IN THE MATTER OF:

Introduction

The Regulatory Systems (Occupational Regulation) Amendment Bill (the Bill) introduces several amendments to laws governing legal services, real estate agents, and the prostitution sector. While purportedly an effort to enhance efficiency, the Bill poses significant risks to transparency, accountability, professional standards, and fundamental legal rights. This submission outlines key objections to the Bill and recommends either rejecting specific provisions or revising them to address these deficiencies.

1. Increased Regulatory Powers Without Sufficient Oversight

Section 24A - Power to Require Documents (Real Estate Agents Act 2008)

Objection: This provision grants the Real Estate Authority (REA) the power to require documents from licensees and unlicensed persons suspected of real estate activity. The lack of procedural safeguards raises concerns about potential abuse and unjustified regulatory overreach.

Recommendation:

• Amend this section to include explicit criteria for requesting documents.
• Introduce judicial oversight to ensure that document requests are justified and proportional.

Section 146A - Offence for Non-Compliance

Objection: The Bill imposes heavy fines ($10,000 for individuals, $50,000 for companies) for failure to comply with document requests without defining "reasonable excuse." This could lead to disproportionate penalties for minor infractions.

Recommendation:

• Define "reasonable excuse" to provide clear guidance.
• Introduce a proportionality test for fines based on the severity of non-compliance.

2. Weakening of Legal Profession Oversight and Complaints Process

Section 135A - Dismissal of Complaints by Complaints Service

Objection: This amendment allows the New Zealand Law Society's Complaints Service to dismiss complaints without referral to a Lawyers Standards Committee based on subjective criteria (e.g., "frivolous" or "not in good faith"). This undermines transparency and public confidence in legal oversight.

Recommendation:

• Require that all complaints be reviewed by an independent tribunal before dismissal.
• Ensure clear definitions of what constitutes "frivolous" or "not in good faith" complaints.

3. Real Estate Licensing Standards and Enforcement Gaps

Section 36 - Exemptions from Licensing Qualifications

Objection: The Registrar may waive qualification requirements if an applicant has "sufficient knowledge and experience." This subjective standard could allow unqualified individuals to enter the profession, undermining consumer protection.

Recommendation:

• Require a formal assessment of knowledge and experience before granting exemptions.
• Introduce an appeals process for disputed licensing decisions.

4. Ambiguities in Conduct Standards

Section 72 - Redefinition of "Unsatisfactory Conduct"

Objection: The new definition includes vague language such as "conduct that agents of good standing would regard as being unacceptable." This could lead to inconsistent disciplinary actions.

Recommendation:

• Define clear and objective standards for "unsatisfactory conduct."
• Ensure that conduct violations align with existing case law and regulatory principles.

5. Failure to Consider Treaty of Waitangi Obligations

General Lack of Treaty Considerations

Objection: The Bill does not address its impact on Māori rights, particularly regarding real estate regulations and legal profession oversight. The omission of Treaty obligations disregards the Crown’s duty to uphold its partnership with Māori.

Recommendation:

• Conduct a Treaty impact assessment before proceeding with the Bill.
• Ensure Māori consultation and participation in regulatory decision-making processes.

Conclusion: Reject or Substantially Amend the Bill

The Regulatory Systems (Occupational Regulation) Amendment Bill, as currently drafted, introduces several provisions that threaten professional accountability, reduce consumer protections, and fail to uphold Treaty obligations. While some amendments may be salvageable through revision, key sections (e.g., Sections 135A, 24A, and 272A) should be rejected outright.

We strongly urge Parliament to:

1. Conduct further public consultation, particularly with Māori communities.
2. Introduce clearer safeguards against regulatory overreach.
3. Maintain strong, transparent professional accountability mechanisms.

Failure to address these concerns will result in a regulatory framework that is legally vulnerable, inconsistent, and detrimental to public trust. We call on Parliament to reject this Bill in its current form and reconsider these regulatory changes through a more inclusive and balanced approach.