“I’m weeping,” she told him after reading the decision. “I feel utterly betrayed by my professional body.”
Lawyer Stephen Franks, whose firm represented Janet Dickson, said the tribunal effectively rubber-stamped the authority’s earlier decision. Photo / Supplied
The authority introduced the mandatory course, Te Kākano (the Seed), in 2023. The 90-minute course comprised three modules: Māori language and development, the Treaty of Waitangi and Māori land.
In November of that year, Dickson applied for an exemption, saying she objected to the course being delivered by an iwi education provider and citing her close friendships and links to those of Māori heritage.
She complained the course “was condescending, largely irrelevant to real estate work and aimed at installing uneasiness and guilt by treating adults as children”.
According to the tribunal’s decision, Dickson maintained the early parts of the course were publicly available, while the latter portion went against her lifelong ethical and religious convictions.
“She did not believe in racial superiority or separatism and would not take part in a pathway towards it.
“She believed in open, transparent Western democracy, influenced by Christian values. In her view, all were one people, equal before the law and the Lord. The course brought with it the totally wrong, unfair and possibly unintentional power to dismiss her and others from the industry.”
The following month, the authority declined the exemption request, saying it wasn’t satisfied that Dickson had shown exceptional circumstances required for an exemption from completing the course.
It countered Dickson’s claims that the course was political, irrelevant and against her ethical and religious convictions, saying the aim was to provide introductory content of interest to all, raising awareness and understanding of the needs and interests of Māori in a real estate context.
Following that ruling, Dickson was encouraged to complete the course by the end of 2023.
But shortly before the deadline, Dickson sought a judicial review, heard in the High Court at Wellington in June 2024 and dismissed in February last year.
There was a further delay while Dickson considered an appeal to the Court of Appeal before abandoning it.
In August this year, the tribunal considered arguments from both sides in a hearing conducted on the papers, after ruling it wasn’t necessary to hear from Dickson, who wanted to appear in person.
According to the tribunal’s decision, barrister Gary Judd, KC, who represented Dickson, said no consideration had been given to Dickson’s rights under section 13 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, which affirms a person’s right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief.
Everyone has the right to freedom in such matters, he said.
Judd submitted that the Government wasn’t permitted to endorse one religion or set of beliefs or opinions over another.
“This is what has happened here. The Authority, a government agency, thinks it is entitled to force licensees to engage with the thoughts, religion, beliefs and opinions of one group of New Zealanders, irrespective of whether it is against an agent’s conscience to do so.”
He said the tribunal should reverse the registrar’s decision and grant Dickson an exemption [from the course requirements].
But Tim Bain, representing the registrar of the Real Estate Agents Authority, said there was nothing in Te Kākano that required Dickson to actively participate in Māori culture, or accept particular beliefs as true.
“The purpose of the course is to simply ensure licensees are aware of and understand the perspectives that Māori consumers might bring to transactions involving land.
“There is no error of law or principle. The only thing preventing Mrs Dickson from attending Te Kākano was her objection to its content, which does not suffice to establish exceptional circumstances [required for an exemption].”
The tribunal found the registrar’s decision not to grant an exemption was lawful.
“We conclude that Mrs Dickson was not prevented from attending Te Kākano by her conscience or beliefs. She was not being required to renounce her beliefs.
“Mrs Dickson was being required to listen to the culture, language and customs of another ethnic group. The learning, if anything, was for her to decide.”
I’ve poured my heart into real estate
Last month the authority wrote to Dickson, signalling its intention to cancel her real estate licence immediately.
In her response, provided to NZME, Dickson said: “For over 30 years, I have poured my heart into the real estate profession.”
She said it was heartbreaking to end her career over a course that the Associate Minister of Justice, Nicole McKee, said did not meet her expectations of education relevant to the industry.
Real estate agent Janet Dickson said she had poured her heart into the real estate profession for over 30 years.
She again claimed that the registrar had discretion and didn’t have to cancel her licence immediately, saying the Act provided no “specific rigid timeframes” to do so.
“You have had the ability to proceed with cancellation since March of this year. You chose not to. To suddenly initiate the cancellation process now, after submissions to the Tribunal have been filed, and while the Tribunal is actively considering my exemption process, is completely unnecessary and appears entirely spiteful.
“Such spite is reinforced by the fact you opposed my request to be heard in person by the tribunal.”
She said that by rushing to cancel her licence before the tribunal’s decision, the authority was attempting to pre-empt the legal process and punish her for exercising her legal right to challenge an unjust decision.
“On a personal level, this process has taken an immense toll. I am simply a woman nearing the end of my working life, trying to navigate the recent passing of my husband.
“To have the REA knowingly choose this vulnerable moment to end my life’s work and tarnish my reputation in such a cold manner is devastating.”
Brigitte Morten, the solicitor on the case, said the authority now had to consider her client’s response, but doubted it would change the outcome because it had made it clear they were under an obligation to cancel Dickson’s licence.
A ‘rubber-stamped’ decision
Franks said the tribunal’s decision rubber-stamped the earlier decision of the registrar of the authority and ignored human rights arguments.
“It’s saying, we the tribunal, won’t relook at the foundation or the rightness or wrongness of our approach today and the earlier one [decision] has refined itself to, ‘if you are not physically prevented from doing the course, your reasons for doing it are otherwise irrelevant’.”
“They’re rubber-stamping the decision of the registrar, and they record that the registrar was bound by rules which are a crystallisation of tribunal approaches, so it goes in a complete circle.
“We won’t relook at this because the registrar had to do it and the registrar had to do it because we told them to do it.”
It’s a circular argument, Franks said.
Franks said they had received no instructions on whether to appeal, but any appeal would largely be a rerun of the earlier judicial review in the High Court and an expensive exercise.
The law has to change
Morten said the decision reinforced that the law had to change.
In February this year, McKee publicly said Te Kākano did not meet her expectations of being relevant to the real estate profession.
“I sent a Letter of Expectation to the Real Estate Authority Board in February last year clearly outlining that CPD requirements should be relevant to the job of real estate agents,” her February press statement said.
Earlier this year, the Government passed legislation removing the five-year ban for those who didn’t complete their compulsory professional development, but the law change is not retrospective and doesn’t take effect until next year, so it has no impact on Dickson’s case.
In a short statement, McKee told NZME:
“All of the rules used against Janet Dixon have been changed so it can’t happen again. I would like to comment further, but I understand Mrs Dixon may have further appeals, so I cannot comment any further at this time.”
Morten said the Government had removed the five-year prohibition on getting a new licence.
“But fundamentally the Government hasn’t changed the underlying problem with the act.
“All these regulatory bodies can continue to impose rules and regulations that have got nothing to do with the core business of why the regulator exists, which is consumer protection.”
Franks said it was interesting that the real estate establishment was indifferent to the minister’s direction that they should focus on matters material to consumers.
Catherine Hutton is an Open Justice reporter, based in Wellington. She has worked as a journalist at the Waikato Times and RNZ. Most recently she was working as a media adviser at the Ministry of Justice.
Join the NZ Herald’s Open Justice team for Case by Case, a video and podcast series examining the disputes and decisions making headlines across New Zealand.