Real Estate Agents Bill

The debate includes schedule 1.

Part 4 is almost the heart of the legislation, because the Minister’s yelling and screaming before the bill was introduced indicated he was concerned that there was an inadequate complaints procedure under the 1976 Act. We agree that it was timely to look at the complaints and discipline procedure, because any system that regulates a profession or an industry group needs to be effective so that disputes can be resolved justly, quickly, and inexpensively.

The problem, from the National Party’s point of view, is that Part 4 will not achieve that purpose. Rather, it will cause added expense. Also, what has been constructed is not really suitable for the particular circumstances. That is why we put in our minority view that we were very concerned about the bureaucracy created by this bill. We have mentioned the authority on the way through, but we say here that an unnecessary bureaucracy is created.

Let us take a look at the way this part is constructed. There are two types of conduct that can lead to complaints. The first type is unsatisfactory conduct, which is of the lesser standard, and the second type is misconduct. We have no complaint with that division of labour, as it were. If one looks at the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act, one sees there is a very similar distinction to be made. Instances of unsatisfactory conduct are referred to complaints assessment committees, and, as the Committee can see, a number of changes have been made to the way in which the complaints assessment committees are set up. The existing clause 74 is proposed to be deleted, and there is a new clause 74 and a clause 74A.

There will be a complaints assessment committee that will deal with complaints and allegations about licensees. There will also be a panel. The reason for that is we received evidence about the number of complaints made, and it became tolerably clear at an early stage that simply to have three members of the board as members of a complaints assessment committee would not work. This is where we say that this is too complex, because this bill does not adequately address what to do with the myriad of vexatious complaints that come in. These are the sorts of complaints that should be able to be dealt with very quickly, or what may start off as a complaint may be able to be resolved very quickly if the agent and the client have a quick discussion. There may have been a misunderstanding, or whatever. But in the way it is constructed it almost encourages a culture of complaint, and we do not think this is proportionate to the needs of the consumers. If there could be a provision that provided for, in the first instance, people being able to talk to their agent, if they thought fit, we think that would be a much better system. Sometimes, of course, the relationship between the client and the agent is so bad that one immediately goes to this complaints procedure, and that is understood and accepted.

That is the first aspect of the complaints procedure. I do not think it is a bad idea to have something like clause 84 in the bill. It deals with modes of resolution of disputes, and it has been picked up from the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act. It will be possible to resolve matters by negotiation, conciliation, and mediation. I certainly hope this clause will be invoked if the legislation is passed, because that is a much better way of resolving a dispute between the client and the agent than simply going to this more formal complaints procedure. I note it is not compulsory. At some stage we will have to debate the desirability of having compulsory mediation, because it is certainly the case in Australia in various tribunals, and I think there is a lot to commend it in this country as well.

The second tribunal I am not so worried about. This is the Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal set up under clause 97 and the following clauses. There will need to be a tribunal of this nature to deal with the serious complaints. These are complaints about misconduct.

I want to make a couple of brief comments on Part 4—in particular, on the Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal. I would like to address two issues.

One relates to the composition of the tribunal. The Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 243 would add to clause 97 a requirement that there be consultation with the Real Estate Institute of New Zealand when making the first appointment of a licensee. That is a useful provision, I think, on reflection. It probably only restates the requirements of the Crown entities legislation, which would apply, in any event, to the tribunal—that the Minister should appoint only properly qualified people to the tribunal. Clearly, in order to determine who was properly qualified, the Minister would have to go through some sort of consultation exercise, and it is likely that one of the bodies with which he would consult would be the Real Estate Institute. I think it is a useful restatement, in effect, of an existing requirement on the Minister, and it is to be welcomed.

The other point that I want to make briefly is to deal with the suggestion that somehow the legislation allows insufficient time to set up the various bodies that are required under it. The analogy that has been drawn time and time again by ill-informed members of the Opposition is with the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill. Well, what members who cite that legislation clearly do not know, or have not bothered to check, is that about 50 or 60 sets of different regulations and rules were required to be promulgated under that legislation in order to bring it into force. It was a very different exercise from, and of a very different order of magnitude to, this legislation, which has got a much simpler set of bodies that are required to function under it. The time allowed for those bodies to be brought into being is ample, in my submission.

