King Colin: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
King Colin: Real Estate Agents Bill — Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:18404] 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I will take up a couple of issues in Part 2 of the Real Estate Agents Bill. 
The first is subclause (3) of clause 16 “Authority’s functions”. It talks about the industry training organisation and raises the spectre in my mind that we will have two very strong competing bodies. I would like the Minister to explain to me what the relationship will be like between the Real Estate Authority and the industry training organisation. Clause 16(1) runs through the various functions of the authority. It will set up a register to register licensees: “(b) ensure that the register of licensees is established kept and maintained;”. It will develop rules it will develop consumer information and it will “(f) develop and provide consumer information on matters relating to the provision of real estate services including providing the public with information on how to make a complaint;”. There is a list of provisions. 
I come to a provision pertaining to the amendments on the Supplementary Order Paper of the Hon Peter Dunne which National will be supporting. Subclause (3) states: “For the avoidance of doubt nothing in subsection (1) affects the role of an industry training organisation for the time being recognised under the Industry Training Act 1992 as an industry training organisation for the real estate industry.” That is the first point on which I want some clarification. Is there an intention to move the industry training organisation to the Real Estate Agents Authority? If we read that provision carefully we see that it states “the role of an industry training organisation for the time being …”. I would like the Minister to clarify what he intends there. 
Secondly I would like the Minister to tell me whether he heard any complaints from the Real Estate Institute of New Zealand about recognition of qualifications obtained in Australia. When I visited the institute in Auckland I heard a lot about the inequity in terms of the qualification that agents require to be registered in Australia. Effectively what was happening was that a lot of people would go from New Zealand across to Australia for a course of about a week and when they came back they would be recognised as fully fledged qualified real estate agents. The second question I would like the Minister to address is whether while he was developing this bill he took that matter into consideration or was it in actual fact outside the scope of the bill? 
When we turn to clause 19 and read of the continuing education function of the authority we can understand the confusion and concern that exist among the industry training organisation. Clause 19 “Continuing education” states: “The Authority may by notice in the  
Gazette 
 make practice rules …” and it talks about continuing education. That is professional development and it will require qualifications to be designed and signed off. There will be tremendous friction within the industry unless action is taken immediately to make sure there is seamlessness between the authority and the industry training organisation. Qualifications will have to be developed and the authority is being empowered to do that but I do not see any ability to bridge that issue. 
We go on to clause 21 “Criteria in relation to approval of practice rules by Minister”. The provision talks about the authority’s relationship with the Minister. It talks about principles and I say to the Minister that paragraph (c) talks about “the consistency of the rules with New Zealand’s international obligations:”. I know that it might be drawing a long bow but I would like to think that serious consideration was given to the need for equal qualifications between Australia and New Zealand.