Cultural training in real estate
Janet Dickson, who has more than 30 years’ realtor experience, has been threatened with a five-year professional ban for refusing to complete a training course on te reo Māori, tikanga, and the Treaty of Waitangi.
This so-called “mana enhancing” cultural training paid for by each real estate agent has been imposed by the Real Estate Authority (REA) who doubtlessly see the training as a significant milestone for the industry.
While I can understand the need for training in matters such as the sales process, regulatory obligations, and health and safety, surely the REA shouldn’t have the power to impose compulsory political or ideological training on their membership? Learning about Māori culture seems to have no or at best only vague peripheral relevance to real estate work.
Accordingly, Dickson is currently seeking a judicial review of the REA’s power to enforce cultural training for the country’s realtors.
The REA hasn't as yet revoked Dickson's licence and is presumably awaiting the outcome of legal proceedings. No doubt other bodies that aim to promote and develop their particular professions will be interested in this precedent-setting outcome.
Jim Young, Belmont
We welcome letters to the editor, which should be sent to letters@thepost.co.nz or PO Box 1297, Wellington 6040. They should include the writer’s full name, home address and contact phone number; should not exceed 200 words, and be exclusive. In keeping with Stuff’s editorial commitments, we will reject or edit letters that are discriminatory or express prejudice on the basis of race, ethnicity, country of origin, gender, sexuality,religion or disability. Letters may be edited for clarity.
after collection costs was $629 million not $865m according to TFL’s statement of accounts), the biggest gap is failing to note that the London scheme does little to address congestion any more.
A Greater London Assembly report published in 2016 stated that the scheme is no longer “fit for purpose”, as congestion in London is now worse than it was when charging was introduced, largely because it is a blunt, inflexible scheme and has not been expanded as there is little public support to do so.
By contrast, Singapore (which introduced congestion pricing five years earlier than London) has a flexible scheme (not an area charge, but a series of corridor charges and small cordons) with prices that vary by location and time of day to
The Post is subject to the NZ Media Council. Complaints must be directed to editor@thepost.co.nz. If the complainant is unsatisfied with the response, go to mediacouncil.org.nz for more details. ensure the road network performs well.
If Wellington is to have congestion pricing (not charging) it should be introduced to reduce congestion. Singapore and Stockholm are much better models than the poorly performing London scheme.
Scott Wilson, Hataitai introduce policies which will “put more money in the back pockets” of those who do not need it.
Most of us are as comfortable as we need to be, and now have to and should pay – as we were warned at the time
– for the huge Covid cash injection to businesses to keep our local hospitality and small business economy and new car sales ticking over.
There is a massive difference between those who can’t afford must-haves and most of us who enjoy nice-to-haves. Check out the traffic at airport terminals and the number of new-ish cars clogging our roads.
Where is this Government’s humanity? Let’s concentrate on those who genuinely need support and not those who may now be amid a “choice of living crisis” having extended their credit during buoyant times.
Stewart Fraser, Otaki
Letters
Media Council