Well, I suppose we could call Part 4 “When real estate agents go bad they go feral”. That is the meaning of the current title “Complaints and discipline”.

It is interesting to look at clauses 71 and 72, which set out provisions to do with unsatisfactory conduct and misconduct. Who decides what is unsatisfactory? There is no list here. There is a wide view of what is unsatisfactory. It could be anything from spitting to whatever. But who decides that? Does the Minister decide that, does the tribunal decide that, or what? It is not pointed out here. I know that at school it was always the principal who decided what was unsatisfactory, or the dean. But I am wondering—

💬 Charles Chauvel: You are wandering all over the place!

I am just wondering how long that member has got left in this House.

💬 Moana Mackey: Oh, nice one, stick around.

It should not be very long. Then I turn to an issue that my colleague—[Interruption] Oh, here we go. One puts a little bit of bait out there, and, bang, they just love to get it—

💬 Charles Chauvel: It beats having to give a speech on the subject.

I cannot help that fact.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs): Come back to the bill, and could those people not provide the base.

Absolutely, I will come back to the bill! Clause 97 talks about some sort of disciplinary tribunal. Well, who is going to appoint those people? Oh, it is the Minister. So who does the Minister appoint? His mates.

💬 Hon Member: It’s not the National Party.

Oh no. It is all about appointing mates. Who do members think will get appointed to the tribunal? Well, for a start it will be all the members of the Labour Party who lose their seats in the next election, because they will not have anything to do for the next 3, 6, or 9 years—most probably 9. But never mind.

💬 Moana Mackey: That member did lose his seat.

There we go: out goes the bait, and, bang, there they go again. Well, at least I did work when I was out of Parliament, not like some people in this House who relied on—but I will not go there.

The fact of the matter is that we all know that there are bad eggs out there. We all know that there is the odd rogue element out there, but, boy, I tell members that it is easier to get a gun licence and walk down Queen Street with an AK47 than it is to comply with the sort of stuff we see before us. For years and years we have had a system whereby real estate agents who go bad are turfed out, run out, by the industry itself. Part 4, like the other parts, is nothing more than overkill, nothing more than smacking a little nut with a huge sledgehammer. That is all it is.

The disciplinary tribunal is all about Government members selecting their mates for their jobs.

💬 Moana Mackey: Their mates?

Their mates for their jobs, and I tell that member who it will be. Lynne Pillay will be there because she will not win her seat, and she is not high enough on the list to get back in. Paula Bennett will win her seat. That is what it is all about—protecting their mates and jobs for their mates. That is all it is.

💬 Lynne Pillay: National Party hopper!

Oh, absolutely, and absolutely proud of it, and absolutely proud of the fact that I have come from small to big, and from being not so good to being brilliant. That is all I have to say on Part 4 at the moment.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs): I call Kate Wilkinson, and my apologies to you, Kate, before. Sometimes your voice needs to come through the bulk of the person in front of you. But go on.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. When we get some asides we have the opportunity to ask for a withdrawal and apology.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs): I withdraw about your bulk. It was a geographical feature.

Thank you, Madam Chairperson, and it is an honour and a privilege to follow from the oratory of my colleague the Hon Tau Henare. I rise to speak to Part 4 of the Real Estate Agents Bill, which relates to complaints and discipline. Really, if one thinks about the Minister’s preambles about the so-called “carnage” in the industry, and land sharks and cowboys, then really this should be the most important part of this bill that we are debating in Committee this afternoon. I have to say that it is disappointing that the queries we have raised, and the calls we have asked the Minister to take, have been very serious, sensible questions, and the Minister in charge of this bill, unfortunately, has failed to answer any of them, and doubtless will not be here to even listen to the discussion on the complaints and discipline provisions of this bill.

I want to talk about the complaints assessment committees. Under the original bill, as presented to the Justice and Electoral Committee, there was to be one complaints assessment committee of three members. The complaints assessment committee was sort of replacing the regional disciplinary committees that were provided for under the 1976 Real Estate Agents Act. And I will just put on the record that section 101 of the 1976 Act basically stated: “a Regional Disciplinary Committee shall consist of— (a) a barrister or solicitor as its Chairperson: (b) Three members appointed by the Council from members of the Institute within the region for which the Committee is established: (c) One lay member (not being a real estate agent) appointed by the Minister.” Then it goes on to state: “Three members of a Regional Disciplinary Committee, including its Chairperson, shall constitute a quorum.”

