Powered by MOMENTUM MEDIA
realestatebusiness logo

Breaking news and updates daily. Subscribe to our Newsletter!

Home of the REB Top 100 Agents
Breaking news and updates daily. Subscribe to our newsletter

Website Notifications

Get notifications in real-time for staying up to date with content that matters to you.

If it ain't broke...

By Staff Reporter
13 November 2012 | 1 minute read

There’s little reason for real estate agents to be licensed nationally, writes Stockdale & Leggo CEO, Peter Thomas

 

“An equally untenable option would be to systemise real estate laws across the country in what would become a federally-regulated industry”

Advertisement
Advertisement

THE FEDERAL government’s proposal to shake up the industry via a national agent licensing scheme is of great concern. While it has a nice ring to it and implies improved industry standards and greater consumer benefit and protection, quite the opposite is true. The current state-specific system works exceedingly well. In contrast, this radical one-fits-all approach brings little benefit to anyone. Instead, it opens a Pandora’s box of problems.

Namely, states’ education requirements for licensing currently vary between Diploma and Certificate IV levels. Not only would educational standards go backwards in the likely event that the lowest common denominator were adopted, further study in relation to state-specific laws would also be required.

An equally untenable option would be to systemise real estate laws across the country in what would become a federally-regulated industry. It simply wouldn’t work. Australia’s diversity and each state’s unique property market at any given time require suitably designed, responsive laws that best serve consumers, the industry, and the country.

At the most basic level, even the nation’s extremes in climate and risk of natural disasters demand a unique approach, not only in regard to building legislation, but also in terms of both responsive and proactive government incentives to either support or stimulate certain sectors. States’ varying industries, economies, and shifting trends also preclude a blanket approach to property legislation.

Streamlining laws is impractical. We already see plenty of division between politicians in the one party room in the one state. How, then, would the various Liberal and Labor state governments agree on one set of real estate laws? Each state, too, has its own Consumer Affairs Department. It’s a very messy picture with no significant benefit to anyone.

While a national licensing program would make it easier for agents moving interstate, do we really have sufficient numbers of agents on the move to make it worthwhile? And is that benefit sufficient to warrant such an upheaval to an industry already challenged by the weaker economy of recent times?

As for consumer benefit, again, there is little if any apparent under the current proposal. In the unlikely event that national licensing saw the implementation of systemised national property laws, the latter would make moving, buying and selling property interstate a little simpler, as stamp duty, cooling off periods, government incentives and so on would be uniform across all states and territories. However, in digging deep in the search for benefits, it seems we are really clutching at straws.

A more likely scenario is that consumers could be worse off. Firstly, a lowering of education standards to facilitate the implementation of a national licensing program would be detrimental to both consumers and the Australian property industry.

We should be moving forwards, with our focus firmly fixed on the acquisition of better and better skills, ongoing professional development and ever-improving industry standards.

Secondly, the proposed national licensing laws suggest removing  licensing requirements for those selling non-residential real estate, including commercial properties and farms. As pointed out by the Real Estate Institute of Victoria (REIV), such a move increases consumer risk by stripping buyers and sellers of non-residential properties of the level of protection they get by using a licensed real estate agent.   

The current system works well and isn’t creating any apparent problems. The introduction of national licensing would create more problems than it solves. There are many pressing matters the government may wish to focus its attention on, such as helping first home buyers get into the market before ‘the great Australian dream of home ownership’ turns into the great Australian society of renters.

If it ain't broke...
default
lawyersweekly logo
Listen to other installment of the Real Estate Business Podcast
Rankings
rankings
JUST RELEASED
May 09, 2022

REB Top 50 Women in Real Estate 2022

REB is thrilled to present the Top 50 Women in Real Estate 2022 ranking, which sets t ... LEARN MORE

rankings
JUST RELEASED
May 04, 2022

REB Top 100 Agents 2022

Now in its second decade, the REB Top 100 Agents 2022 rankings are the most revered s ... LEARN MORE

rankings
JUST RELEASED
May 02, 2022

REB Top 50 Agents NSW 2022

Even a pandemic has not put the brakes on the unstoppable property market in NSW, whi ... LEARN MORE

rankings
JUST RELEASED
April 27, 2022

REB Top 50 Agents VIC 2022

The COVID-19 crisis has not deterred the property market in Victoria, which has been ... LEARN MORE

rankings
JUST RELEASED
April 25, 2022

REB Top 50 Agents QLD 2022

As the property market continues to roar in Brisbane and Queensland, the REB Top 50 A ... LEARN MORE

Coming up

rankings rankings
Do you have an industry update?

top suburbs

12 month growth
Mirador
103.33%
Bawley Point
98.13%
Walla Walla
90.7%
Byron Bay
86.67%
Kiama Heights
85.93%
Greta
84.14%
Nulkaba
81%
South Hobart
78.78%
Diddillibah
76.25%
Lennox Head
73.98%
SEE AREA REPORTS ON SMART PROPERTY INVESTMENT WEBSITE
Subscribe to Newsletter

Ensure you never miss an issue of the Real Estate Business Bulletin.
Enter your email to receive the latest real estate advice and tools to help you sell.