Season’s Greetings

This will be the final newsletter for 2007. I would like to take this opportunity to wish you, your families and friends a very merry Christmas and a safe and happy New Year. I would also like to thank you for your support and encouragement over the past year. I am really looking forward to having a bit of a break from politics for the next few weeks, winding down, recharging my batteries and gearing up for what will be a very busy 2008!

In the House

With the House in Urgency last week, we in Wellington were in full swing, debating the remaining stages of three bills and the first readings of 14 others in the urgency motion.

The Real Estate Agents Bill:

The Real Estate Agents Bill was one of the 14 Bills up for first reading last week and was one I had the opportunity to speak on in the House.

While we absolutely support the purpose of this Bill, which is to promote and protect the interests of consumers by regulating agents, raising industry standards and providing accountability through a disciplinary process that is independent, transparent, and effective – an objective the Real Estate Industry itself agrees with, the National Party opposed this Bill.

We opposed it for many of the reasons given by the view of the Real Estate Institute.  Reforms that remedy real problems in the current regime are of course welcome. However, both the Real Estate Institute and the National Party are concerned that these reforms go too far, changing the law where there is no problem and not far enough in other areas that require further regulation.

The Electoral Finance Bill:

I also had the opportunity to stand and oppose this Bill in the House last week. You'll be aware National's efforts to defer the bill's implementation until April 1 fell on deaf ears. The thrust of our argument was a lack of time for the public, and those officials responsible for administering it, to fully understand all its clauses and prepare for the effect they would have if the bill was implemented from January 1.

As next year progresses I believe National's claim that this bill is an assault on democracy will become all too evident. One of our first tasks, as Government, will be to repeal this Bill which will pass into law this week.

In the Electorate:

Office Opening Hours:

The Rangiora Office will be closed from 4.00pm on Friday 21st December and will re-open at 9.00am on Monday 14th January 2008.

During that period, the phones and emails will be monitored. Please do leave a message and we will endeavour to get back to you as soon as we can.

2008:

In 2008, National will announce more policies – from tax cuts to improving our schools – so Kiwis can see exactly where we stand.

We are committed to building on John Key’s vision for a reinvigorated New Zealand. We want a country that is attractive to our children and our grandchildren, and a society that can meet their aspirations. We want a better future for all New Zealanders.

I look forward to working for that future – and for your concerns.

Until next year,

Kate Wilkinson
National MP

Posted by staff in Newsletter at 14:19

KATE WILKINSON (National): I am very pleased to follow on from what the Hon Peter
Dunne has said. I have to say that there is not much in the content of his argument that I can disagree with - just the conclusion. At first glance it may certainly seem prudent to vote for this Real Estate Agents Bill at its first reading and subject it to the proper scrutiny of a select committee, but it needs such an extreme makeover and such amendments in terms of property management and other integral issues that have been omitted, that any proper amendments should well be outside the ability and scope of the select committee to make the meaningful changes that would be required.

Basically, we need to start again. We need to do it once and do it properly. On reading the explanatory note of!' the bill, one could be led to the conclusion that a huge problem regarding real estate agents has just recently surfaced and that this "remedial sledgehammer to crack a nut" bill is the only solution. The explanatory note states that in March 2007 Cabinet noted a range of problems with the Real Estate Agents Act and agreed to a full review of it. What I want to know, though, is what happened in July 2003 when according to the then Minister, who I understand was Minister Barker, Cabinet made decisions on the Real Estate Agents Act review. Suddenly, 4 1/2 years later, we need to consider this bill-and now, under urgency.

The Minister, Clayton Cosgrove, unfortunately has vilified the industry. He said he had to take the real estate agents-the so-called land sharks- "kicking and screaming". The Minister was going to drag land sharks "kicking and screaming" into the spotlight and "drop the hammer on them", in order to impose a new regulatory regime. We have heard references by the Minister to land sharks, rogue agents, and carnage in the sector. I want to ask why, if it was so bad, nothing was done about this back in 2003. What happened back in 2003, which is over 4 years ago?

