself unlike the situation now where it costs 750 bucks to bring a complaint and the gatekeepers determine whether they will even look at it. 
I do say this: I think there are times in this Parliament when we should put a bit of the pettiness aside and I think Mr Power—I will not talk about the other National members—as a lawyer genuinely believes that consumers should be protected. I think he genuinely knows they need to be protected because he has probably dealt with a number of constituents so he knows that people have been done over and there was a need for change. This industry was given a couple of chances to implement change itself and it chose not to. Communities demanded that we act and we have acted. That crew over there on the National benches had 9 years. They were approached by concerned people—they admitted that; I think it was Mr Carter or Mr Worth who did so—and they said by their own admission in the debate that they did nothing about the industry. I am prepared to cop the criticism the name-calling and all that drama. But I say where is National’s policy where are the ideas and where is the alternative to this bill? I thank the Justice and Electoral Committee Parliament the officials the victims and the honest real estate folk who will be able to hold their heads up high as they proceed through these reforms and their industry is restored to the status it should have.