Real Estate Agents Bill

I move, That the Real Estate Agents Bill be now read a third time. I take great delight in doing so. I open the debate by making a couple of thankyous. Firstly, I thank a number of people outside this place. I thank a woman called Deb Leask, who is a victim of some of the disreputable behaviour of the minority of agents in the real estate industry. When these issues were brought to my attention, she was brave enough to expose her personal issues in respect of her transaction and to demand that there be change. As for other victims who deserve to be noted, I mention also the late Bronwyn Hilbron and her family, who have yet to see justice for what she went through. I pay tribute to the Ottaways and to all the other folk who either wrote to me or went to the media and outlined situations where they felt, rightly or wrongly, they had been wronged.

I also note that throughout the debate on this bill, the National members have brought up only two examples of consumers who had been wronged. Rarely did they acknowledge that there was any issue in the industry to address. In the National Party’s view, of course, we have nirvana: there is no issue, there is no problem, and no real estate agent has wronged a Kiwi. I tend to disagree with that.

It is often said that the three most important things in real estate are location, location, location. Well, in just over an hour the four most important things in the real estate sector will be the consumer, the consumer, the consumer, and as well those innocent and professional real estate agents whose professional skill and reputation is degraded every time one of their number runs amok. I have been accused in this debate of all sorts of things: of being vengeful and of having a vendetta—I think that colourful language was used. Even Simon Power cringes at that. Some of his colleagues actually used that term.

💬 Hon Member: Oh, come on.

No, Simon Power did not use it. I make this point: I have no vendetta against the real estate industry. I have engaged in private real estate transactions and used agents before, and they were outstanding. By definition, to have a vendetta means that I personally have been wronged. Well, I personally have not been wronged. I am one of the lucky people who have had good dealings with reputable, professional agents. But I and this Government make no apology for perhaps using some colourful language.

I respect Mr Dunne. He knocked off the common-sense, Mr Nice Guy routine today, put the boots on, and had a good crack at me. That is OK—that is called democracy, and I respect his view. But I make no apology for calling those who did consumers over land sharks, and I make no apology for saying there are rogues in the industry, because there are. Agents told me about, and wrote to me with, examples of them. I make no apology for taking the Queen’s shilling, doing my job, and, as a public servant, standing by every Kiwi who has been done over. That is called doing one’s job as a member of Parliament. I heard propaganda from National members who said I had lambasted everybody in the industry for being a land shark, a rogue, or whatever the term was. Well, they will keep saying that; they will say it again in their repetitive speeches tonight. The facts are, and the press statements show, that that was never the case. That was a myth, created by some in the industry and perpetuated and promoted by the National Party. But who cares about that?

The most important people in this whole deal are the honest real estate agents and the consumers. Tonight they will have protection. There has been criticism, for instance, that this bill does not deal with property managers. Well, we have announced that there will be a review—a review that will take place within the 14-month period before this legislation is implemented after it is enacted. If the review provides evidence and fact, not hearsay and piffle—such as the ring-arounds from various people in the industry who said that one in five complaints was about property managers, but who provided no evidence of that—and if legislation is required, that legislation will be brought to the House, enacted, and implemented, and it will come into force at the same time as this legislation, in 14 months’ time. It will be a concerted, measured approach to an issue on which very little evidence has been provided.

I thank the officials. I will not name them, because they may at some time want to buy or sell a property, and they may get into some difficulty if it is known they worked on this bill with me. But the officials are from the Ministry of Justice, and they know who they are. They did a stunning job under, I might say, some duress. I pay tribute to the Justice and Electoral Committee, but I say one of the disappointments in the process concerned the way that committee members were treated by some people. There was some bullying of officials. I am told that highly paid lobbyists got a million bucks from the industry. I think Ms Chen was the key lobbyist—I am told that she also represents the party pill manufacturers, so members should work that one out. I think those people did not act as they should have acted, in terms of the pressure that was brought to bear on some people.

I thank my colleague Lynne Pillay, and Simon Power. We did have a difference of view, but I respect Simon. Mr Finlayson, who, I think, also became tired of hearing the rote submissions, made a contribution, as did Ms Wilkinson and others, and on our side of the select committee, of course, Charles Chauvel, a learned lawyer, and Louisa Wall. They managed a very difficult process. The committee members managed a huge number of submissions, and they came under pressure and took the hit from many in the industry.

