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:18371] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 United Future will be opposing this Real Estate Agents Bill as being unnecessary and insidious. It is unnecessary because the concerns that it seeks to deal with—namely bad performance by real estate agents—could have been dealt with by two key amendments to the 1976 Act which this bill repeals. Firstly the provision relating to the maximum fine—$750—could have been substantially increased to bear much more relationship to today’s realities. Secondly we could have actually for the first time in 30 years appointed the regional disciplinary committees that the 1976 Act established. That would have given some teeth to the concern and would have made this legislation completely unnecessary. 
But it is more serious than that. This legislation is also insidious because the real message that it sends is that industry sectors be they the real estate sector or any other industry sector are now on notice from the Government that statutory regulation of their activities is just round the corner. For the last 20-odd years in this country we have put the onus on industry sectors to self-regulate to self-administer. Now the Government is turning that on its head and saying we are moving back down the path of essentially a Government takeover of regulation of those industry sectors. Here is the rub: the costs of that administration will be borne by the consumers. Young homeowners buying their first home will not have any greater protection as a result of this bill’s passing; they will face increased costs from the cost of administration of the new bureaucracy that is being established ostensibly to give them greater protection than they already have. It is a nonsense and it is a con. 
But the whole way in which this bill has been handled reeks of those two comments. I heard on 30 July this year an announcement in the media that agreement had been reached with New Zealand First over the content of the Real Estate Agents Bill and that it would proceed as a result of that agreement. Then there was a statement from the Real Estate Institute welcoming the changes that had been made. I was somewhat perplexed and immediately contacted the institute to find out what had been agreed only to be told two things. First the institute did not know of had not seen and had not been party to any of the discussions about the amendments to this bill but thought it appropriate to make a conciliatory statement. Second the institute’s understanding was that the discussions between New Zealand First and the Government came down in the end to a real estate agent in Tauranga who is known to the former member for Tauranga offering some advice and some drafting which became the basis of the amendments which at that stage were not known. 
This House can draw its own conclusions about the insidious tie of relationships between external parties and people within New Zealand First and what might well have been transacted as a result of that. That is for another place; I will not go there. But I will make the observation that it was not until 2 September over a month later that the Minister actually tabled the amendments that were being sought to be made. So we had the ludicrous situation of the Justice and Electoral Committee completing its work and reporting the bill back to the House a political deal then being struck somewhere else and the outcome of that deal being announced a month or more after the announcement that the agreement had been struck. That does not give any confidence to anybody about the credibility of this process let alone the worth and vitality of the legislation that is being passed. This is not about a better deal for consumers in terms of their interactions with real estate agents; this is all about satisfying the political bluster and the bullying that we heard from the Minister in the lead-up to it. In the old Mike Moore language every cliché known to man is being trotted out by “Mini-Mike” to justify this sort of thing. That is not the basis on which to make law; it simply makes a farce of this place. 
Let me turn to the next issue: the question of property management. I have heard it said right throughout this debate that property management could not be dealt with within the context of this bill because it was outside the scope of it. I want to refer to a case that was disposed of by the Real Estate Agents Licensing Board in June of this year. It was presided over by the Hon Bill Jeffries a former Labour Minister of Justice—and a very good one. It involved Paul Ronald John Romanos trading as Paul Romanos Real Estate and it was brought under section 94 of the Real Estate Agents Act and was accompanied by a section 98 application and one or two other provisions of section 33 as well. The upshot of that case was that Mr Romanos was struck off as a real estate agent. His licence was cancelled because of misappropriation of some $44000 relating to a body corporate of which he was the property manager. 
To suggest that dealing with property management is outside the scope of this bill is ludicrous when the Real Estate Agents Licensing Board already within the provisions of the Act that is being repealed deals with matters relating to the conduct of real estate agents who trade as property managers. I find it incredible that what is happening here is that in effect very shady operators like Mr Romanos and his company are being protected by the absence of reference to property management in this bill. It is no consolation to people for us to say that it is down for another review; the Romanoses of this world will continue to rip off their clients in the interim and all the brave words from the Minister about land sharks and every other ridiculous phrase that he used look absolutely hollow when we see that this type of behaviour is not addressed but implicitly condoned in this new bill. 
I want to know what the status of hearings by the Real Estate Agents Licensing Board of similar complaints will be in the wake of the passage of this legislation. Does it simply cease to be? Is it overtaken by the new Government-imposed statutory agency? What other complaints in train at the moment about property managers will be left to die and to falter? 
That example proves the nonsense of this legislation. This is not about a better deal for real estate agents and their clients. This is not about protecting the public interest. This is about as the Minister so aptly said right at the beginning bringing the hammer down; this is vengeance politics. If he were really concerned about the battlers on “Struggle Street”—I am sure he used that phrase—whom he professes concern for then he would have amended the 1976 Act and he would have done it over a year ago. The great need for change—the urgency of it—to prevent these poor people from being exploited and ripped off looks incredibly hollow when we see that it has taken us over a year to get to that point and when we see that two simple amendments to the primary Act would have dealt with the concerns that were expressed would have ensured that the fewer than 100 out 19000 real estate agents each year against whom complaints are lodged would be able to be disposed of or to be disciplined adequately and would have reinstated public confidence in the industry. 
This bill is a mighty big sledgehammer to crack a very small nut and the sour taste in the mouth that the nut leaves is that the poor long-suffering consumer will yet again bear the cost of this ministerial obsession. This is not the way to make law; this is appalling legislation and it deserves to be opposed with vigour.