Hon Christopher Finlayson

Part 3 Licensing

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) : I will deal with several aspects of Part 3, “Licensing”. I endorse the comments Mr David Carter has made, because a key person in this licensing regime will be the registrar, and in the part that we have just dealt with, clause 31A provides that the authority is to appoint the registrar. So it is extremely important that the body that appoints the registrar is made up of competent people and that it is not a pay-off for simply leaving Parliament.

But I come to Mr Dunne’s proposed amendments, because I submit that they are very good indeed. He says that he would make three changes to clause 34, and they are designed to ensure that the authority will have broad and full criteria on which to make the decision on the granting and retaining of licences. Again, this is intended to ensure that the consumer is properly protected. Clause 34(1) deals with the entitlement to a licence as an agent or a branch manager, and an individual must satisfy the registrar that he or she meets the criteria set out in that subclause.

One of those criteria is that the person is to be a fit and proper person to hold a licence. Mr Dunne is suggesting in the first of his proposed amendments that before the words “is a fit”, we should insert the phrase “in the interests of the public”. I fail to see how there could be any objection to that proposal. It emphasises the fact that it must be consumer protection legislation. Ultimately, it is in the interests of the public, and to spell that out very carefully causes no harm whatsoever.

The second proposal relates to clause 34(1)(e), which deals with the experience that the proposed agent or branch manager must have had before appointment. Mr Dunne’s suggestion is that instead of having 2 years’ experience within the 10 years preceding the application, this person must have had, during the preceding 5 years, at least 3 years’ practical experience working full-time or working primarily, and predominantly, in real estate agency work. Again I suggest that as this is supposedly consumer protection legislation the Dunne formula is to be preferred.

The third, and final, change is to clause 34(2), which provides that an individual may be licensed as a sales person if the individual satisfies the registrar of various matters. The critical one for current purposes is clause 34(2)(c), and again it is the fit and proper person test, and Mr Dunne has suggested, again, the insertion of the phrase: “in the interests of the public”. I suggest to the Committee that these changes are sensible. They make the clause that much better, and I certainly support them.

The other point I wish to address concerns clause 50. This is another backdown by the Minister. There was extensive debate in the Justice and Electoral Committee about the desirability of this clause, and whether the chief executive of the Ministry of Justice should report to the Minister as to whether clause 49, which deals with the employment status of a salesperson, should continue to be appropriate. There was considerable debate. The Labour members were adamant that clause 50 should be retained, but it is very interesting to observe that the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 243 proposes to omit this clause—another win for the National Party, which had argued the clause was inappropriate and did not sit happily in consumer protection legislation, and if it was to be retained it should be in employment legislation, and the person doing the review should be the chief executive of the Department of Labour. So having adopted a stubborn approach to clause 50, and having had his minions argue the case strongly for the retention of clause 50 in the select committee, the Minister has cut them off at the knee caps because clause 50 is to go.