Page 3635 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 28 October 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
providing a service. This means that salespeople who are not registered and are, or pretend to be, employed by a licensed agent when providing the service will now be caught by the offence. It is not an offence if the person is licensed, of course, to provide the service. The amendment ensures that these categories of salespeople are appropriately qualified and are suitable to provide these services to the community.
There is also an important change in relation to section 116 to update and simplify the process for an agent to indicate whether they have held money on trust while registered. Currently, a licensed agent is required to provide a statutory declaration to the Commissioner for Fair Trading to declare that they have not held money on trust during an audit period. The renewal process for registration of an agent is every one to three years. Other than to lodge a statutory declaration, there is no need for an agent to make yearly contact with the commissioner, unless they have a one-year licence.
There are, however, some agents who have never and will never hold money on trust; for example, those who are employed by a principal agent. The current provision means that these agents are also required to lodge an annual statutory declaration that they have held no money on trust in the audit period. This is, of course, highly inefficient of both the agent’s and the commissioner’s time, and the amendment means that an agent is now only required to indicate on their licence renewal form whether they have held money on trust for the period of registration.
This amendment will not diminish consumer protection as the agent is still required to declare whether they have held trust money in that period. In addition, a licensed agent must still give the Commissioner for Fair Trading details about any new trust accounts that are opened. The amendment does not remove their requirement to do so.
Finally, we see amendments being made in relation to the Family Provision Act 1969. This will reduce the time in which the Supreme Court can direct an order for provision following the distribution of property forming part of an estate from 12 months to six months. This is consistent with the time that a family provision claim can be made against a deceased estate. As a result of this amendment, delays that have been associated with the finalisation of an estate will be reduced for family members and beneficiaries, therefore minimising the period of uncertainty for beneficiaries.
As members have indicated, the bill makes a range of amendments to other acts, which I will not reiterate in my closing comments. I simply state that this bill is another excellent example of how the updating of the statute book works to the benefit of citizens and the processes of government. I thank members for their support.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Leave granted to dispense with the detail stage.
Bill agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video