I look forward to working with this industry. I think this bill gives us a wonderful opportunity to get rid of the bad guys. We will restore, recover, and promote the positive work of those in real estate, restore the faith that consumers in our community should have in this industry, and people—men and women—will be able to hold their heads up high. This is not rocket science; this is basic consumer protection legislation.

I just say to the National Party members, as they warm up and put the liniment on, getting ready to go into this debate, that they have not served consumers or the New Zealand public well. They have talked about the industry at length, promoting and safeguarding it; they have not talked about ordinary Kiwis. And I make this point to those who have listened to the debate on this bill: there has been not one policy, not one idea, and not one alternative from National. I do not mind criticism; I think it is good to have a contest of ideas. If Simon Power and Kate Wilkinson get into Government, will they repeal this legislation? Will they tell us that? Will they announce their policy on the real estate industry? I do not think so. Once they go into the communities and talk to constituents and real people, will they find people who disagree with having their biggest property transaction, and the biggest asset in their lives, protected? People will know that if something happens and they feel aggrieved, they can go to an independent authority. If a person wins his or her case the offender can be struck off and can be fined, and the victim can get compensation and feel good about himself or herself, unlike the situation now, where it costs 750 bucks to bring a complaint and the gatekeepers determine whether they will even look at it.

I do say this: I think there are times in this Parliament when we should put a bit of the pettiness aside, and I think Mr Power—I will not talk about the other National members—as a lawyer, genuinely believes that consumers should be protected. I think he genuinely knows they need to be protected, because he has probably dealt with a number of constituents, so he knows that people have been done over and there was a need for change. This industry was given a couple of chances to implement change itself, and it chose not to. Communities demanded that we act, and we have acted. That crew over there on the National benches had 9 years. They were approached by concerned people—they admitted that; I think it was Mr Carter or Mr Worth who did so—and they said, by their own admission in the debate, that they did nothing about the industry. I am prepared to cop the criticism, the name-calling, and all that drama. But I say, where is National’s policy, where are the ideas, and where is the alternative to this bill? I thank the Justice and Electoral Committee, Parliament, the officials, the victims, and the honest real estate folk who will be able to hold their heads up high as they proceed through these reforms and their industry is restored to the status it should have.

I am delighted to lead off on behalf of National in relation to the third reading of the Real Estate Agents Bill. Can I say from the outset, and we have always said from the outset, that we support wholeheartedly and absolutely the purpose of this bill. The purpose of this bill is to promote public confidence in the performance of real estate agency work and to protect the interests of consumers in respect of transactions that relate to real estate. The Minister mentioned before that the three most important things in real estate are consumer, consumer, consumer. During the Committee stage he actually said he was part of a listening Government. I would just like to put on the record that the Hon Peter Dunne had some very sensible and practical amendments to this legislation that National did support. One of those suggested amendments was that the authority must consult with the industry training organisation for the real estate industry. The second one was that the qualifications—the experience of real estate salespeople—should not be 2 years out of 10 years, or as amended by the Minister 3 years out of 10 years, but 5 years out of 10 years. That is to protect the consumer. That is all about the consumer. There was nothing subversive about that, nothing radical about that, but did the Government members listen to that? No, they did not. They ignored it completely.

This bill should have been an easy bill. This is not an industry that was dragged, kicking and screaming—to quote the Minister—to reform. This was not that situation at all. The industry itself has been asking for reform for over 10 years. Yet the Ministers of the day said that it was not part of their policy priorities. The industry had been saying for 10 years that it wanted reform. Mr Dunne mentioned two matters that could quite easily have helped the situation and protected consumers. One was to actually put in place the regional disciplinary committees. They are already provided for under the existing legislation. What did the Minister do? He had the opportunity, and he had the power. In fact, he was empowered to appoint lay observers on that committee and to validate that committee. For more than 10 years he did not do so, so we did not have any regional disciplinary committees to deal with some of those complaints at that early stage to expedite the complaint process.

The other suggestion, and again the industry had been asking for it for over 10 years, was to increase the amount of the fines; $750 admittedly was not sufficient. The industry did not think it was sufficient, the Government did not think it was sufficient, we did not think it was sufficient, but for 10 years or more the Minister had been approached by the industry. The Government has had four official approaches in the last 10 years by presidents and others of the real estate industry to address these matters, and what did this Government do? It did absolutely nothing, until this Minister decided he would go on a real estate crusade and talk about land sharks in the industry, talk about carnage, and talk about cowboys—he decided that this would be his crusade.

