https://www.hobsonspledge.nz/meetjanetdickson >https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/realtor-janet-dickson-facing-5-year-ban-for-refusing-maori-values-course/RUVMVQWKFVBGZE43VH4YF6BL4M/
Now the issue at hand here is not the training, but the power of an
industry authority to force those who do not want to do the training,
out of the industry.
To be a Real Estate Agent in NZ requires the meeting of the regulatory >requirements of the REA. There is no other alternative. The REA at
present requires training to be undertaken on Maori culture.
This is clearly beyond their remit, especially when this is being
forced on an existing REA licensee of 30 years standing. By all means
make such training available, with incentives if appropriate, but not >compulsory.
Dickson has 30 years standing in the industry so clearly the
requirement for this training is a recent development. According to
the Herald article it will no longer be compulsory this year so it
seems that the compulsory nature of the training only applies to
agents whose re licensing due date falls before the course is
optional.
On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 12:13:06 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
https://www.hobsonspledge.nz/meetjanetdickson >>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/realtor-janet-dickson-facing-5-year-ban-for-refusing-maori-values-course/RUVMVQWKFVBGZE43VH4YF6BL4M/
Now the issue at hand here is not the training, but the power of an >>industry authority to force those who do not want to do the training,
out of the industry.
To be a Real Estate Agent in NZ requires the meeting of the regulatory >>requirements of the REA. There is no other alternative. The REA at >>present requires training to be undertaken on Maori culture.
This is clearly beyond their remit, especially when this is being
forced on an existing REA licensee of 30 years standing. By all means
make such training available, with incentives if appropriate, but not >>compulsory.
Dickson has 30 years standing in the industry so clearly the
requirement for this training is a recent development. According to
the Herald article it will no longer be compulsory this year so it
seems that the compulsory nature of the training only applies to
agents whose re licensing due date falls before the course is
optional.
Most professional organisations with continuing professional
development requirements change content over time so that a wider
range of issues can be covered. 90 minutes is fairly short;
it appears
that there are other courses or obligations arising from requirements
set by the REA. I am surprised that this could not have been covered
by being raised with the profession internally; but it is possible
that a sufficiently large majority of real estate agents support the requirements that this is being taken to court. Certainly I can see no
harm in giving agents the knowledge to hopefully avoid giving offence
to potential sellers or purchasers.
Whether the court appeal is successful will be of interest generally;
it is probably a good use of money from Hobsons Pledge; the estimate
of as much as $150,000; Franks Ogilvie will undoubtedly represent the
views of this real estate agent well and it will clarify the extent
that political views can override professional obligations.
On 2024-02-23, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 12:13:06 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
https://www.hobsonspledge.nz/meetjanetdickson >>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/realtor-janet-dickson-facing-5-year-ban-for-refusing-maori-values-course/RUVMVQWKFVBGZE43VH4YF6BL4M/
Now the issue at hand here is not the training, but the power of an >>>industry authority to force those who do not want to do the training,
out of the industry.
To be a Real Estate Agent in NZ requires the meeting of the regulatory >>>requirements of the REA. There is no other alternative. The REA at >>>present requires training to be undertaken on Maori culture.
This is clearly beyond their remit, especially when this is being
forced on an existing REA licensee of 30 years standing. By all means >>>make such training available, with incentives if appropriate, but not >>>compulsory.
Dickson has 30 years standing in the industry so clearly the
requirement for this training is a recent development. According to
the Herald article it will no longer be compulsory this year so it
seems that the compulsory nature of the training only applies to
agents whose re licensing due date falls before the course is
optional.
Most professional organisations with continuing professional
development requirements change content over time so that a wider
range of issues can be covered. 90 minutes is fairly short;
It is one sided power play in action. Excess force being applied.
it appears
that there are other courses or obligations arising from requirements
set by the REA. I am surprised that this could not have been covered
by being raised with the profession internally; but it is possible
that a sufficiently large majority of real estate agents support the
requirements that this is being taken to court. Certainly I can see no
harm in giving agents the knowledge to hopefully avoid giving offence
to potential sellers or purchasers.
I doubt that any Real Estate Agent sees it in their interest to offened a >client. After 30 years experience one would have picked up the things which >important to the clients culture.