At the time the Real Estate Institute welcomed the opportunity for public consultation on how the real estate agency industry should be regulated. It said that it has been well aware for over 10 years that a number of elements of that regulatory regime needed updating, particularly in areas of licensing procedures and enforcement of obligations. That is hardly "kicking and screaming". It was aware then of a significant number of detailed issues that needed be addressed. Those issues had been drawn to the attention of successive Ministers and discussed with officials, and the work was set aside for over 4 years. This is what the institute said then and what it wanted then. What did Minister Barker do 4 years ago? It appears he did absolutely nothing.

Unfortunately, there is now a real risk that this review of the real estate industry has lost its objectivity, and that it has been hijacked by hyperbole, by emotive labels such as "land sharks" and "carnage in the industry", and by exaggerated claims that have not necessarily been sustained. For example, we heard in the select committee from the Minister who said: "I was accused of taking a cheap shot when I referred to the premium case where a High Court judge ruled against a real estate professional. I think it was to the tune of $3.2 million." I had a look at that case; the amount was $900,000, not $3.2 million as the Minister alleged. Although I admit that it is a significant amount of money, I think the important thing about this case is that, on appeal, it was won and the real estate agent was vindicated. The real estate agent was vindicated, not vilified.

Unfortunately, this is the sort of example that does nothing to inspire confidence in the process of this review. We have heard of delays waiting for complaints to be heard. Yet in the most public example of this, where the appropriate forum for that complaint was a regional disciplinary committee - and we have heard about regional disciplinary committees-that committee had to be established under the existing 1976 legislation. Its establishment had to be ratified by the Minister, who had to approve both its establishment and the members. Was he asked to establish it? Yes, he was. Did he do so? No, he did not.
It is dangerous to look at only one side of the story and to vilify an industry, when the papers have been on the Minister's desk for over 4 years. Having said that, it is important to support absolutely the purpose of the bill, which is to promote and protect the interests of consumers by regulating agents, raising industry standards, and providing accountability through a disciplinary process that is independent, transparent, and effective. Indeed, the real estate industry itself totally supports this objective, as do we. If one reads the Real Estate Institute's views it is important to note that it supports, and indeed welcomes, the reforms that remedy real problems in the current regime, but the institute is concerned that it goes too far, changing the law where there is no problem, and not far enough in other areas that require further and more regulation. This is not an industry being dragged kicking and screaming; this is an industry that has been asking for years for the laws to be updated. This is an industry that is welcoming the update of its regulatory framework. This is an industry that welcomes the independence of the complaints investigation and disciplinary process. This is an industry that welcomes the introduction of compulsory continuing education. This is an industry that wants to be respected, wants accountability, and wants transparency, but it is an industry that deserves good law.

It is vital that New Zealanders buying and selling probably their most substantial asset have confidence in the professionals they are using to assist with such a significant financial transaction. There needs to be strong consumer protection and there needs to be strong consumer confidence. Real estate involves not only buying and selling property. An important part also relates to property management, and this has been totally ignored by this Government.

An integral part of property management is the handling of funds. The Minister himself has highlighted the mishandling of funds as one of the rules that should be applied. So why on earth, then, is it not addressed in this bill? The Government believes that property managers pose less risk. The institute believes, however, that one in five complaints relate to property management groups.

Way back in 2003 the institute advised the Minister it was concerned about property managers operating outside trust account control and audit regime. Now, in 2007, it is still concerned, but what has the Minister done? The Minister has ignored the institute. Property management involves holding significant funds in an account. Hundreds of millions of dollars passes through the bank accounts of property managers. What happens to missing rent monies? The institute, under this bill, has no jurisdiction to deal with complaints about missing rent monies. There is no requirement to hold the monies in a trust account. There is no fidelity fund. If residential property managers are not covered by the new regime, then gaps in the current laws will leave consumers vulnerable. If anything goes wrong, the only recourse for consumers may be via the courts. This is contrary to the purpose of the bill, which, of course, is consumer protection.