Well, we now have a bill at its third reading. The National Party minority report—and we did do a lot of work during the select committee process—actually expressed some concerns. It is, at least, satisfying to some extent that some of our objections have been addressed. The uncertainty created by the 5-year review of the employment status of real estate agents has been addressed. That is no longer hanging over the heads of salespeople not knowing whether they are employed or self-employed. There is still the issue that has to be addressed between what is meant by supervision as opposed to effective control under the existing legislation, which has been tested in the courts. Now we have new phrases and I am sure they will be tested in the courts as well.

The auctioneers provisions in this bill had a bidders record, and it was the most unrealistic, impractical section of legislation that I have seen for a long, long time. Thankfully again, that was taken out of the bill by a Supplementary Order Paper of the Minister, and so it should have been. Who on earth would want to have to keep a bidders record for 3 years even before a bidder knew he or she was going to bid, because it might be a spur of the moment bid for a property, and the vendor wants to get the best price, and he or she had to produce identification—had to produce a passport. Now who takes a passport along to an auction if he or she wants to buy a property? Thankfully—

💬 Simon Power: They could take one of those new ones of Rick Barker’s!

Oh, one of the microchip ones; maybe that would work. But, thankfully, that provision was also deleted.

This bill is about consumer protection, and it should be about consumer protection. But it should also be about making responsible law, and certain law. Now, I asked the Minister, and I had to ask him about five times during the Committee stage, what the definition of residential property was, because that is very important and it is actually covered several times in the bill. I said: “Are lifestyle properties included, or not included, in the definition of residential property?”. That is material to whether the client can cancel a sole agency agreement. Finally, after the fifth question, he did say that yes, it is. The reason I asked that question is that I wanted an assurance. Believe it or not, some people actually read the Hansard transcripts to get some idea of what is intended by the legislation and by the parties in this House. I wanted it recorded in Hansard that the Minister intended, by his legislation, that lifestyle properties would be defined and included in the definition of residential property. Although that might seem a small matter, it is not a small matter if one has a vendor client who has the uncertainty of not knowing whether his or her lifestyle property is residential and cancels one sole agency agreement and enters into another, and suddenly finds out that his or her property does not come within that definition, it is not excluded, and therefore he or she has to pay two commissions. That, on the ground, is one of the very practical things that has to be addressed by this bill.

We also heard the definition of real estate agency work, and the definition of transaction, and the situation regarding shares and whether, for example, a rural property owned by a company, which the parties decide to sell by way of shares rather than by way of real estate, would be caught by this bill. We have had no clarification whatsoever. This bill still leads to a lot of uncertainty, and uncertain law is not good law whatsoever.

Property management is not included in this bill. We have heard arguments that it comes outside the scope of the bill, but that did not seem to matter with KiwiSaver, in relation to the meal breaks bill. Even though it was outside the scope, it was included. So why is it not included here? Property management is an integral part of the real estate industry. We heard that the only claims in recent years against the fidelity fund were in relation to property management. We have seen in the headlines the scenario with Blue Chip. Property managers have more opportunity to misappropriate funds than do real estate agents, because of the length of time that the money is held in their trust account. Now that property managers are not regulated, they do not have to have a trust account and they do not have to be audited. In fact, one real estate agency in Christchurch said that this will save it $10,000 a year in agency fees. And this is supposed to be legislation for the protection of the consumer! This is not legislation for the protection of the consumer. This bill waters down that protection of the consumer. Property management is such an integral part of real estate that it should have been included. I think it is negligent that it is not included.

Can I just finish by saying that of course we support legislation that protects the consumer. Of course we support legislation to reform an industry, when that industry itself wants it and needs it, and the consumer wants it and needs it. But this legislation does not do that. This legislation is a missed opportunity. It is a disappointment and it is a missed opportunity, because of the attitude of some Government members, and in particular of the author of the bill. I think that is sad because we do not have workable legislation, and at the end of the day the consumer will not be more protected by this than under the existing legislation.

I am pleased to be able to speak in the third reading debate of legislation that provides for a long-overdue overhaul of the Real Estate Agents Act 1976. It delivers on the Government’s promise to bring accountability, transparency, and openness to the real estate sector, and to establish an independent complaints system that really does protect consumers and supports honest real estate professionals, who, as the Minister has said time and time again, and as we saw at the select committee, constitute the vast majority of participants in this industry. It is correct and right that this bill should put an end to the industry’s self-regulation and introduce a range of consumer protection measures, including compensation on a proper basis for consumers who have been ripped off. I was astounded to hear the previous speaker say that this legislation waters down existing protections. All one needs to do is read through the bill to see that in fact the protections are massively strengthened, and that is great for consumers and for those honest, hard-working real estate agents who form the backbone of the industry.