Now the difficulty that we have, and I think some of the difficulties that have arisen with the complaints that have been made in this industry, are because we do not have regional disciplinary committees approved by the Minister. I asked the Minister back in June last year who were the current lay members appointed by the Minister to each regional disciplinary committee—that is, each disciplinary committee for the region. He said: “I am advised that there are currently no lay members appointed to the regional disciplinary committee pursuant to section 101.” The power of appointment resides in the Minister, and for the last 10 years or so the Minister has totally failed to appoint lay members of the disciplinary committee and therefore have them properly constituted. It is no wonder there have been problems at that level, in relation to the complaints.

A Crown Solicitor’s letter addressed to the institute and dated December 2006 states: “The absence of the regional disciplinary committee has effectively left a significant lacuna in the disciplinary structure. Mid-range misconduct either had to be taken to the licensing board or the regional disciplinary subcommittee. In some cases the misconduct was deemed too serious to be dealt with by the regional disciplinary subcommittee, but insufficiently serious to warrant an application for suspension or cancellation to the licensing board. This left the Real Estate Institute in a difficult and quite unsatisfactory position.”

That “difficult and … unsatisfactory position” could easily have been fixed by the Minister merely appointing the lay members of the regional disciplinary committee pursuant to the powers contained in section 101 of the 1976 Act. We have to take with a grain of salt some of the criticism of the processes under the old Act, which the Minister believes have failed. The failure is in some ways due mainly to the failure of the Minister to comply with the existing legislation.

I really want to talk about the complaints assessment committee, which is the lower level to where complaints are to be directed; it is the regional level. My colleague Mr Finlayson has already referred to the disciplinary tribunal, which is for the higher level complaints. The complaints assessment committee is for the lower level of complaints. The original bill provided for one complaints assessment committee, and that shows the Minister’s lack of knowledge and ignorance as to how the real estate industry operates. When we think about the nature of the complaints, they are the smaller, minor complaints. It might be complaints about a telephone call that was missed or not returned, which meant that the person missed out on buying the property of his or her choice—it is those sorts of complaints, anything up to misrepresentation, rudeness, or whatever.

Some of those levels of complaint go to the complaints assessment committee. The select committee was concerned that if there was only one complaints assessment committee, then there might be a logjam of complaints. The committee has made a recommendation, but I have to say I am somewhat concerned because it will impose additional bureaucracy, the costs of which will be imposed upon the consumer. The Real Estate Agents Authority appoints the complaints assessment committee, and it appoints as many complaints assessment committees as in its opinion are required to deal effectively with complaints and allegations about licensees.

The reason for the committees being appointed as required is that rather than being prescriptive and having a complaints assessment committee for each region, it was dependent upon where the complaints were coming from. If there was a pattern, then at least this gives the authority the power to enable it to form those complaints assessment committees. Each of those committees consists of three members. One of the members of each committee must be a member of the authority, two must be appointed from the panel, which I will come to in a minute, and one appointee must be a lawyer of not less than 7 years’ legal experience.

Then of course we had to have a panel of eligible complaints assessment committee members. The authority must maintain a panel of up to 20 persons who are suitable to serve as members of that complaints assessment committee. When assessing and considering their suitability, the authority has regard to the person’s personal attributes, and also his or her knowledge and experience of matters likely to come before the committee, which include, without limitation, experience and knowledge of the law of the real estate industry and consumer affairs. So we have a panel of 20 persons who are eligible to be appointed to complaints assessment committees, as required. The term of office is 5 years, after which they resign from the panel.

I have to ask the Minister what the difference is between this and the regional disciplinary committees under the 1976 Act. Surely, when criticism of the real estate industry relates to two main aspects, one of which is the regional disciplinary committees and the process when the regional disciplinary committees have not been approved by the Minister, it would be a very simple exercise for the Minister just to have approved those regional disciplinary committees without having to go through all the paperwork involved in this major reformation of the industry.

