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.
Advertisement – scroll to continue reading
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).
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)