Whether the court appeal is successful will be of interest generally;
it is probably a good use of money from Hobsons Pledge; the estimate
of as much as $150,000; Franks Ogilvie will undoubtedly represent the
views of this real estate agent well and it will clarify the extent
that political views can override professional obligations.
On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 12:13:06 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>Don't you ever read what others write?
wrote:
https://www.hobsonspledge.nz/meetjanetdickson >>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/realtor-janet-dickson-facing-5-year-ban-for-refusing-maori-values-course/RUVMVQWKFVBGZE43VH4YF6BL4M/
Now the issue at hand here is not the training, but the power of an >>industry authority to force those who do not want to do the training,
out of the industry.
To be a Real Estate Agent in NZ requires the meeting of the regulatory >>requirements of the REA. There is no other alternative. The REA at >>present requires training to be undertaken on Maori culture.
This is clearly beyond their remit, especially when this is being
forced on an existing REA licensee of 30 years standing. By all means
make such training available, with incentives if appropriate, but not >>compulsory.
Dickson has 30 years standing in the industry so clearly the
requirement for this training is a recent development. According to
the Herald article it will no longer be compulsory this year so it
seems that the compulsory nature of the training only applies to
agents whose re licensing due date falls before the course is
optional.
Most professional organisations with continuing professional
development requirements change content over time so that a wider
range of issues can be covered. 90 minutes is fairly short; it appears
that there are other courses or obligations arising from requirements
set by the REA. I am surprised that this could not have been covered
by being raised with the profession internally; but it is possible
that a sufficiently large majority of real estate agents support the >requirements that this is being taken to court. Certainly I can see no
harm in giving agents the knowledge to hopefully avoid giving offence
to potential sellers or purchasers.
Whether the court appeal is successful will be of interest generally;Political views have no place in the practice of real estate of any other profession other than a political one.
it is probably a good use of money from Hobsons Pledge; the estimate
of as much as $150,000; Franks Ogilvie will undoubtedly represent the
views of this real estate agent well and it will clarify the extent
that political views can override professional obligations.
On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 12:13:06 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
https://www.hobsonspledge.nz/meetjanetdickson >>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/realtor-janet-dickson-facing-5-year-ban-for-refusing-maori-values-course/RUVMVQWKFVBGZE43VH4YF6BL4M/
Now the issue at hand here is not the training, but the power of an >>industry authority to force those who do not want to do the training,
out of the industry.
To be a Real Estate Agent in NZ requires the meeting of the regulatory >>requirements of the REA. There is no other alternative. The REA at >>present requires training to be undertaken on Maori culture.
This is clearly beyond their remit, especially when this is being
forced on an existing REA licensee of 30 years standing. By all means
make such training available, with incentives if appropriate, but not >>compulsory.
Dickson has 30 years standing in the industry so clearly the
requirement for this training is a recent development. According to
the Herald article it will no longer be compulsory this year so it
seems that the compulsory nature of the training only applies to
agents whose re licensing due date falls before the course is
optional.
Most professional organisations with continuing professional
development requirements change content over time so that a wider
range of issues can be covered.
90 minutes is fairly short; it appears
that there are other courses or obligations arising from requirements
set by the REA.
I am surprised that this could not have been covered
by being raised with the profession internally;
but it is possible
that a sufficiently large majority of real estate agents support the >requirements that this is being taken to court. Certainly I can see no
harm in giving agents the knowledge to hopefully avoid giving offence
to potential sellers or purchasers.
Whether the court appeal is successful will be of interest generally;
it is probably a good use of money from Hobsons Pledge; the estimate
of as much as $150,000; Franks Ogilvie will undoubtedly represent the
views of this real estate agent well and it will clarify the extent
that political views can override professional obligations.
https://www.hobsonspledge.nz/meetjanetdickson >https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/realtor-janet-dickson-facing-5-year-ban-for-refusing-maori-values-course/RUVMVQWKFVBGZE43VH4YF6BL4M/
Now the issue at hand here is not the training, but the power of an
industry authority to force those who do not want to do the training,
out of the industry.
To be a Real Estate Agent in NZ requires the meeting of the regulatory >requirements of the REA. There is no other alternative. The REA at
present requires training to be undertaken on Maori culture.
This is clearly beyond their remit, especially when this is being
forced on an existing REA licensee of 30 years standing. By all means
make such training available, with incentives if appropriate, but not >compulsory.
