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:18394] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I do not want to labour the process because I know that National Party members are very keen to debate the bill. They have sought to debate this bill; it is the one they will fight every inch on. It is a bill that is inherently about consumer protection but I feel it is incumbent on me to address some points that have been made and will continue to be made as we move through the parts of the bill. 
I would like to make this point. One of the charges against me personally and against the Government is that somehow in putting forward robust consumer legislation to protect consumers as a representative of the Government I have labelled and sprayed the entire real estate industry as a bunch of land sharks. Well I will say just two things. I invite members to get my press statements from the first one that I put out right through to the latest. I invite them also to listen to this. On 7 June 2007 Murray Cleland the National President of the Real Estate Institute said in that wonderful journal of our time the  
Papakura Courier 
: “We want to get rid of unethical operators as much as the Minister does because they damage the industry’s reputation and do a great disservice to all the good”—and I invite members to listen to this—“hard-working people in the industry who as the Minister acknowledges are the very great majority.” Despite the fact that the National Party has continued to perpetrate the myth that this Government in the form of myself has labelled everybody in the real estate movement as a shark as a deadbeat and as dishonest the fact is as reported in many papers and as acknowledged by the president of the institute on 7 June 2007 the vast majority of this industry are good honourable folk. In fact I appointed one of them Mr Murray Giera of Christchurch—I know that Ms Wilkinson did not like this—to the Real Estate Agents Licensing Board. 
But real estate folk who are also the victims have said to me that they have had a gutsful of being tarred by the same brush as members of their industry who through their actions bring the reputation of all of them to the floor. Murray Giera said that to me at a function the other night. He is a good honest person as many real estate agents are but all occupations are judged by the lowest common denominator. 
I will also comment on a couple of other points that have been raised. I found it exceptionally interesting that Mr Finlayson said that the time frame and the transition period for this bill were OK. Members should bear in mind that the time frame for the lawyers and conveyancers legislation—a massive piece of work—was 2 years but the time frame for this bill is 14 months. Mr Worth had risen 5 minutes before him and said that it was not OK that it was far too short. I invite those members to get their act together. 
Part 2 provides robust legislative protection for consumers. I have been asked and I will continue to be asked—I am told that Mr Tisch said he would be asking the question continually—what the mischief is that we are trying to solve. Those members are typical Tories. They listen to one side of the argument. They have not quoted one consumer who has had problems. They have not quoted one victim who has had problems. Those members stare into the stratosphere and ask us to please provide them with some answers to please tell them where the problem is that we are trying to solve. Well let me illustrate it. Caitlin and John Ottaway estimate that they lost $35000 because their agent Shaun Cosgrave—who is no relation to me I say for the record; it is a different spelling; it is from a different part of Ireland—did not tell them that an apartment complex was planned for the site right next to their doorstep. Shaun Cosgrave was fined $750. I believe he was warned by some of our agencies about his conduct. Then what happened? 
Christopher Finlayson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Could the Minister tell us which aspect of Part 2 he is addressing? Part 2 deals with the Real Estate Agents Authority. He took no part in the debate on Part 1. His first intervention this afternoon has been to comment on clause 2 the commencement clause which we can deal with later on. He seems to be all over the place. It is quite entertaining to watch him because it is like watching feeding time at the zoo. If he could confine himself to Part 2 it would be very helpful. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Finlayson. I am sure the Minister is aware of the situation and I ask him to come to Part 2. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I am talking to Part 2 “Real Estate Agents Authority” and the authority is charged—as the member may know given that he is a learned lawyer—with protecting consumers. To illustrate the need for an authority to look after consumers and also to address some of the points that have been made I will quote another case. But first I will just add that Mr Cosgrave was then given the Harcourts gold award for customer service. 
The second case I will quote also illustrates the need for an authority such as the one in Part 2. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes because there is a need for an authority to stop these cases from happening again. Bronwyn Hilbron died after waiting almost 3 years for the Real Estate Institute to deal with her complaint over the sale of her house. She claimed that an agent had undersold it by $88000. She chose the existing legislative route which was the institute. 
An honest agent said to me that there is a need for a Real Estate Agents Authority. He has had a vexatious claim—in his view—taken against him and he has waited for years and years for the legislative body to deal with his case. The authority is not just for those who are selling and buying property; we need an authority to expedite cases so that honest honourable real estate folk do not have the sword of Damocles hanging over them for years. To use the popular phrase that Ms Wilkinson uses justice delayed is justice denied. That also applies to the real estate agents who cannot get cases against them heard because there are delays in the system. 
Real estate agents have said to me that they need an independent authority because the system does not work. I believe that it was the Chief Executive Officer of Harcourts Mr Bryan Thomson who said that even if his people are innocent even if they are good honourable folk if they go before a body that is perceived to be in-house—the industry policing the industry—and that body declares them to be innocent folk because they are honourable people then no one believes it. We hear bleating from the guy opposite who did not quite make it to Queen’s Counsel level; he says he is a lawyer but he has not cited one case. I find it interesting that National Party members have not cited one case or given one example of a constituent coming to them with a problem with this industry. They probably do not go to them because it would be a waste of time. I think the setting up of an authority will provide a wonderful opportunity to get rid of the bad guys in the industry. Those good honest souls like Murray Giera and others who toil away and do a damn good job of representing their clients and their profession will have their reputations restored and the profession’s reputation will be restored. 
As we go through this debate I will count how many times members opposite cite a case relating to any victim. If we listened to them we would think that there was no problem—absolutely no problem at all—and that we do not need any consumer protection. Well I invite them to talk to Sue Chetwin of Consumer New Zealand. I invite them to lift up a few pages from the newspapers and look at the research work done by the fourth estate—no friends of ours from time to time—that highlights the need for legislation to protect victims. The victims also include the honourable honest real estate folk who get done over because they cannot have their cases heard. 
We hear a lot of posturing from National members and they are digging in but what are they digging in over? A basic piece of consumer protection legislation. The security guard people asked us to license them. Why? Because they wanted to get the rogues out of the system. Builders did the same. They wanted to get the bad guys out of the system because their reputations were being tarnished. I say to Mr Brownlee that I gave the Real Estate Institute two opportunities. And I said publicly that I believe in self-regulation because often it is tighter than what Parliament can do. But what the institute wanted to do was to up a few fines twist a few penalties but leave the process non-transparent non-independent and non-accountable. I think that would do a disservice to the many honourable folk in the real estate industry. 
This is good legislation. The authority that we are setting up in this part of the bill will deal to the bad guys will reinforce the good honest folk who work in the industry and will ensure I hope that cases like that of Bronwyn Hilbron who died and whose estate now has to take up the cudgels to try to recover what was rightfully hers do not happen again. It would be really nice it would be really wonderful to hear some sort of sympathy from Opposition members for some of the people—the many hundreds of people—who have been done over who have had bad experiences in this industry. But we will not hear those members say that and do members know why I say that? Because Opposition members voted against the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 243 to Part 1 after saying that they supported them. They are all over the place.