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:18362] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a brief call in the second reading debate of this extremely important and useful piece of consumer protection legislation the Real Estate Agents Bill. The purpose of the bill is a very good one. It is to deliver on the Government’s promise to bring accountability transparency and openness to the real estate sector and those three things are sorely needed. Legislation has been in place for some time and it needs to be updated with the interests of the consumer in mind. This legislation does that. It establishes a very good independent complaints system it will protect consumers and it will support honest real estate professionals who constitute the vast majority of the real estate industry. The bill will put an end to the industry’s self-regulation. It introduces a range of important new consumer protection measures including compensation for consumers who have not been well served by the system. 
The Government believes that reform of the real estate industry is sorely needed. Buying a house may be the biggest single financial decision people make in their lifetime and they need to have full confidence in the professionals who help them make that decision. In that regard this legislation is part of the suite of consumer protection measures that has been so ably pioneered by this Government including Ministers such as Judith Tizard and Lianne Dalziel. One thinks of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Amendment Bill (No 3) which brought in prudential supervision requirements for non-bank deposit takers and the financial providers and financial advisers legislation which is about to be reported back to the House from the Finance and Expenditure Committee which I have the honour to chair. 
I acknowledge the robustness of the select committee process. I would like to pay tribute to the Green Party and the New Zealand First Party because they played an incredibly responsible role in supporting a fair process at the select committee. 
I would also like to thank those who made submissions to the select committee. This point was touched on by the earlier speaker. Really we were I think in a position where the process could have gone either way. There were intemperate debate and anger involved in the process following the introduction of the bill. Lynne Pillay my Labour colleague chaired the committee with enormous sensitivity. I remember the hearing we held in Auckland which many many members of the industry attended. They were grouped very logically as far as their submissions to the committee were concerned. They were treated with respect and they responded in kind so that we got the maximum benefit from what they had come to say to the committee. I think they went away feeling that they had a proper hearing from us which is a very important part of the process. 
In that regard I note there has been some criticism of some of the submitters. It has just been said that some of them simply filled out a standard form and spoke to it. Well I think we have to make allowances for the fact that to many people the select committee process is a bit of an alien one. It is not necessarily the easiest one to engage in. I think that those of us in Parliament who are used to dealing with the process every day underestimate the mystery that ordinary people sometimes encounter when they want to interact with Parliament’s processes. Yes it is true that some people filled out a standard form submission and that when they were asked particularly technical questions—cross-examined—by certain members they did find it a bit hard to respond. But those of us who took the select committee process seriously tried to move beyond the written form submission and talk to those who came before the committee about their experience of the industry and tried to work out how we could deliver back to the House the best bill that it was in our power to deliver. I think we have done that. The report of the committee speaks for itself. 
I would also praise the measures that are set out in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 243 because I think that taken with the select committee report they really do comprise a suite of measures that will make this industry into one that consumers can have real confidence in and one that the vast majority of real estate agents out there who are honest and hard-working can also feel a great deal of confidence in. 
I thank the officials for their assistance. It was always extremely timely and extremely helpful and when assistance was required on tricky technical matters it was really on point. I will speak a little bit more about that later. 
In conclusion I want to express a bit of regret at the position that seems to be being set out by the National Party on this legislation. I have had a look at National’s minority report such as it is in the commentary on the bill and it is quite apparent when we look at the Supplementary Order Paper that the Minister has tabled that every substantive concern raised by the National Party in that minority report has been addressed. It is simply not right to say that an increased transitional provision of 14 months for the hard stuff if you like in the legislation is not long enough. It makes no sense to compare the real estate industry with the legal profession and any comparison between the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act and the Real Estate Agents Bill is inapt. We are really talking apples and oranges here. It is quite clear that 14 months’ lead-in time for some of these complex matters is more than enough as far as reforming the industry is concerned. Consumers should not have to wait any longer than that and it is a real shame that the National Party wants to make them do that. 
As to the complaint that this is bureaucracy gone wild that is just nonsense as well. I hope that those who espouse that excuse are ashamed of themselves. There is no bureaucracy gone mad here; there is simply an adequate complaints mechanism being set up to make sure that consumers have the protection they need. Yes it will cost a bit of money but probably not a whole lot more than what the current system costs. The costs that will be passed on to those who participate in real estate agent transactions will not be much greater but we will have a far better system to protect those who participate in those transactions. For anyone to say that that is not a desirable goal is a real shame. 
Finally with regard to the issue of property managers as the previous speaker acknowledged the Minister will put in place a review. We heard some evidence on that point. I think that the select committee members by and large were persuaded that there was merit in looking further at the issue of whether property managers should come within a comprehensive regime. There are issues of scope in terms of including them in this legislation but there will be a calm and measured review of that issue. That is appropriate I think given the evidence we heard. 
Here we are with this minority report from the National Party which maintains its opposition to what is very good consumer legislation. It is spurious opposition—it really is. National must be a party that does not actually care much about the interests of consumers; it maintains opposition just for opposition’s sake. It is just like the so-called six principles for opposing the emissions trading scheme—absolute nonsense. This is very good legislation and it ought to be progressed with speed.