Dickson has 30 years standing in the industry so clearly the
requirement for this training is a recent development. According to
the Herald article it will no longer be compulsory this year so it
seems that the compulsory nature of the training only applies to
agents whose re licensing due date falls before the course is
optional.
I am surprised that this could not have been covered by being raised
with the profession internally; but it is possible that a sufficiently
large majority of real estate agents support the requirements that this
is being taken to court.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I am happy for it to be left to the courts. In the profession that I
On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 12:13:06 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:Don't you ever read what others write?
https://www.hobsonspledge.nz/meetjanetdickson >>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/realtor-janet-dickson-facing-5-year-ban-for-refusing-maori-values-course/RUVMVQWKFVBGZE43VH4YF6BL4M/
Now the issue at hand here is not the training, but the power of an >>>industry authority to force those who do not want to do the training,
out of the industry.
To be a Real Estate Agent in NZ requires the meeting of the regulatory >>>requirements of the REA. There is no other alternative. The REA at >>>present requires training to be undertaken on Maori culture.
This is clearly beyond their remit, especially when this is being
forced on an existing REA licensee of 30 years standing. By all means >>>make such training available, with incentives if appropriate, but not >>>compulsory.
Dickson has 30 years standing in the industry so clearly the
requirement for this training is a recent development. According to
the Herald article it will no longer be compulsory this year so it
seems that the compulsory nature of the training only applies to
agents whose re licensing due date falls before the course is
optional.
Most professional organisations with continuing professional
development requirements change content over time so that a wider
range of issues can be covered. 90 minutes is fairly short; it appears
that there are other courses or obligations arising from requirements
set by the REA. I am surprised that this could not have been covered
by being raised with the profession internally; but it is possible
that a sufficiently large majority of real estate agents support the >>requirements that this is being taken to court. Certainly I can see no
harm in giving agents the knowledge to hopefully avoid giving offence
to potential sellers or purchasers.
Crash made it clear that the REA has no right to make this compusory, it >appears that they might now agree. But clearly you don't, you prefer compulsion.
The very idea is ludicrous - if you make it compulsory for Maori cultural >knowledge it folllows that all ather cultures should be treated the same. A >contrary view is unsustainable for anybody who is fair minded.I think a course for many nationalities / races is unlikely to be
Political views have no place in the practice of real estate of any other >profession other than a political one.
Whether the court appeal is successful will be of interest generally;
it is probably a good use of money from Hobsons Pledge; the estimate
of as much as $150,000; Franks Ogilvie will undoubtedly represent the
views of this real estate agent well and it will clarify the extent
that political views can override professional obligations.
On 2024-02-23, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:The estimate of $150,000 does may appear a lot but I suspect the Real
On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 12:13:06 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
https://www.hobsonspledge.nz/meetjanetdickson >>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/realtor-janet-dickson-facing-5-year-ban-for-refusing-maori-values-course/RUVMVQWKFVBGZE43VH4YF6BL4M/
Now the issue at hand here is not the training, but the power of an >>>industry authority to force those who do not want to do the training,
out of the industry.
To be a Real Estate Agent in NZ requires the meeting of the regulatory >>>requirements of the REA. There is no other alternative. The REA at >>>present requires training to be undertaken on Maori culture.
This is clearly beyond their remit, especially when this is being
forced on an existing REA licensee of 30 years standing. By all means >>>make such training available, with incentives if appropriate, but not >>>compulsory.
Dickson has 30 years standing in the industry so clearly the
requirement for this training is a recent development. According to
the Herald article it will no longer be compulsory this year so it
seems that the compulsory nature of the training only applies to
agents whose re licensing due date falls before the course is
optional.
Most professional organisations with continuing professional
development requirements change content over time so that a wider
range of issues can be covered. 90 minutes is fairly short;
It is one sided power play in action. Excess force being applied.
it appears
that there are other courses or obligations arising from requirements
set by the REA. I am surprised that this could not have been covered
by being raised with the profession internally; but it is possible
that a sufficiently large majority of real estate agents support the
requirements that this is being taken to court. Certainly I can see no
harm in giving agents the knowledge to hopefully avoid giving offence
to potential sellers or purchasers.
I doubt that any Real Estate Agent sees it in their interest to offened a >client. After 30 years experience one would have picked up the things which >important to the clients culture.
