Statutes Amendment Bill

Part 35. This is the debate on clauses 148 to 150, “Amendments to Real Estate Agents Act 2008”. The question is that Part 35 stand part.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m just curious here because this is another occupational regulation Act. We’ve seen the Immigration Advisers Licensing Act already, and section 74 deals with when the complaints framework need not proceed, so you can, basically, kick out a complaint. Some of the traditional ones are that it’s frivolous or the vexatious, but the language has somewhat changed, and I’m just curious as to why this change is necessary. At the moment, there’s already a power to refuse to consider a complaint under section 74(3)(a) if the complaint is inconsequential or concerns—I forget the exact word, but “inconsequential” is the core concept—and all of a sudden, we’ve got a change coming to the House to change it to “is not sufficiently serious” to warrant further action.

I’m kind of perplexed as to why someone—and, presumably, it’s the Minister of Justice; this is one of your tribunals, I think, Minister—in the Ministry of Justice tribunals unit has said, “ ‘Inconsequential’ doesn’t work for us any more. We want something that’s not sufficiently serious.”, and they would seem to be two sides to the same coin. So I’m just curious to know why it was considered consequential to get rid “inconsequential’ and to now use “not sufficiently serious”, and whether that issue was serious enough to warrant putting “not sufficiently serious” in there.

I like the member’s humour. This change is ensuring that the language reflects the intended lower threshold contemplated for the provision, without diminishing the impact that the circumstances surrounding the compliant may have on the complainant. The current language is seen as being inflammatory to complainants and it is detrimental to the authority’s relationships with consumers and stakeholders, and so they asked for a change.

Part 35 agreed to.

Part 36 Amendment to Search and Surveillance Act 2012