Hon Christopher Finlayson

Part 1 Interpretation and application

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) : As the minority report of the National Party makes clear, we support the timely reform of the real estate industry. Indeed, we go so far as to say that the Real Estate Agents Act 1976 is well overdue for reform. We also say that the purposes of the Real Estate Agents Bill are well spelt out in clause 3, which is the first clause of Part 1.

It is important that we have regulation of the real estate industry that promotes public confidence in the performance of real estate agency work. But we take issue with subclause (2) about whether the purposes of the bill are actually achieved in the way that that subclause says they are achieved, particularly where it states they are achieved by “providing accountability through a disciplinary process that is independent, transparent and effective.”

To come back to the general concerns of the National Party—and we acknowledge that the Minister in the chair, the Hon Clayton Cosgrove, has dealt with two of them—I say the first concern we had, which related to property management, has not been dealt with. The second concern revolved around the uncertainty created by the 5-year review of the employment status of real estate agents. That excited a great deal of discussion in the Justice and Electoral Committee meetings, and it has been dealt with to our satisfaction, because that provision is now deleted. The next concern is about the transitional provision, and I will spend some time on talking about the practical implications of the transitional provision when we deal with clause 2. We are not happy with that. The next concern we had was that auctioneers remain excluded from the legislation, and that the new rules relating to auctions were impractical. That concern has been dealt with to our satisfaction, because those clauses have been deleted on Supplementary Order Paper 243 in the name of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove. The auction bidder’s record was also impractical, and that has been dealt with to our satisfaction, because, as I said, clauses 136 to141 are deleted.

We remain concerned about the bureaucracy and the effect it will have on costs to the consumer. That has not been dealt with. We also remain concerned about the requisite experience for a real estate agent to hold a licence.

So some matters have been dealt with, and it is good that the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper advances matters, but some other matters are not dealt with and we remain concerned about them. Therefore, we continue to oppose them. If the Minister was prepared to have an open mind on those matters, I believe that the remaining concerns could be resolved, but that is a matter for him.

I will briefly explain one or two matters that the select committee dealt with. A number of exemptions were contained in the bill. I have already mentioned clause 7 in my second reading speech. It deals with the exemption for lawyers and conveyancers, and only minor alterations have been made to it. Licensed auctioneers remain exempt, and that is fair enough. We deleted the exemptions for Landcorp and the exemptions granted by the authority. Clause 11 is an interesting clause. We tried to find out what the position was under clause 11. If my memory serves me correctly, it relates to a particular part of New Zealand only—somewhere in the Ruapehu district—where certain land agents are exempted under the regulations. I questioned whether we still needed that clause, because it covers so few people. Clauses 12 and 13 also deal with certain exemptions by Order in Council or on the recommendation of the Minister. I simply refer the Committee to clause 155, and in particular to clause 155(aa), 155(2), and 155(3). It was considered that the regulation-making power in that clause was the best place to deal with issues relating to the exemptions formerly contained under clauses 12 and 13.

In conclusion on this part, I simply say that the purpose of the Act as set out in clause 3(1) is commendable, but I regret that the purpose is not achieved by the structure that has been created. Some issues have been dealt with, but we simply do not need a bureaucracy to regulate this occupational group. We remain very concerned at the other issues I have dealt with.