Property and Stock Agents Amendment (Underquoting and Other Agent Conduct) Bill 2026
As The Greens spokesperson on fair trading and building, I contribute to debate on the Property and Stock Agents Amendment (Underquoting and Other Agent Conduct) Bill 2026.
The Greens will support the bill as it is a modest but meaningful step forward in addressing underquoting and strengthening professional standards in the property sector. The primary purposes of the bill are to place greater obligations on real estate agents—including taking into account sold prices of comparable properties when determining estimated sale prices against guidelines dictated by regulations, preparing a statement of information to provide prospective buyers with pricing information relevant to the property for sale, keeping records to justify their estimated selling prices and ensuring that every residential property advertisement other than for sale signs includes a selling price or price range—to increase and introduce penalties for agents who do not comply with their obligations, and to strengthen the enforcement and disciplinary powers of NSW Fair Trading.
The Greens support the bill because it is clear that underquoting has become a widespread and corrosive practice in New South Wales. An investigation by The Sydney Morning Herald last year identified that Sydney claims a dubious status as the "underquoting capital of Australia". The investigation gave the example of a property sale that proceeded at more than $300,000 above the reserve price, leaving one registered bidder out of the running within one minute of the auction, starting devastated and more than $2,000 out of pocket just for showing up. In fact, the Herald found that underquoting affected almost half of all property sales across the city, with some properties selling for close to $1 million above the asking price.
The Government's decision to act—following the establishment of the Strata and Property Services Taskforce and the growing number of complaints to Fair Trading—is welcome and overdue. For too long, penalties have been low enough to be treated as a cost of doing business. We therefore support the introduction of stronger penalties and disciplinary measures, including increasing penalties for underquoting from $22,000 to $110,000 or three times the agent's commission—whichever is greater—as well as doubling penalties for dummy bidding auctions from $55,000 to $110,000. The bill also increases maximum penalties for breaches of licensing, misuse of licences and failures in agent responsibilities. But stronger penalties only matter if they are applied. The Government must ensure that Fair Trading's compliance team is appropriately resourced to proactively monitor the scale of misconduct occurring across the State.
Clearer rules for estimated selling prices are also a welcome inclusion. The bill strengthens the rules around estimated selling prices and requires all advertisements to include a price guide and a statement of information. That will help reduce the ambiguity that has allowed underquoting to flourish. By prohibiting agents from advertising a price lower than a previously rejected written offer or an unsuccessful auction bid, the bill addresses an issue that has been a huge source of frustration for prospective home buyers for years. That will be very welcome. The bill also allows the secretary to issue education notices requiring further training. It recognises that not all breaches are malicious, that some stem from poor training or misunderstanding, and that education can be a powerful compliance tool. The bill also amends the Fair Trading Act to criminalise impersonation of authorised officers. Those are all sensible reforms.
Several key elements of the bill are delegated to future regulations, which is concerning. They include the elements relating to which property classes may be exempt from strengthened advertising requirements, as well as the eligibility criteria for becoming an approved provider of professional development. The bill also risks creating or enabling a monopoly in professional development providers. It does that by providing the secretary with the power to both issue education notices under proposed schedule 125 to the bill and approve providers of education or training for the purposes of continuing and other professional development under proposed schedule 128 to the bill. The bill therefore creates a risk that the Government could favour particular training providers, reducing competition and potentially creating a monopoly. The property sector has a long history of concerns about training quality, conflicts of interest and the influence of large industry bodies. If the Government is going to regulate who can provide professional development, then it must ensure transparency and competition.
The Tenants' Union of NSW has raised two further concerns. The bill allows the secretaries to suspend an agent from performing certain functions while still being permitted to perform other functions. The bill includes a specific example of an agent being prevented from selling residential property while still being allowed to manage residential tenancies. The Greens share the Tenants' Union's concerns. If an agent's conduct is serious enough to suspend them from sales, surely they should also not be allowed to continue managing people's homes. The bill also fails to address broader issues of market fairness. While the bill focuses on underquoting and agent conduct, it does not address the lack of transparency in rental application processes, inconsistent standards in tenancy management and the absence of a unified independent property regulator. Such issues may fall outside of the bill's scope, but they remain urgent in the context of a housing market that is pushing more and more people towards renting. If we want a fair property market, we cannot continue treating sales and rentals as separate worlds.
Another issue that the bill does not touch on—which I have actually written to the Minister's office about—is the manipulation of real estate reviews by unscrupulous agents. Earlier this month, an article in The Sydney Morning Herald exposed the legal threats and back-end hacks that agents are using to block genuine negative reviews and to create a false and misleading star rating. In fact, analysis indicated that almost all of the agents across Australia with the highest pricing error scores presented as outstanding agents with zero complaints on platforms like realestate.com.au and domain.com.au. In New South Wales, of the 50 agents with the most inaccurate guide prices, averaging 6.2 per cent below sale price, all but four held five-star ratings.
The Herald revealed the tactics some agents are employing to give the impression of an unblemished record. They include agents only providing review links to happy customers, leaving other buyers who wish to proactively leave a review left to navigate a more onerous process on the platform; deeming unflattering reviews as untruthful or defamatory and requesting their removal; using technical workarounds such as removing the address from the listing, which prevents buyers from verifying their purchase to leave a review, to suppress negative reviews; and attempting to coerce, pressure or otherwise threaten, including with legal action, a reviewer for posting a negative review.
I acknowledge there are challenges to addressing some of those issues directly through amendments to State legislation. Platforms like realestate.com.au and domain.com.au—where biased and manipulated reviews are a common feature—fall under Australian consumer law. The issue of prospective buyers being prevented from publicly reporting their experiences with underquoting or other grievances on those platforms is not easily addressed at the State level. However, there may be other avenues for introducing punitive measures against agents found to have engaged in that type of behaviour. While NSW Fair Trading has the Name and Shame Register, it is not where most people go to look for agent reviews. I encourage the Minister and the Minister's office to investigate potential future amendments to address the issue. Having said that, the bill is welcome and overdue. It will make a difference to people buying their homes. Anything that supports that in this State is welcome. The Greens are pleased to support the bill.