This article is from the Australian Property Journal archive
BUDDING real estate agents in New South Wales will need to meet tougher educational requirements before they are allowed to practice, under reforms proposed by the government.
Minister for Innovation and Better Regulation Victor Dominello said this is the most significant reform proposed for the property industry in 20 years.
“This is the most significant review in 20 years and the profile of the property sector has changed considerably over that period.
“We need modern laws that reflect these changes and improve consumer confidence,” Dominello said.
This comes as the state’s consumer watchdog, the NSW Fair Trading office reported a 14% increase to 7341 complaints in 2015-16 within the real estate industry.
Last month, the real estate industry accounts for a third of consumer complaints within the state, according to NSW Fair Trading.
Currently anyone can complete a two-day online course costing between $299 to $700 and obtain a certificate to sell and manage property.
Under the proposed reforms, they would need to complete seven units of competency, up from four, to obtain their certificate. The three extra units focus on laws relevant to consumer protection.
The government will also impose a mandatory 12 months’ of practical experience before real estate agents can upgrade their certificate to a licence, which allows them to open their own real estate business.
The government also wants to the power to temporarily suspend a certificate or licence while an investigation is under way, unlike the current system.
Furthermore, the government is proposing to stop property developers from selling off-the-plan with no qualifications.
The proposals have the backing of the Real Estate Institute of New South Wales, whose CEO Tim McKibbin said that the REINSW has been fighting for more rigorous training in over a decade.
“Property transactions are quite complex, so we need competent, properly trained people,” McKibbin said. “Their lack of training meant they couldn’t understand the documents, and there could have been big consequences.”
Australian Property Journal