The other issue that was criticised, and that the industry wanted reform on, was the quantum of the fines. Again, it would be a simple matter to amend the law just to increase the quantum of the fine from $750 to whatever is appropriate. There could be two small amendments, rather than this major escapade of a sledgehammer to crack a nut that really has not been handled well. This legislation should have been easy; it should have been simple. The legislation was wanted by the industry and wanted by consumers, but for reasons that have become apparent, a meal has been made of it.

In speaking to Part 4 of the Real Estate Agents Bill, I draw the Committee’s attention to the issue raised in the National Party’s minority report that we have certainly got ourselves into a fair-old state around a bureaucracy structure. The interpretation of the various parts talks about complaints assessment committees and the Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal. After I had conversations with various real estate agents about industry training—and I had a short excursion into that particular industry—I saw that this aspect of it really did need to be tidied up, but not with such a massive bureaucracy.

If we look at some of the fines that have been attributed to the committees to determine, we see that they have been stretched out to appropriate levels in a 21st century legislative structure. The fine is not to exceed $10,000 for an individual and $20,000 for a company. Clause 107 talks about what the disciplinary tribunal can do. Subclause (2)(f) states: “an order that a licensee who is an individual pay a fine not exceeding $15,000 …”, and for a company it is $30,000. The clause covers the level of compensation that can be sought, and a specified order cannot exceed $100,000. When we stop and think about those sums of money, we see that they certainly are a major deterrent in themselves.

However, it leads me to question the Minister as to whether we needed such a massive bureaucracy to achieve it. When making that comment, I am raising the issue of the cost of supporting such a structure. We see that there will be a self-funding model. There will be a contribution from the membership—a general fee from the real estate sector. There will be an operating levy and there will also be a disciplinary levy. We certainly hope that we do not see an explosion of costs, when we consider that the authority has the ability to appoint and maintain a panel of 20 people to be able to provide what it decides to be an appropriate level of engagement over issues. I would like the Minister to help me understand how he will be absolutely sure that that provision is meeting the intent of the Act.

I would like to take the Committee’s attention back to clause 92, which talks about the members of the committees not being personally liable. We can appreciate that there needs to be some protection for members on a committee. The track that this process takes us down goes right through to the Court of Appeal. When that occurs, anybody’s head can roll. Although we recognise the need to have some level of support and protection for the members of the committees, I would like the Minister’s view on clause 92(2): “Subsection (1) does not apply if the person acts in bad faith.” There is an assumption that a person may act in bad faith; however, we have not dealt with issues around conflicts of interest. We would expect those to be handled in a way that did not actually bring about vexatious and frivolous claims. I think clause 92 is just a little too robust in its protection of people who are not behaving in the best interests of the situation and not being transparent. Clause 92(1)(a) states: “any act done or omitted to be done in the course of performing or exercising any of that person’s functions, duties, or powers under this Act or done or omitted to be done …”.

I will take a brief call to address some of the points that have been raised about Part 4 and about previous parts on which members have expended a lot of hot air trying to make some conspiracy—

💬 Nathan Guy: Not hot air!

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE:—or cold air in that member’s case—in respect of appointments. Let me make the position completely clear. Some member obviously could not read the bill and said the appointments would have to be made next week, or the day after the bill receives the Royal assent—

💬 Charles Chauvel: It was David Carter.

Of course, yes, a very learned member. The truth and the facts are—if we get rid of the hot or cold air—that the provision allowing appointments to the authority to be made indeed comes into force the day after the bill receives the Royal assent. However, proper appointment processes, especially in the period leading up to a general election, will be followed. There is no need to rush these things because work can be got on with, prior to appointments being made. It is not a requirement to make appointments when this section of the Act comes into force. Despite all the puffery that we hear from the Opposition side, again the facts speak for themselves.

