September 02, 2026
The Real Estate Authority’s
actions in the case of Janet Dickson represent a disturbing
disregard for fundamental legal rights and statutory
obligations.
The Authority’s insistence on mandatory
completion of the Te Kākano Māori tikanga course,
regardless of Dickson’s sincere religious and ethical
objections, and its subsequent refusal to grant an
exemption, constitutes a breach of the New Zealand Bill of
Rights Act 1990, specifically section 13, which guarantees
every person’s right to freedom of thought, conscience,
religion, and belief.
By compelling Dickson to engage
with beliefs and practices contrary to her own, the
Authority has acted in a manner inconsistent with the Bill
of Rights, as argued by her counsel.
Section 13 of the
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act states:
“Everyone
has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion,
and belief, including the right to adopt and hold opinions
without interference.”
The Tribunal’s decision,
which rubber-stamped the Authority’s refusal to grant an
exemption, ignored these rights and failed to consider the
Government’s obligation not to endorse one set of beliefs
over another.
The Authority, as a government agency,
must not force licensees to engage with the thoughts,
religion, beliefs, or opinions of any group in a way that
violates their conscience.
This principle is
fundamental to the rule of law and democratic freedoms in
New Zealand.
Furthermore, the Real Estate Agents Act
2008, which governs the conduct and regulation of real
estate agents, was enacted with the primary purpose of
promoting consumer protection and public confidence in real
estate transactions, not to impose irrelevant or politically
motivated requirements on licensees (4,
2).
Advertisement – scroll to continue reading
The Act does not authorise the Authority
to penalise agents for refusing to participate in courses
unrelated to their professional competence or consumer
protection. The Authority’s actions exceeded its statutory
mandate and amounted to regulatory overreach, as highlighted
in judicial decisions restricting the scope of its powers
(3).
The Authority’s conduct has
also violated the principle of procedural fairness.
By
opposing Dickson’s request to be heard in person before
the Tribunal and rushing to cancel her licence before the
Tribunal’s decision, the Authority has denied her the
right to a fair hearing and undermined the integrity of the
disciplinary process.
The Tribunal itself has
previously emphasised the importance of impartiality,
transparency, and full consideration of evidence in
disciplinary matters (1).
Janet
Dickson’s 30-year career in real estate, marked by
dedication and professionalism, has been ended not for any
breach of consumer protection or professional standards, but
for exercising her legal rights.
This is a travesty of
justice and an affront to the values of fairness and
equality that underpin our legal system.
The Real
Estate Authority must be held accountable for its disregard
of statutory limits, human rights, and procedural
fairness.
We call on the Government and Parliament to
urgently (and retrospectively) reform the Real Estate Agents
Act 2008, ensuring regulatory bodies are limited to matters
genuinely relevant to consumer protection and professional
standards, and that the rights of licensees are fully
respected.
References:
1. Wilson v Real
Estate Agents Authority (CAC 10011) [2012] NZREADT 51 (23
August 2012)
2. Rodrigues & Bridgman –
Complaint No C35864 [2022] NZREAA 22 (15 June
2022)
3. Real Estate Agents Authority v Domb
[2017] NZCA 199 (23 May 2017)
4. Afendoulis –
Complaint No C41763 [2023] NZREAA 20 (11 May
2023)