There are concerning parallels with the latest bureaucratic proposed system with the Department of Building and Housing. Consumers can still be protected without having to bear the costs of senseless bureaucracy-that is what will happen. The industry will not bear the cost. The cost will be handed down to the consumer, and housing affordability will get harder. For these reasons and the uncertainty, as mentioned by my colleague Simon Power, of whether in 5 years' time salespeople will be able to work as independent contractors, or whether they will be regarded as employees, we oppose the bill.

We do welcome and support the industry's view that transparency and accountability are welcomed. But, unfortunately, this is a wasted opportunity. Proper reform is welcome, but this is not proper reform.

Posted by staff in Speech at 14:57

National Party MP, Kate Wilkinson is pleased with the recent Court of Appeal decision to uphold the ban on potentially diseased Australian honey and bee products (other than those from Western Australia) from crossing our borders.

In May 2006 Ms Wilkinson was approached by local beekeepers concerned at the effect of the opening up of importation of bee products. She also took part in a march on Parliament where protestors presented a petition to Agriculture Minister Jim Anderton.

This didn’t stop the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry issuing an Import Health Standard in August 2006, allowing the importation of Australian products, which resulted in 2000kg of Australian honey imported into New Zealand in December 2006.

“The Beekeepers Association have fought for a long time taking this matter to both the High Court and the Court of Appeal and should be congratulated on such a successful outcome.

New Zealand is currently one of the few countries that is free from the European Foulbrood disease, which kills honey bee larvae. The purity of our honey  (which is free from antibiotics) makes it a sought after export commodity.   It is irresponsible to risk this when there is no guarantee that imported products are safe.   We should not even be contemplating opening up our borders to diseases which have the potential to destroy our bee and honey industry.  Thankfully the Court of Appeal decision vindicates the concern of our beekeepers. 

“Honey producers can now feel some sense of relief that their industry, which is still struggling with the effects of the varroa mite, is protected from the introduction of new disease such as European Foulbrood.

The proposed importation of potentially diseased honey was not just a concern for producers of our honey and associated honey products but also for our horticultural and agricultural industries which rely on pollination.
 
“Lowering standards simply paves the way for more diseases to enter our country and also poses a major risk to the horticultural sector and I’m delighted that the Court of Appeal has recognised this and acted accordingly.

Posted by staff in News at 09:10

The driving age debate is underway again after being last discussed in Parliament in 1998.  Should the driving age be increased to 16 years or should it remain the same?

A Bill recently introduced to Parliament suggests raising the minimum licensing age from 15 to 16 as well as extending the learner licensing period from six months to 12 months.

After a recent spate of crashes involving youths, New Zealand’s young drivers are once again under intense scrutiny. The debate is timely and there is cause for concern as the 15 – 19 year age group make up nearly one in five deaths on our roads.  Youths unfortunately have always both here and overseas been represented disproportionately in road injuries and accidents.   It is true to say that 15 – 19 year olds made up 16% of road deaths in 2006, but we need to know how many of this age group were 15 or 16 year olds. We also need to factor in how important experience is – how many of the incidents were caused by drivers (of any age) with one or less years driving experience.

In 1993, Sweden lowered their driving age from 17 ½ to 16. Evaluation of that scheme in the three years that followed showed that the crash rate of novice drivers declined by 15% and those that started driving at 16 had a 40% lower crash rate. It also indicated that the younger group practised for almost three times as many hours as those starting at 17 ½. Is this really a question of age, or experience?

There are also issues in especially rural areas where the distance to school, part time jobs and extra-curricular activities in such areas is often greater than in the city  - public transport is not always an available option. Parents around the country are faced with the task of ferrying their children here, there and everywhere – ‘inconvenience’ is not just restricted to rural families.

Reducing the number of crashes and fatalities involving young and novice drivers and improving our road safety should be a priority. It will require a number of measures involving education, training, licensing, enforcement and communication Does it also require legislation? Those who feel strongly about this matter should make a submission to the selection committee.

Posted by staff in News at 08:58