Whether the court appeal is successful will be of interest generally;
it is probably a good use of money from Hobsons Pledge; the estimate
of as much as $150,000; Franks Ogilvie will undoubtedly represent the
views of this real estate agent well and it will clarify the extent
that political views can override professional obligations.
On 23 Feb 2024 00:53:44 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2024-02-23, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:That is correct. No mention of whether Dickson has ever acted for
On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 12:13:06 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
https://www.hobsonspledge.nz/meetjanetdickson >>>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/realtor-janet-dickson-facing-5-year-ban-for-refusing-maori-values-course/RUVMVQWKFVBGZE43VH4YF6BL4M/
Now the issue at hand here is not the training, but the power of an >>>>industry authority to force those who do not want to do the training, >>>>out of the industry.
To be a Real Estate Agent in NZ requires the meeting of the regulatory >>>>requirements of the REA. There is no other alternative. The REA at >>>>present requires training to be undertaken on Maori culture.
This is clearly beyond their remit, especially when this is being >>>>forced on an existing REA licensee of 30 years standing. By all means >>>>make such training available, with incentives if appropriate, but not >>>>compulsory.
Dickson has 30 years standing in the industry so clearly the >>>>requirement for this training is a recent development. According to >>>>the Herald article it will no longer be compulsory this year so it >>>>seems that the compulsory nature of the training only applies to
agents whose re licensing due date falls before the course is
optional.
Most professional organisations with continuing professional
development requirements change content over time so that a wider
range of issues can be covered. 90 minutes is fairly short;
It is one sided power play in action. Excess force being applied.
it appears
that there are other courses or obligations arising from requirements
set by the REA. I am surprised that this could not have been covered
by being raised with the profession internally; but it is possible
that a sufficiently large majority of real estate agents support the
requirements that this is being taken to court. Certainly I can see no
harm in giving agents the knowledge to hopefully avoid giving offence
to potential sellers or purchasers.
I doubt that any Real Estate Agent sees it in their interest to offened a >>client. After 30 years experience one would have picked up the things which >>important to the clients culture.
Maori clients. Compulsory training like this would be reasonable if
any Maori clients had successfully brought an action involving
cultural issues against her to the REA.
Whether the court appeal is successful will be of interest generally;
it is probably a good use of money from Hobsons Pledge; the estimate
of as much as $150,000; Franks Ogilvie will undoubtedly represent the
views of this real estate agent well and it will clarify the extent
that political views can override professional obligations.
On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 12:13:06 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
https://www.hobsonspledge.nz/meetjanetdickson >>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/realtor-janet-dickson-facing-5-year-ban-for-refusing-maori-values-course/RUVMVQWKFVBGZE43VH4YF6BL4M/
Now the issue at hand here is not the training, but the power of an >>industry authority to force those who do not want to do the training,
out of the industry.
To be a Real Estate Agent in NZ requires the meeting of the regulatory >>requirements of the REA. There is no other alternative. The REA at >>present requires training to be undertaken on Maori culture.
This is clearly beyond their remit, especially when this is being
forced on an existing REA licensee of 30 years standing. By all means
make such training available, with incentives if appropriate, but not >>compulsory.
Dickson has 30 years standing in the industry so clearly the
requirement for this training is a recent development. According to
the Herald article it will no longer be compulsory this year so it
seems that the compulsory nature of the training only applies to
agents whose re licensing due date falls before the course is
optional.
Further to this it is worth noting that the REA is an industry
regulator. It is a Crown entity, not a professional body, established
under an Act of Parliament. It does not have members - Real Estate
agents are required by law to be licenced by the REA.
Dickson has been threatened with licence cancellation by the REA.
On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 13:21:48 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 12:13:06 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:
https://www.hobsonspledge.nz/meetjanetdickson >>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/realtor-janet-dickson-facing-5-year-ban-for-refusing-maori-values-course/RUVMVQWKFVBGZE43VH4YF6BL4M/
Now the issue at hand here is not the training, but the power of an >>>industry authority to force those who do not want to do the training,
out of the industry.
To be a Real Estate Agent in NZ requires the meeting of the regulatory >>>requirements of the REA. There is no other alternative. The REA at >>>present requires training to be undertaken on Maori culture.
This is clearly beyond their remit, especially when this is being
forced on an existing REA licensee of 30 years standing. By all means >>>make such training available, with incentives if appropriate, but not >>>compulsory.
