Real Estate Agents Bill

I will be taking just a very short call in relation to clauses 1 and 2—in particular, clause 2, which is the commencement date. The bill has certain sections that come into force on the day after the date that it receives the Royal assent, with the rest of it coming into force—according to the bill—12 months after it receives that Royal assent. I am aware, of course, that there is a Supplementary Order Paper containing an amendment by the Minister in the chair, the Hon Clayton Cosgrove, that increases the 12-month commencement date in relation to those sections by 2 months to 14 months. Concern has still been raised that the commencement date is far too soon to enable an industry to change its rules. This bill is reforming an industry, and that industry needs sufficient time to be able to do that properly. As a comparison, the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act had a 2-year transitional period for that regime to come into place. We would suggest—and submitters have suggested it—that 2 years is actually much more realistic than the amended 14 months that has been prescribed in this bill.

When we look at what is required to put into effect this new real estate regime, we see that there has to be a Real Estate Agency Authority set up. That authority has to appoint complaints assessment committees. The authority has to maintain a panel of 20 persons for those complaints assessment committees, and the Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal also has to be formed and constituted. So we have to make sure that we are responsible in allowing sufficient time for those various bodies to be set up.

When we are looking at time limits, it is also interesting to note that—as I understand it—the current code of conduct for the real estate industry has been on the Minister’s desk awaiting approval since February of this year, which is some 7 months. If the Minister’s amendment to the commencement date of 14 months is agreed to in the Committee this afternoon, it will take half of that time just to approve the code of conduct. I think we have to be realistic, and I think we have to be responsible in enabling a sufficient time for this regime—it is a totally new regime, and a total reformation of the real estate industry—to be put in place. I seek the Minister’s assurance that he is confident that 14 months is sufficient to do this job properly.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Absolutely.

I thank the Minister for that interjection. He has given us his absolute confirmation that 14 months is sufficient. Obviously, in the event he is proved incorrect, we will certainly be reminding him of the assurance that he has given in this Committee this afternoon.

Apart from that, we still have concerns about the commencement date. We do not think that the concession of increasing it from 12 months to 14 months will be that material. The industry believes—and National supports it in that respect—that 2 years is a more realistic time frame. But once again, let it be recorded for the record that the Minister gave his absolute assurance that he is confident that 14 months will be sufficient for this purpose.

We are speaking to the Real Estate Agents Bill under urgency. It is a bill that the Government wants to ram through the House. At present we are debating the title and the commencement date.

I have been thinking about appropriate names for the bill, which is overseen by the Hon Clayton Cosgrove. I wondered whether it should be called the “Cosgrove Sledgehammer Bill” or, indeed, the “Cosgrove Hates Real Estate Agents Bill”—that is another option—or the “Cosgrove Calls Them Land Sharks Bill”. I have heard several interviews with the Minister where he has berated real estate agents in public and called them land sharks and shonky crooks. I cannot believe he would belittle people in our community who are actually doing their best.

This bill is all about Clayton Cosgrove wanting to make a name for himself. The Labour Party list has just come out. It is interesting to see the literature that has come into my hands. In the past, Clayton Cosgrove has wanted the people of Waimakariri to elect him to Parliament, but I see that that member, who is overseeing this bill, is now reliant on his placing on the list. It is ironic how things change when one puts one’s finger in the air. The member overseeing this bill is now reliant on his placing on the list. How times have changed! I am sure that when we are on the campaign trail the good people of Waimakariri will be reminded that that member says one thing, then delivers another.

I think an appropriate comment on this bill would be whether, although some in the industry support reform, its commencement date just 14 months from now gives sufficient time. It is a fairly big reform of the industry. National members would have thought that an appropriate commencement date would be in about 2 years’ time, and in our minority report we put that recommendation. It is good that the Minister has acknowledged it, but he has moved the date by only a little bit—about 2 months. It is also good to have on the record that the Minister and his officials believe that the date gives sufficient time for the measures to be implemented.

