David Norris (Independent)

With the permission of the House, I should like to share time with Senator Ross who has a particular interest in this matter.

I had not intended to speak on this Bill, but rather to leave it to my betters to deal with, people such as Senators O'Toole and Ross who have a long track record in pursuing this issue. However, I was briefed this morning, which was pretty late, by people representing the Institute of Chartered Surveyors and I wanted to put some matters before the Minister for State. I am not necessarily agreeing with them. In fact I do not agree as regards some issues, but I should like to get the viewpoint of the Minister of State.

They are querying whether a distinction should not be made between residential and commercial property as they believe this distinction is not made clear in the Bill. They wonder why in section 2, which deals with "advised market value" the Bill purports to give a new definition of this and in their opinion ignores a document known as the Red Book, which apparently is accepted internationally, on the Stock Exchange and so on. It gives an internationally accepted definition of the term, "market value". I am interested in finding out the reason the Minister of State chose to ignore what is, I am told, presumably on reliable grounds, an internationally accepted definition.

They argue that assessing the value of property is not and cannot be an exact science. There has to be a margin of error. I believe the Minister of State recognises that, but again I am very interested to hear his response. The final point relates to section 55, the idea that the vendor should be required to sell at the advised value, and I rather agree with them in that regard. I know what the Minister of State is getting at, namely, gazumping. That is effectively dealt with in other sections of the Bill. At an auction, the value of a property is the limit to which two people are prepared to bid. This measure may erode the market. That is a question mark and there may be a reason for it.

Section 56 refers to the advised market value. We see the phrase advised market value, AMV, in the newspapers every day. These are often patently absurdly low. They are cited as a fishing expedition to get people involved. They gull people and their use is not good practice. I am on the side of the Minister in this instance.

Section 57 makes it illegal for a vendor to authorise a person to make false bids at an auction in order to inflate the bidding. We all know this goes on. It is not fair. It acts against the interest of the purchaser. It is not enough to say caveat emptor. There is responsibility on the part of an auctioneer to act in the interest of the purchaser. I approve of that and it is a pity if chartered surveyors do not agree with it.

Section 58 prohibits a licensee from providing a financial service. This would be a conflict of interest. One cannot be a servant of two masters. I completely agree with this measure.

Of course, a record of all offers must be kept. Otherwise, how is the vendor to know he or she is being properly treated. With regard to complaints investigations and sanctions, the authority must make sure a complaint is made in good faith.

I regret the Minister has not tackled property management companies for, for example, blocks of flats. I know of a number of cases where this is unscrupulously done. All the conflicts of interest adumbrated in the Bill reside in that group. Because developers do not have to vest a management company in the residents until an entire development is sold, they deliberately hold on to one flat. They then secure the services of their own families or friends at exorbitant rents and soak the unfortunate tenants for the cost. That has to be stopped.

The Bill is very interesting. The Minister of State has done good work. However, I have some questions about it and I ask him to come back with the regulation of property management companies.