Dickson has 30 years standing in the industry so clearly the
requirement for this training is a recent development. According to
the Herald article it will no longer be compulsory this year so it
seems that the compulsory nature of the training only applies to
agents whose re licensing due date falls before the course is
optional.
Most professional organisations with continuing professional
development requirements change content over time so that a wider
range of issues can be covered.
Irrelevant. This thread is about a specific case, not general trends.
Can you name any other similar body that has done what the REA has
done?
Because that was what their rules say. She could have taken the 9090 minutes is fairly short; it appears
that there are other courses or obligations arising from requirements
set by the REA.
So what's your point? this is about a specific requirement on the
part of the REA that I made clear in my original post.
I am surprised that this could not have been covered
by being raised with the profession internally;
Have you not read the links I provided in my original post? It was
made clear that Dickson had raised the issue with the REA and was
threatened with de-registration if she did not comply.
The problem relates to either or both the particular course, or thebut it is possibleDid you not read my original post? I specifically said that the
that a sufficiently large majority of real estate agents support the >>requirements that this is being taken to court. Certainly I can see no
harm in giving agents the knowledge to hopefully avoid giving offence
to potential sellers or purchasers.
problem was compulsion.
I am not speculating on the legal action - I have no idea what theWhether the court appeal is successful will be of interest generally;
it is probably a good use of money from Hobsons Pledge; the estimate
of as much as $150,000; Franks Ogilvie will undoubtedly represent the
views of this real estate agent well and it will clarify the extent
that political views can override professional obligations.
In my original post I made no mention of this. Although it was
mentioned on the Hobsons Pledge article that is rendered irrelevant by
the content of my original post.
Speculation on the legal action is therefore as off-topic as it is
pointless.
Yet again you attempt to expand the coverage of a thread beyond the
issue raised by the OP.
On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 13:21:48 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
I am surprised that this could not have been covered by being raised
with the profession internally; but it is possible that a sufficiently
large majority of real estate agents support the requirements that this
is being taken to court.
A five-year penalty seems a bit extreme, particularly since they have
changed their minds about making the training mandatory anyway.
On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 00:33:17 GMT, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz>The REA is not a professional organisation it is a government entity.
wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I am happy for it to be left to the courts. In the profession that I
On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 12:13:06 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:Don't you ever read what others write?
https://www.hobsonspledge.nz/meetjanetdickson >>>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/realtor-janet-dickson-facing-5-year-ban-for-refusing-maori-values-course/RUVMVQWKFVBGZE43VH4YF6BL4M/
Now the issue at hand here is not the training, but the power of an >>>>industry authority to force those who do not want to do the training, >>>>out of the industry.
To be a Real Estate Agent in NZ requires the meeting of the regulatory >>>>requirements of the REA. There is no other alternative. The REA at >>>>present requires training to be undertaken on Maori culture.
This is clearly beyond their remit, especially when this is being >>>>forced on an existing REA licensee of 30 years standing. By all means >>>>make such training available, with incentives if appropriate, but not >>>>compulsory.
Dickson has 30 years standing in the industry so clearly the >>>>requirement for this training is a recent development. According to >>>>the Herald article it will no longer be compulsory this year so it >>>>seems that the compulsory nature of the training only applies to
agents whose re licensing due date falls before the course is
optional.
Most professional organisations with continuing professional
development requirements change content over time so that a wider
range of issues can be covered. 90 minutes is fairly short; it appears >>>that there are other courses or obligations arising from requirements
set by the REA. I am surprised that this could not have been covered
by being raised with the profession internally; but it is possible
that a sufficiently large majority of real estate agents support the >>>requirements that this is being taken to court. Certainly I can see no >>>harm in giving agents the knowledge to hopefully avoid giving offence
to potential sellers or purchasers.
Crash made it clear that the REA has no right to make this compusory, it >>appears that they might now agree. But clearly you don't, you prefer >>compulsion.
belong to, if there had been a dispute of this nature I suspect it
would have gone to a vote at an annual meeting. I do not know the
rules of the REA, but it is also possible that Janet Dickson did not
want to put it for decision by the profession.