The National Party has some real concerns about this bill, about the commencement date, and about whether the wording of the title is appropriate, and I have commented on those concerns this afternoon. I look forward to making even greater remarks when we move to the third reading this evening, under urgency. The Government will be ramming legislation through the House for 13 hours today—we will sit until midnight—and I look forward to my colleagues making some very good contributions in the third reading. We believe that this item is significant for the real estate industry, and that the Government is being too bureaucratic. It has got it wrong. That was conveyed during the select committee process, which attracted hundreds of submissions. It has taken the Government a long time to get the numbers to have this bill go through the House under urgency this evening. I look forward to the third reading, which will probably be after the dinner break, when we can make some further contributions.

I rise just before the dinner break to answer, finally, an issue on the commencement date. My learned friend Mr Charles Chauvel, a lawyer of some eminence, has pointed out to me that the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act, which has been aptly quoted in the Committee as having a 2-year transition, includes some 50 sets of regulations and rules that require ministerial and Cabinet approval, etc. With this legislation, there are 16 matters—not sets of regulations, but matters—to be regulated, and there are also practice rules to be put in place.

I have been asked whether I am confident we can achieve the objective within 14 months. Yes, I am. Why? Because it is core business of the Ministry of Justice. We are blessed with officials who have guided this process and have provided very, very sound advice—despite the Opposition’s nay-saying. I am confident the objective will be met, given that there are precedents for the setting up of these agencies.

It is interesting to note in passing, as we debate the title, that there are a number of titles we could have given this bill. We could have called it the “Consumer Protection Bill”, or we could have given it a name showing that the Labour-led Government was doing something that the National Government—by Mr Worth’s own admission—did not do, even though throughout its 9 years in office the real estate folk had asked it to do something. It had other things to do, so it did nothing about this issue. I may be doing Dr Worth a disservice; it was one of the National Party members who said that. So, yes, the Real Estate Institute came to this Government, yes, we have acted, and, no, we have not acted, I suspect, in the way that certain people in the real estate leadership wanted us to. One learned lawyer in this place—I do not think he is here—advised me that they spent about a million dollars of their members’ money on hiring the most expensive lobbyists in New Zealand. I even saw a video that those lobbyists—who, I am told, also represent those eminent and morally upstanding party pill manufacturers—made on how to make a submission, and 1,300-plus people wrote submissions.

We have got to a place now where we could quite rightly, if we wanted to, call this bill consumer protection legislation, because it has been endorsed by Sue Chetwin of Consumer New Zealand, and, before her, by David Russell, who was pre-eminent in drawing a number of these issues to my attention and to the attention of others. We could call this bill a number of things.

The Government started this process not 2 years ago. We took it from an idea to reality. Issues had been raised by people like Deb Leask and other victims, and by the real estate folk who wanted the name of their profession restored. We put out a discussion document, we met on several occasions with the Real Estate Institute, we put a bill before the House, and here we are. I believe that the extra 2 months—because of the legislative schedule, there will be a delay of a couple of months; we are moving to an election—will allow a little more flexibility.

To come back to the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act, I think it is erroneous to compare this bill with that Act—and I suspect the lawyers on that side, including Ms Wilkinson, may have worked this out—because that Act is major legislation. This bill is basic consumer protection legislation. This is not rocket science. This is basic consumer protection legislation in which standards are set and monitoring is put in place. People who run amok can be hammered—I make no apology for it—victims can be compensated, and the name of the profession can be restored. But I think it is a bit rich for members opposite to say we should make consumers wait 2 years, when those members were approached by the Real Estate Institute time and time again when they were in Government, and in 9 years did nothing.

It is interesting that today, throughout this lengthy debate, not one member of the National Party, or anyone else who opposes this bill, has come up with one alternative proposal. I look forward to National announcing its real estate policy and telling us whether it would repeal this legislation. I look forward to that. Do those members have an alternative? Does the eminent lawyer Ms Wilkinson present an alternative to us? Oh no, those members bleat on and bemoan the fact that this Government has got off its chuff and actually looked to protect consumers. I respect the fact that those members do not agree with the vehicle. That is fine. I respect the fact that they do not agree with a lot of the propositions, although I still do not know why—apart from the fact that they keep levelling at me that I have a vendetta against real estate folk. Well, I understand that to have a vendetta one has to have been wronged, I think—the eminent lawyers to my right will tell me. Normally, with a vendetta—if one wants revenge—one has to have been wronged. Well, I have been involved in real estate transactions and I have had no problem at all with any of the real estate folk I have dealt with. There is no vendetta.