The select committee process was robust, and I was really pleased to participate in it as a Government member. I think the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee, my colleague Lynne Pillay, did a terrific job of making sure that people had dignified hearings and understood that they were being listened to with respect, which is an important part of the process of Parliament interacting with the people. I am also interested in the reforms that are enacted in the Supplementary Order Paper, and on reflection I think they are sensible.

Rescinding the requirement to review the employment status of salespersons is appropriate, but I do not think we should lose sight of the issue that alone in New Zealand employment law, along, perhaps, with sharemilkers, real estate agents have this odd statutory provision that entitles them to be regarded as employees, whether or not all the other indicia and tests as to employment status exist. We heard evidence in the select committee that this leads to a race to the bottom in boom times. We are not in those times any more, so it might be that we have a temporary reprieve from the problems that having a compulsory employment status lead to. Let us face it, the reality is that should a review of the status of real estate agents be required at some point, it can always be done at the behest of the Minister. It does not need legislation to require it. It is probably appropriate, given the circumstances that we find ourselves in, to rescind that requirement.

I think also, on reflection, the decision to rescind the regulation of the conduct of auctions is probably the right way to go. The major evil that the original provisions were designed to deal with was the issue of dummy bidding, not that that seemed to register with the Opposition, ironically. But we did hear evidence that the real estate industry is taking significant steps to clean up its act in that area. I am very confident that through its consumer-education role the new Real Estate Agents Authority, which the legislation will create, will ensure that consumers are aware of the issues that may affect them if buying or selling real estate through auctions, for example. Again, we can be confident that there are measures in the legislation that will deal with the evil that it was intended originally to address by regulating auctions in the way that was intended.

I think the decision to raise the experience criterion for a licensed agent or branch manager from 2 out of 10 years to 3 out of 10 years is the right way to go. Clearly we need to address the concern we heard in the committee that 2 years’ experience over the last 10 years is not sufficient.

Finally, on reflection the decision to formally require consultation with the Real Estate Institute of New Zealand over appointments to the authority and the disciplinary tribunal is appropriate to ensure that the transition between the current regulatory regime and the proposed one is smooth. As I said in my Committee stage speech, that was probably going to be a requirement on the Minister anyway, given the provisions of the Crown Entities Act to appoint appropriately qualified people. That would have required some sort of consultation process with industry anyway, so we will probably end up with the same sort of result.

I have already acknowledged the sterling efforts of the chair of the select committee. I mentioned the work of the officials in my second reading speech and I will not name them, as the Minister refrained from doing, but I do want to express gratitude to them on behalf of the committee for their hard work. I would also like to acknowledge the majority of agents who came before the committee and made responsible submissions. They showed us that they intend to muck in and work through the issues that they need to in their industry to make sure that there is proper public confidence in that industry. I wish them well in the tougher economic times that we are experiencing.

I did want to comment on one other matter, though. I refer to the praise that was heaped upon the Supplementary Order Paper moved earlier in the House by Peter Dunne and supported by the National Party. There is a regrettable trend in this House, in my respectful view, that persons who do not attend select committees none the less come into the House to speak, move amendments, and vote as if they are somehow greatly informed by the consultation process that we have been through. The reality is that the committee process exists for a reason, and my money generally will go with the amendments that have stood the test of the select committee process, rather than on a fly-by-night basis, without having heard the evidence. I am afraid that Supplementary Order Paper clearly comes into that category.

It is a matter of regret that the National Party has chosen to maintain what I regard as its pro forma opposition to this legislation—just opposing for the sake of opposing. But the public is wising up to the National Party, as the Roy Morgan poll shows tonight, with a gap closing from over 21 percent to just over 6 percent and over half the people saying the country is on the right track. That is because this is a Government that is in touch with what Kiwis want, unlike the Opposition. The Opposition has only three approaches: copying the policies of this Government, keeping secret what its policies are from ordinary Kiwis, and just going through ritualistic opposition on bills like this one.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member knows it is not appropriate to mislead the House. There is no way that we are copying Labour Party policies, because there are none on its website.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you, Mr Brownlee. I was looking for a point of order, but not that one. I thought you might think the member was being irrelevant. That being the case, yours was not a point of order and the member will continue.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am worried about the member’s relevance but I did notice that one of the Ministers took time to release one of our policies tonight.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): OK, Mr Brownlee. Thank you for that.