I have already written that, twice perhaps - how can you only do it for one race without it being clearly racist because all othyers are excluded. Ludicrous.The very idea is ludicrous - if you make it compulsory for Maori cultural >>knowledge it folllows that all ather cultures should be treated the same. A >>contrary view is unsustainable for anybody who is fair minded.I think a course for many nationalities / races is unlikely to be
justified by numbers - which other cultures do you think would justify
a course, Tony?
Irrelevant even if it was true which is questionable. They are not objecting to professional training they are objecting to the requirement to observe only one races ethics and beliefs.Political views have no place in the practice of real estate of any other >>profession other than a political one.
Whether the court appeal is successful will be of interest generally;
it is probably a good use of money from Hobsons Pledge; the estimate
of as much as $150,000; Franks Ogilvie will undoubtedly represent the >>>views of this real estate agent well and it will clarify the extent
that political views can override professional obligations.
Hobson's Choice is a political group - they are apparently paying much
of the cost. They are objecting to these professional training
requirements.
Rules for professional development will apply to all - they cannot
exempt little bits all over the place without endless arguments - the
whole segment is only 90 minutes!
On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 02:25:55 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
A five-year penalty seems a bit extreme, particularly since they have >>changed their minds about making the training mandatory anyway.
We do not know if dropping this requirement is part of a normal rotation
of issues every few years.
On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 20:10:09 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
No, not familiar at all. I cannot think of an example even, but IRules for professional development will apply to all - they cannot
exempt little bits all over the place without endless arguments - the
whole segment is only 90 minutes!
That's your argument?
C'mon! You know how this stuff works!
It starts off as a 90 minute one time event, then after a time it
becomes 90 minutes a year, then six months then three months etc.
None of this comes from parliament; it is dreamt up by a cabal of
petty bureaucrats bent putting ideology before professional
requirements.
Unfortunately this sort of thing is rampant across all industries.
Hordes of overpaid goose-stepping, clipboard carrying officials
trampling all over the private sector, stickybeaking into things that
are none of their business and forcing private employers to pay for it
all. The costs associated with all this nonsense adversely affect >productivity and real employment opportunities.
These people are nothing more than obstructionist little oinks who
could never cut it in the private sector themselves where performance
is everything and results matter.
The reason governments tolerate this is because the people involved do
not show up in the unemployment statistics and therefore hide the drop
in productive employment. What this means is that the government is
devouring the private sector. Extrapolate that into the future and the >government will have eaten all of the private sector and the entire
labour force will be employed by the government.
Sound familiar?
Bill.
On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 20:10:09 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Rules for professional development will apply to all - they cannot
exempt little bits all over the place without endless arguments - the
whole segment is only 90 minutes!
That's your argument?
C'mon! You know how this stuff works!
It starts off as a 90 minute one time event, then after a time it
becomes 90 minutes a year, then six months then three months etc.
None of this comes from parliament; it is dreamt up by a cabal of
petty bureaucrats bent putting ideology before professional
requirements.
Unfortunately this sort of thing is rampant across all industries.
Hordes of overpaid goose-stepping, clipboard carrying officials
trampling all over the private sector, stickybeaking into things that
are none of their business and forcing private employers to pay for it
all. The costs associated with all this nonsense adversely affect >productivity and real employment opportunities.
These people are nothing more than obstructionist little oinks who
could never cut it in the private sector themselves where performance
is everything and results matter.
The reason governments tolerate this is because the people involved do
not show up in the unemployment statistics and therefore hide the drop
in productive employment. What this means is that the government is
devouring the private sector. Extrapolate that into the future and the >government will have eaten all of the private sector and the entire
labour force will be employed by the government.
Sound familiar?
Bill.
On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 14:33:33 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 12:13:06 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:
https://www.hobsonspledge.nz/meetjanetdickson >>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/realtor-janet-dickson-facing-5-year-ban-for-refusing-maori-values-course/RUVMVQWKFVBGZE43VH4YF6BL4M/
Now the issue at hand here is not the training, but the power of an >>>industry authority to force those who do not want to do the training,
out of the industry.
To be a Real Estate Agent in NZ requires the meeting of the regulatory >>>requirements of the REA. There is no other alternative. The REA at >>>present requires training to be undertaken on Maori culture.
This is clearly beyond their remit, especially when this is being
forced on an existing REA licensee of 30 years standing. By all means >>>make such training available, with incentives if appropriate, but not >>>compulsory.