Ms Wilkinson raised issues about the regional disciplinary committees. She seemed to put a thesis forward that had my predecessors and I, over the last decade, activated regional disciplinary committees with fines, I believe in the order of $2,000-odd, and made up of members of the industry and other lay members, then somehow peace would have broken out, the veil would have fallen, and all ills within the industry would have been solved. That is not true. On 2 October 2006 I met with the chief executive of the Real Estate Institute of New Zealand, Christine Le Cren, and Mr Cleland, the national president, and they indeed asked me to appoint members to set up regional disciplinary committees. I urged them, and have continued to urge them, to use the full extent of the old law. The 1976 Act, despite the conjecture that the bar is too high to refer cases to the licensing board, gives the Real Estate Institute of New Zealand the facility at any stage to refer any complaint. Whether it be flogging tea bags at smoko, defrauding somebody of hundreds of thousands of dollars, or acting inappropriately or unethically, the institute has the ability, as the gatekeeper, to decide where these complaints go. I urge the institute, rather than setting up another structure—National members talk about bureaucracy and then call on us to activate another structure—to use the powers in the Act that have existed since 1976.

The other bonus of referring cases to the licensing board is that the board has the ability to impose fines up to $5,000—not $2,000 or $750 as the other subcommittees did—and it has the ability to suspend, delicense, or run the errant real estate agent out of town. If the member is trying to suggest that had we activated, after 10 years, more bureaucracy by activating a regional subcommittee that somehow would have solved every ill, then I invite her to revisit her law classes because she appears to be a tad naive.

Somebody, I think it was Mr King, asked what this authority is going to do. I can tell the member one thing it will do. It will produce codes of ethics and practice. It will not produce codes of ethics such as the code of ethics prior to Mr David Russell’s redrafting of it. The Real Estate Institute of New Zealand code of ethics states in 13.5: “Members shall never publicly criticise fellow members.” There will be an era of openness when anybody can make a complaint and have it heard. The complaints assessment committees will be set up to expedite, deal with, and investigate complaints and will recommend courses of action. They will be well resourced indeed, and there will not be the delays that we have had with the institute. As I said before, I am told that a real estate agent had a case hanging over his head, like the sword of Damocles, for 3 years. He was not able to have his day before the institute—his day in court, as it were. That will not happen under this system.

Then we come to the issue of costs, which somebody raised. Let me just say this. I have said publicly that there are around 18,000 or 20,000 folk in this industry. If I was to charge them a flat fee of $500 a head to fund this whole framework, which I am told is on average the equivalent fee they would pay to the Real Estate Institute of New Zealand, depending on where they are in the hierarchy of the structure, I would have twice as much money as I need to make this structure work. It may be that, as with the Real Estate Institute of New Zealand fees now, a manager might pay a slightly higher fee than an agent and a salesperson might pay a lower fee. But when the average commissions prior to last year totalled $1.2 billion, and the average commission, which I acknowledge has probably gone down a bit, given property prices, was $15,000 per sale or purchase, members cannot tell me that the world as we know it will end and that massive costs will be visited on the property seller or the buyer because the real estate person may pass on $500 or thereabouts to the consumer—if that is what the figure is.

National members do not like the facts. “Old Smoko”, the tumbleweed over there, does not like them. A spurious case is being made to try to scare people in our communities. If we set up an independent transparent authority, consumers who feel that they may have been done over can go and test their case before independents so that even if they lose their case they can feel as if they went to a court, that they have had their day, and that independents with no vested interest and no axe to grind have assessed their case. Opponents say that all that will be put asunder because massive amounts of money will be visited on the consumer, house prices will fall, costs will go up, and the world as we know it will end. But it is like other professions—lawyers pay more, builders with licences pay more, and electricians pay more to be licensed. I say come on, let us get a life! The time for scaremongering is over. National members are getting a bit desperate in respect of Part 4. Those are the facts.

I conclude by saying this. Somebody asked what the change in the disciplinary regime will be. In the current regime there is the ability to fine somebody $750, and I note that there is no legal or moral impediment on the Real Estate Institute to pass on that small fee to the victim, as dictated by the legislation, but it never happens. There is the ability within the tribunal, if the case gets that far, to have compensation—that wonderful thing where if someone has been wronged, especially in respect of his or her home, a large asset, that person can get compensation. The fines have been lifted, as the Real Estate Institute wanted. The level of discipline has also been lifted, as the Real Estate Institute wanted. The ability to set up multiple complaints assessment committees and to increase and reduce the number, depending on the volume of complaints, is again allowed. As Ms Wilkinson says frequently: “Justice delayed is justice denied.” Well, she has a dose of amnesia when she talks about this sector. She is not worried about the delays. She is not worried that in the past very few, if any, complaints have been referred to the licensing board when there was the power to do so. This is a board that can fine people $5,000 and throw them out. That is not enough; that is why we are changing it. But that facility is not new in legislation, I say to the party that says we do not want bureaucracy and that we should use the existing legislation. When it is not used there is a problem, and when we cannot compel people to use it there is a problem. I say to National Party members that what I have said addresses some of their points and I ask that we get a bit of fact back into the debate rather than all the hot air and hyperbole—or cold air in the case of Nathan Guy.

