Hon Christopher Finlayson

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) : Mr Assistant Speaker—[Interruption] I do not think I need a lecture on being awake from the member for Rongotai.

Hon Annette King: I wasn’t talking to the member. I was talking to his whip.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Well, I am talking to that honourable member. I have spent a lot of—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Please, members. It has been a long day. It has been a long night. Everyone is tired. I now call the honourable member Christopher Finlayson.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Well, I am certainly not tired. I am anxious to get involved in the third reading speech. Unfortunately, the justice team in the Labour Party, headed by the member for Rongotai, really have not the faintest idea about basic principles of industry regulation.

Now, let me tell the honourable member a couple of things that National believes. We believe that the Real Estate Agents Act 1976 is overdue for reform, but we oppose this legislation, and our reasons have been very carefully set out, first by Kate Wilkinson, then by Simon Power. Reform of this area is overdue. The 1976 Act has outlived its usefulness. That was a point made time and time again to the Justice and Electoral Committee by members of the real estate industry. For the Labour Party to stand up in this House and grossly misrepresent the position of the National Party and its principled opposition, frankly, makes me sick. We accept there is a need for reform, but the devil is always in the detail and in the way one goes about the reform. The way one goes about reforming a major area like this is not to romp around the country like some third-rate Rambo—which is all the member for Waimakariri is—but rather to concentrate on the reform, master the detail, and listen to what people are saying. My advice to Mr Cosgrove would be to adopt a “Hey, we’re all in this together.” kind of approach--

Hon Annette King: Don’t be so nasty!

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Oh, the member says I am nasty. I am simply giving the member a few lessons. If she wants lessons on nastiness, she should hear some of the comments that have been made in this House today by her colleagues. A ritual recitation of that kind of rubbish does her no credit at all and, even though she is getting on in years, it is time she grew up.

But let me deal with the detail of this legislation, instead of responding to the third-rate ravings of the member for Rongotai. It is a gross misrepresentation of the position to say that the National Party is opposed to reform. We are very much in favour of reform, but certain key matters were not addressed and they have remained matters of concern to the National Party throughout. Ours has been a principled opposition. As Mr Power said, they were the points that were raised in the first reading. They were dealt with in the second reading. They were dealt with by National members in the course of the select committee hearings, when a number of us played a full and active role, and they have been made again in the third reading. Now, let us recite those concerns one more time.

The primary concern I had was that property management is not contained in the Real Estate Agents Bill. Most submissions the select committee received emphasised the need for that particular form of real estate activity work to be included in the bill. As we said in our minority report, property management is often an integral part of real estate work and, if the real objective of this bill is consumer protection, then it must be in there. We are not satisfied when the Associate Minister of Justice Clayton Cosgrove says: “Oh, well, I will look at it, and maybe over the next few years we should be able to do something.” That is unacceptable. It was unacceptable when the bill was introduced and it is unacceptable now.

The next point was our concern about the uncertainty created by the 5-year review of the employment status of real estate agents. Again, we made the point that this was a sword of Damocles hanging over the real estate agents that was not justified. We said that if one was to have a review of clause 49, which related to the employment status of a salesperson, then that could be done but it should be done by the Department of Labour. What we find is that the principled points in opposition to this clause, which have been picked up by New Zealand First and possibly also by the Green Party, have been noted by the Government because clause 50 will not be part of the bill.

The next point we made was a very serious one about the inadequacy of the transitional provisions. We said that 12 months was not enough, and I am, of course, referring to clause 2, which deals with the commencement provisions. The amount of work that has to be undertaken to get this legislation shipshape before it comes into force requires a period of more than 12 months. The Associate Minister has come back and listened—kind of—and said that 14 months will do. We said that he should look at the lawyers and conveyancers legislation, which had a period of 24 months. I can assure the House that every one of those months was required by the Law Society, the Ministry of Justice, the Bar Association, and others to deal with the preparatory work to get the legislation knocked into shape, and now it is in force as from 1 August 2008. But when one looks at the magnitude of the change here, with the creation of the authority—the creation of the complaints body set out in Part 4—one sees that an enormous amount of work is required to be done.

In particular we note that sections 14 to 28 come into force on the day after the date on which the legislation receives the Royal assent. What does that mean in practical terms? It means that the authority immediately comes into force. The registrar will shortly have to follow, because one of the first tasks of the authority will be to appoint the registrar who, when one looks at Part 3, has such a fundamental role in terms of licensing. Almost immediately there will be a need to appoint authority members. Everyone knows that there will be seven of them, and they will include a lawyer of not less than 7 years’ experience. It is good that there is a Supplementary Order Paper in the name of the Associate Minister that says that there should be consultation with the Real Estate Institute of New Zealand before those appointments. A large amount of work is required to be done once the authority has been established and the members are appointed, if this legislation is going to be ready in 14 months. I can tell the House now that 14 months is not enough time and a lengthier transitional period will be required.

The next principled point of opposition we have raised from day one is the issue of auctions. I am pleased to see that the Associate Minister has listened to those objections. Extensive submissions were made on this matter at the Justice and Electoral Committee, as a result of which clauses 136 to 141 will be deleted. That is good because they are modelled, as I said in the Committee stage, on sections that come from the Property, Stock and Business Agents Act 2002, which is a New South Wales Act. They dealt with a particular situation in New South Wales at a particular time, and we heard that at the select committee. They do not serve any useful purpose in New Zealand. The next point we raised was that this bill is unnecessarily bureaucratic. We have referred to the creation of the authority and the problems associated with Part 4, which deals with disciplinary matters. So that remains an issue; it has been an issue from day one.

Finally, there is the issue of the amount of experience required for real estate agents. I thought that Mr Dunne’s proposals in relation to clause 34 were sensible. They are changes that were designed to ensure that those who enter the real estate profession are fit and proper persons because that is in the interests of the public.

So these were changes. There were not many that required change. Some have been deleted and we are pleased about that, but there remain some sticking points, and thus there will be continued opposition to this legislation. But what I really find unnecessarily hyperbolic is the suggestion that the National Party is opposed to reform, and is opposed to the repeal of the 1976 Act. That is a load of garbage. We are in favour of reform but it has to be proper reform, and in four respects this bill is still lacking. That is why we are going to oppose the third reading.