I am sorry I have upset Mr Brownlee so much with the good poll news that the Labour Party is enjoying at the moment.

All I would say in conclusion is that Kiwis are not fooled by the National Party’s approach and they will rightly welcome this legislation.

It never ceases to amaze me how sure of themselves the Labour Party members are on these issues. Over the last 18 months, while National has been so far ahead of Labour in the polls, we have modestly gone about our work. Tonight the Labour Party members find one rogue poll and they are cock-a-hoop in this House, telling us it is all over and they are on the way back. Well, I have news for them: they should just wait another 10 days. That is all I have to say about that matter.

The Real Estate Agents Bill is worth a few cursory remarks on the way through. I will start by saying the Labour Government had an opportunity at the first reading to get this legislation right. When the Minister came to this House and put this bill before the debating chamber, National Party members pointed out at that stage the five or six things that would have to be changed in the legislation in order to make it work. Not only did we do that but we stood and told Government members which provisions of the legislation we supported. Our position on those matters and those factors has never changed; it has been perfectly consistent from the day when I and my colleagues stood up and took first reading speeches on this bill.

What happened on the other side of the House? On the other side, with regard to this legislation, we had the Minister storming through the House and announcing the fact that there was to be legislation to wipe out land sharks; he announced that at least five or six times before the legislation was finally introduced. He stood in this House and told us that the Justice and Electoral Committee would do its work. The Government refused to listen to the advice of the submitters to that committee. It brushed them aside as though they did not understand the important points that they were supposed to understand. The officials struggled with the bill because of the practicality of what was being offered by the submitters, but the directions from the Government made the officials be pushed and pulled in a completely different direction. They are to be commended for weathering the appalling arrangement that we had to endure in that regard.

Then the Minister was so sure of himself and of the numbers he had to secure the passage of this legislation that the bill was reported back to the House. Once again, National took the opportunity, in the minority report on the bill, to put on record the five or six things—the same five or six things that we had pointed out in the first reading—that needed to be changed in order for the legislation to work. The Government said no, it knew best what would work, and said it had the numbers to pass the bill. Let us pause in time. The Government did not have the numbers to pass the bill; that became apparent immediately upon the report back. What position did that leave the Government in? It left the Government in the position of having to negotiate—funnily enough—on four out of the five or six things that the National Party had said right from the start had to be changed in order for this legislation to progress.

Now, I do not know about the deals that were done with other political parties to ensure that the numbers were stitched together in order for this legislation to pass. But whichever political parties were involved, I congratulate them on recognising that four of the points where the Government rolled over were matters introduced by the National Party—matters raised at the first reading of this bill, raised by the National Party through the select committee, and raised in the report back—and still being raised by the National Party today. The question is, given that the Government knew those changes had to be made, why it did not hear submissions on them. What an appalling process it was when the Government said it would not listen to any of the submitters or take any of their advice. It decided it was pressing ahead, but, if it had to do a deal to get the numbers to make the legislation work, well, at the ninth hour it would introduce a Supplementary Order Paper with all the changes on it that the National Party had suggested 4½ months ago. What an appalling process!

The problem is that the Government has left out the most important changes, and that is why the National Party continues to take exception not only to the procedural arrogance and deficiencies surrounding this bill but to matters of substance, as well. We know, for example, that the short transitional period is nowhere near the length that was made available under the lawyers and conveyancers legislation, which is an equivalent industry-based statute. This bill has provided for nowhere near that period. Property management is left outside the bill, despite the Government being told time and time again by submitters that it should be included in it. The Minister had the ability to fix that during the Committee stage, and he declined to do so. We also know that the experience requirement for a licence has been increased from 2 years’ experience in the previous 10 years, to 3 years’ experience in the previous 10 years. But we have said all along that 3 years’ experience in the previous 5 years is a preferable formula. There were missed opportunities to deal with auctioneers and their particular regime, but more specifically, there is the missed opportunity relating to property managers.

The process around this bill, when compared with the way Lianne Dalziel dealt with the financial advisers legislation, has been nothing short of combative and unnecessary. Right from the start, had the approach by the Minister and the Government been to try to get workable legislation in place, we would not have had to endure the farce that ended up with Supplementary Order Paper 243 in the name of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove being introduced at the very last minute, as part of a political deal stitched together on four or five matters the Government had refused to listen to the National Party on right from the start. That just proves that no one political party has all the ability, all the knowledge, and all the right contacts to make the process work in a way that would have seen this bill advance in a much more satisfactory manner.