Dickson has 30 years standing in the industry so clearly the
requirement for this training is a recent development. According to
the Herald article it will no longer be compulsory this year so it
seems that the compulsory nature of the training only applies to
agents whose re licensing due date falls before the course is
optional.
Further to this it is worth noting that the REA is an industry
regulator. It is a Crown entity, not a professional body, established >>under an Act of Parliament. It does not have members - Real Estate
agents are required by law to be licenced by the REA.
Dickson has been threatened with licence cancellation by the REA.
Thank you for the clarification. The desire to ensure professional
conduct is however similar to those of professional bodies.
On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 14:24:28 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 13:21:48 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 12:13:06 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:
https://www.hobsonspledge.nz/meetjanetdickson >>>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/realtor-janet-dickson-facing-5-year-ban-for-refusing-maori-values-course/RUVMVQWKFVBGZE43VH4YF6BL4M/
Now the issue at hand here is not the training, but the power of an >>>>industry authority to force those who do not want to do the training, >>>>out of the industry.
To be a Real Estate Agent in NZ requires the meeting of the regulatory >>>>requirements of the REA. There is no other alternative. The REA at >>>>present requires training to be undertaken on Maori culture.
This is clearly beyond their remit, especially when this is being >>>>forced on an existing REA licensee of 30 years standing. By all means >>>>make such training available, with incentives if appropriate, but not >>>>compulsory.
Dickson has 30 years standing in the industry so clearly the >>>>requirement for this training is a recent development. According to >>>>the Herald article it will no longer be compulsory this year so it >>>>seems that the compulsory nature of the training only applies to
agents whose re licensing due date falls before the course is
optional.
Most professional organisations with continuing professional
development requirements change content over time so that a wider
range of issues can be covered.
Irrelevant. This thread is about a specific case, not general trends.
Can you name any other similar body that has done what the REA has
done?
In general, I would expect all professions to have requirements for >continuing professional development.
For individuals, requirements may
include areas where they have specialised and have good knowledge -
that may assist in review of courses. It has no been suggested that
Dickson has specialised in Maori Culture, but she clearly believes she
does not need such training.
Because that was what their rules say. She could have taken the 90
90 minutes is fairly short; it appears
that there are other courses or obligations arising from requirements
set by the REA.
So what's your point? this is about a specific requirement on the
part of the REA that I made clear in my original post.
I am surprised that this could not have been covered
by being raised with the profession internally;
Have you not read the links I provided in my original post? It was
made clear that Dickson had raised the issue with the REA and was >>threatened with de-registration if she did not comply.
minute course and then complained and possibly got it removed for
others.
The court case will determine if it was reasonable to make
the requirement. Dickson was not prepared to spend 90 minutes
fulfilling the requirement; I suspect the Court case will take longer.
but that is her legitimate choice.
The problem relates to either or both the particular course, or the
but it is possibleDid you not read my original post? I specifically said that the
that a sufficiently large majority of real estate agents support the >>>requirements that this is being taken to court. Certainly I can see no >>>harm in giving agents the knowledge to hopefully avoid giving offence
to potential sellers or purchasers.
problem was compulsion.
reality that the whole CPD programme is compulsory. We now know that
this particular course will not apply from next year - but it may be
replaced by a session that someone else objects to.
I am not speculating on the legal action - I have no idea what the
Whether the court appeal is successful will be of interest generally;
it is probably a good use of money from Hobsons Pledge; the estimate
of as much as $150,000; Franks Ogilvie will undoubtedly represent the >>>views of this real estate agent well and it will clarify the extent
that political views can override professional obligations.
In my original post I made no mention of this. Although it was
mentioned on the Hobsons Pledge article that is rendered irrelevant by
the content of my original post.
Speculation on the legal action is therefore as off-topic as it is >>pointless.
Court will determine. I have said it is of general interest, and this
is a clearly related issue on for the nz.general usenet group.
Yet again you attempt to expand the coverage of a thread beyond the
issue raised by the OP.
On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 20:23:14 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 14:33:33 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:
On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 12:13:06 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:
https://www.hobsonspledge.nz/meetjanetdickson >>>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/realtor-janet-dickson-facing-5-year-ban-for-refusing-maori-values-course/RUVMVQWKFVBGZE43VH4YF6BL4M/
Now the issue at hand here is not the training, but the power of an >>>>industry authority to force those who do not want to do the training, >>>>out of the industry.