Well, after 5½ hours of debate today on the Real Estate Agents Bill we have finally heard from the Minister. What a lot of piffle we have heard! The Government has had to put the House into urgency—we are sitting till midnight this evening, and having 13 hours of debate—to get through this bill.

This Minister could have had a chance of reforming this Act, but what a shambles! I cannot believe that he actually took a sledgehammer to crack a walnut, as my colleague Kate Wilkinson described this Minister doing in her very, very good address. This Minister had the opportunity to win over 18,000 to 20,000 real estate agents’ votes for this election. But do members know what? Labour will not get any of those votes, because it has made an absolute shambles of this legislation. We are seeing that here today, with the Government having to move the House into urgency to get this bill passed. It is just so interesting that the Minister had the opportunity to get this legislation right. One of my constituents presented a submission to the Justice and Electoral Committee—and I acknowledge the good work of Christopher Finlayson, Kate Wilkinson, and Chris Auchinvole on the select committee. My constituent went home and rang me that night, and said that he had presented a pretty good submission, but that it seemed to be just the National members who had their heads around the bill. He said that the members of the select committee who are sitting on the other side of the House did not have a clue.

💬 Christopher Finlayson: What did he say about Lynne Pillay?

Which one is Lynne Pillay? I want to talk about Part 4, because that is all about complaints and discipline. All of the real estate agents from the region where I live, Horowhenua and Kapiti, have a complaint for the Government. They have a complaint about the reform of this legislation—that the Government should have got it right. This process is not right, and the House needs to acknowledge that today. This part is so bureaucratic. Is that not typical of this Government? The way to correct things is to have more bureaucracy—just put more bureaucracy in the way of trying to correct the complaints and discipline procedure. It will not do it. What it will do, in my opinion, is encourage a culture of more complaints, and that is where we have a real concern about this part.

I think the Government had a wonderful opportunity to get this reform right. The industry wanted it and the sector wanted it, but it is not right. We have some real concerns about this legislation. This part addresses the nub of the issue, which is the Government creating more and more bureaucracy to try to address the problem—a sledgehammer that is cracking just a walnut.

It is an embarrassment that the Labour Government is ramming this Clark-Peters legislation through in urgency tonight—we are debating through to midnight. We are coming to the end of the term of this dying Government. It just shows that the Government has had to put the House into urgency to rattle through the legislation, when it could have done it a lot sooner if it had been able to get the numbers. The Government has managed just now to do a deal with New Zealand First to get its support through Parliament.

We have some real concerns about Part 4, “Complaints and discipline”, and about how there will be this wonderful panel of 20 persons who will try to administer the complaints procedure. I heard Chris Finlayson talk about clause 97. He made some wonderful contributions on the establishment of the Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal, which in part we are supporting. But fundamentally we have a real issue with this legislation this afternoon, and with the House being in urgency to yet again create more bureaucracy.

I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

💬 Nathan Guy: Party vote.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs): I am sorry; I said “All those that are of that opinion say ‘no’. ”, I heard nothing, and then declared the result. I am sorry.

I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I was having a glass of water at that point in time, then I put my glass down. I ask the Committee that we recast the vote because it is vitally important that National votes against this legislation. I raise it as a point of order that you please recast that vote.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs): This is a procedural motion. You will have a chance to vote against the legislation. I am sorry. If every time I had to do a procedural motion I had to watch whether people were drinking—I know it sounds very unfair, but I took the procedural motion and I cast the procedural motion. [Interruption] To the member who makes these comments, I would rather you take a point of order, than constantly chip from the side.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 243 in the name of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to Part 4 be agreed to.