I conclude by thanking the thousands of people in the industry who took the opportunity to make submissions. It is just a shame they did not have that opportunity with regard to the amendments on the Supplementary Order Paper. But they did make submissions on the bill at the select committee hearings chaired by the honourable member Lynne Pillay. I attended many of those hearings, and I say the submitters who came before the committee were, by and large, extremely positive, in the sense that they wanted to engage on the bill—because they probably had not had an opportunity to do so up until then—and they came along with some pretty constructive and positive suggestions to make. I just think it is a shame that because of the Minister’s blind adherence to a policy that was set up in a combative and direct framework, we did not take the opportunities to make those changes earlier, in a decent and coherent manner—changes that have ended up having to be made at the last minute by way of the Supplementary Order Paper. So National will continue to oppose this legislation on those substantive issues and process issues. The Minister, when he made his contribution, said he wanted to know our policy in respect of this matter, so I will advise him of it again. If the Minister is listening, I tell him that it is the same five points that we made at the first reading, it is the same five points that we made at the second reading, it is the stuff we had in our minority report on the bill, and it is the same points that we are making here again tonight.

My presentation in this the third reading of the Real Estate Agents Bill probably will not be as dramatic as that of the previous speaker, Simon Power.

💬 Hon Annette King: What about as loud?

I do not need to be. But I ought to say that I do agree with one of his sentiments, and that is that no one political party has all the answers. I always thought that politics was about getting the numbers, and to get the numbers one had to negotiate one’s own positions. Notwithstanding who may have been responsible for the five points the previous speaker alluded to, I think the important thing for consumers in this country is that this bill will give them confidence in the profession of real estate agents.

New Zealand First supports this bill, as we have done, right from the start. In the first reading, when one of my colleagues made our presentation, we supported this bill going to select committee. Why? To allow the people of New Zealand to have their say. As the report back from the committee indicates, over 1,300 submissions were received. Hearings were recorded to almost 700 of those submitters. Quite clearly there was a need for change. Quite clearly any change required responsible law. In both cases, this bill does provide that. Part of the responsibility is providing consumer protection, but also protection to those within the profession. This bill establishes the Real Estate Agents Authority, which will essentially be a Crown entity. It will consist of seven members, all requiring certain qualifications in order to sit on that board. It brings to an end self-regulation, which has pervaded this profession up to this point in time. It is that self-regulation that has drawn the criticism from the general public.

I have heard comments about the attitude taken by the Minister. Other Ministers may have approached the legislation quite differently, but I think it is important that at the end of the day we end up with legislation that is responsible and provides increased protection for the consumer. The bill outlines a complaints and discipline procedure. We think these procedures allow issues to be dealt with quickly and justly.

Another point raised by critics of the bill was the issue of property management. I said in my second reading speech that property management was outside the scope of this bill. A subsequent speaker said that it was not. However, when I made reference to consideration being given by the Minister to having the whole issue of property management reviewed, he indicated that that review would fall in line with the time in which this bill is to come into effect.

As I said earlier on, this bill will go a long way to restoring the confidence of the New Zealand consumer in this profession. I know that probably some members within that profession will feel that the bill goes too far; others, conversely, will think that the bill does not go far enough. With regard to those people who have criticised the bill in this House today, I wonder what they will do if they are given the opportunity to be in Government, and whether, if their criticism of this bill is such, that they would repeal it. No comment was made in that regard.

I want to also make reference to criticism about the Supplementary Order Paper that allows a 14-month time frame for the bill to take place. There was comment about the fact that in the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act they required a period of 2 years. My response to that is: why should the New Zealand consumer have to wait 2 years before the protection that this bill will afford them kicks in? I personally think that even 14 months may be too long, but it is much shorter than the 2 years that some people in this House would like to see.

I do not need to go on any further about this bill. I think the Supplementary Order Paper introduced by the Minister addresses a lot of the concerns that critics of this bill had. I take this opportunity to thank the members of the select committee. I also take the opportunity to thank the Minister for allowing New Zealand First to make its submissions and express our concerns about the bill, which has seen some of our concerns addressed in the Supplementary Order Paper. I commend this bill to the House.

Debate interrupted.