To be a Real Estate Agent in NZ requires the meeting of the regulatory >>>>requirements of the REA. There is no other alternative. The REA at >>>>present requires training to be undertaken on Maori culture.
This is clearly beyond their remit, especially when this is being >>>>forced on an existing REA licensee of 30 years standing. By all means >>>>make such training available, with incentives if appropriate, but not >>>>compulsory.
Dickson has 30 years standing in the industry so clearly the >>>>requirement for this training is a recent development. According to >>>>the Herald article it will no longer be compulsory this year so it >>>>seems that the compulsory nature of the training only applies to
agents whose re licensing due date falls before the course is
optional.
Further to this it is worth noting that the REA is an industry
regulator. It is a Crown entity, not a professional body, established >>>under an Act of Parliament. It does not have members - Real Estate >>>agents are required by law to be licenced by the REA.
Dickson has been threatened with licence cancellation by the REA.
Thank you for the clarification. The desire to ensure professional
conduct is however similar to those of professional bodies.
Actually no it is not. Professional bodies try to ensure that
practitioners meet criteria that will ensure that practitioners do not
bring the industry into disrepute.
The REA is a crown entity and from what I can find out that is unique
- there is no other similar Crown Entity for other professions. Its
purpose is to establish criteria that anyone wishing to sell Real
Estate must meet. Its objective is not professionalism, but
protection for those engaging an Agent to buy or sell property.
On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 20:23:14 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 14:33:33 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>wrote:
On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 12:13:06 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> >>>wrote:
https://www.hobsonspledge.nz/meetjanetdickson >>>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/realtor-janet-dickson-facing-5-year-ban-for-refusing-maori-values-course/RUVMVQWKFVBGZE43VH4YF6BL4M/
Now the issue at hand here is not the training, but the power of an >>>>industry authority to force those who do not want to do the training, >>>>out of the industry.
To be a Real Estate Agent in NZ requires the meeting of the regulatory >>>>requirements of the REA. There is no other alternative. The REA at >>>>present requires training to be undertaken on Maori culture.
This is clearly beyond their remit, especially when this is being >>>>forced on an existing REA licensee of 30 years standing. By all means >>>>make such training available, with incentives if appropriate, but not >>>>compulsory.
Dickson has 30 years standing in the industry so clearly the >>>>requirement for this training is a recent development. According to >>>>the Herald article it will no longer be compulsory this year so it >>>>seems that the compulsory nature of the training only applies to
agents whose re licensing due date falls before the course is
optional.
Further to this it is worth noting that the REA is an industry
regulator. It is a Crown entity, not a professional body, established >>>under an Act of Parliament. It does not have members - Real Estate >>>agents are required by law to be licenced by the REA.
Dickson has been threatened with licence cancellation by the REA.
Thank you for the clarification. The desire to ensure professional
conduct is however similar to those of professional bodies.
Actually no it is not. Professional bodies try to ensure that
practitioners meet criteria that will ensure that practitioners do not
bring the industry into disrepute.
The REA is a crown entity and from what I can find out that is unique
- there is no other similar Crown Entity for other professions. Its
purpose is to establish criteria that anyone wishing to sell Real
Estate must meet. Its objective is not professionalism, but
protection for those engaging an Agent to buy or sell property.
No, not familiar at all. I cannot think of an example even, but I
would share your concern if I could think of one. Can you give an
example?
On Sat, 24 Feb 2024 09:15:59 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
No, not familiar at all. I cannot think of an example even, but I
would share your concern if I could think of one. Can you give an
example?
You've never heard of a country where everyone works for the
government?
Bill.
On Sat, 24 Feb 2024 20:27:38 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:So you were wrong - well done for the confession.
On Sat, 24 Feb 2024 09:15:59 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
No, not familiar at all. I cannot think of an example even, but I
would share your concern if I could think of one. Can you give an >>>example?
You've never heard of a country where everyone works for the
government?
Bill.
You have snipped so much that I cannot recall the context of the
statement you quote as possibly being from me, and while the statement
seems familiar I do not have the time to go back to check that is what
I did actually say and determine just what you are asking.
Perhaps either leave a bit more of the context in, or restore the
thread at the point you are making a response.
Sorry I cannot help further at this time.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 103:49:13 |
| Calls: | 6,660 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,335,167 |