Agents in the Firing Line, with Mike Mortlock

Kasey McDonald (00:08)

Welcome to Episode 11 of Before the Weekend. Today we are examining the property stories that matter from this week, challenging the claims being made and looking beyond the political headlines to what these decisions mean in the real world.

Our key story is Victoria's Premier turning a policy disagreement into a personal fight. REINSW is calling for the removal of a government minister, and Australia's housing targets are colliding with another round of tax reform. Who would have thought? Another interesting week in real estate.

With me, of course, is my co-host, Peter Schravemade. How are we today, Pete?

Peter Schravemade (00:51)

Fighting fit. I said to you off air that I was feeling a little tired, but I am actually feeling refreshed. It has been a big couple of weeks, and I am looking forward to the weekend. No disrespect to the property professionals who have to work, but I am not working this weekend.

I have also just noticed that I put my shirt on back to front, so we are off to a great start. I am not taking it off because this is being filmed. Clearly, I am on top of everything. You did not notice either. Where are your property-management skills?

Kasey McDonald (01:33)

I did not notice. I do have strong attention to detail, but I was not focusing on your T-shirt this morning. I was researching our guest, Mike Mortlock, who is joining us to unpack the latest housing and tax settings. He also has a fantastic podcast, so I am looking forward to having him with us.

Pete, I want to begin with Victoria. We can have a little giggle about it, but it is a serious matter. Policy seems to have become incredibly personal.

Peter Schravemade (02:18)

It did. It was a bizarre week, and this was a story I was raging about on Saturday. I was absolutely fuming.

Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan published an open letter addressed to Toby Balazs, the CEO of the Real Estate Institute of Victoria. In my view, it was unwarranted and needlessly personal. It bypassed the usual media channels and went directly onto the Premier's social media. I was annoyed, frustrated and upset that a technical policy disagreement had been handled that way.

People can hold different political opinions, but I thought this was a low blow.

Kasey McDonald (03:12)

Why do you think the Premier directed it at Toby personally?

Peter Schravemade (03:18)

I think she is trying to win votes.

The underlying issue is underquoting, which is a genuine and deeply frustrating problem in Victoria. Some agents do the wrong thing. Nobody on this program, and certainly not the REIV, is arguing that underquoting is acceptable.

For anyone unfamiliar with it, underquoting occurs when a property is advertised below the agent's reasonable estimate, the seller's asking price or a price the seller has already rejected. In practice, buyers may be encouraged to inspect or attend an auction believing they can compete, only to discover that the property was never likely to sell within the advertised range. That wastes time, money and emotional energy.

I have seen agents price properties unconscionably low to build a crowd. They should be prosecuted. But I do not believe the majority of auction agents deliberately set out to deceive buyers. Sometimes the market moves on the day, and sometimes competition produces a result that could not reasonably have been predicted. The difficulty is distinguishing that from deliberate misconduct.

The REIV has been advocating for transparency and convened a working group to develop a policy blueprint. Government was involved in that process. Before the work was fully released, the Government announced its own proposal, using some of the same ideas but not the full package.

The REIV then wrote to the Premier and explained what it believed had been missed. Its position was not that reserve prices should remain secret. It proposed a 10 per cent reserve-price range three days before auction, together with other transparency measures, including compulsory sold-price disclosure.

The Government's model requires an exact reserve seven days before auction. The REIV's commissioned research found that 94 per cent of surveyed Victorian property owners would fundamentally change their selling strategy under that requirement. That does not mean every one of them would abandon auctions, but it is a strong warning that vendor behaviour would change.

If a large number of sellers move from auctions to private treaty or off-market campaigns, the result may be less transparency. Anyone who has tried to buy in markets where properties are frequently advertised without a price will understand that problem.

Auctions also provide a visible market test on a particular day. They are not perfect, and underquoting must be stamped out, but they are a legitimate method of sale and can support an agent's fiduciary duty to achieve the best result for the vendor.

The Premier's letter barely acknowledged the REIV as the organisation behind the work. It named Toby and portrayed him as someone fighting transparency. That is not his position and it is not the REIV's published position. The disagreement is about the design and likely consequences of the reform, not whether buyers deserve honest pricing.

I also take issue with this Government lecturing others about transparency while facing serious questions about its own record. There is a disputed estimate that alleged CFMEU-related corruption and inflated costs on Victoria's Big Build may have cost taxpayers up to $15 billion. That is not a confirmed sum of missing money, and the Government disputes it, but the allegations are serious and should be independently tested. The Premier has rejected calls for a royal commission and prefers police and regulatory investigations.

Consumer Affairs Victoria has also possessed substantial enforcement powers against underquoting for years. It has now announced high-profile proceedings, which is appropriate if the evidence supports them, but it is reasonable to ask why enforcement appears to intensify as an election approaches. The regulator and tribunal system are also dealing with lengthy delays in urgent tenancy matters.

That is why the Premier's social media intervention felt so rich to me. Toby was doing his job on behalf of the profession, presenting an evidence-based alternative. He deserved a response to the argument, not a personal characterisation that suggested he opposed transparency.

Kasey McDonald (10:52)

Jacinta Allan became Premier after Daniel Andrews resigned. She is an elected MP, but Victorians have not yet voted at a general election with her leading the Government. Does that political context matter?

Peter Schravemade (11:26)

It matters because Victorians will have their say at the state election this November.

What concerns me is that many Victorian auctioneers and agents seem to be keeping their heads down. That may simply reflect my social-media feed, but I suspect some professionals are worried that speaking publicly will attract unwanted regulatory attention.

I do not make many strongly partisan statements on my professional accounts. I criticise policy on this program, but the post I published last weekend was unusually direct. It ultimately led to what I regarded as a threat to my life on another forum.

The contrast between platforms was striking. Facebook was largely an industry conversation about auction mechanics, vendor rights and the treatment of Toby. LinkedIn changed after the post was shared into a closed Labor-aligned group. I then spent much of the week responding to people who appeared not to have read either the Premier's letter or my post.

Many assumed I was defending underquoting or opposing transparency. I was doing neither. I was questioning the way the reform was designed and the Premier's decision to personalise the dispute. I am not currently a practising real estate agent, and I do not financially benefit from whether Victorian reserve prices are published.

The thread became a pile-on built around an invented version of my argument. I eventually restricted the comments.

Kasey McDonald (14:11)

That surprises me because LinkedIn is usually treated as the professional platform. It sounds as though people focused on a sentence or a word, formed an assumption and then argued against that, rather than reading the full position.

Peter Schravemade (14:52)

That was one of my biggest lessons this week. The public perception of real estate agents is in the toilet. We already knew the profession had a trust problem, but the strength of the response was extraordinary.

We have also seen governments use that distrust politically before. In Queensland, before the last state election, the Miles Government repeatedly targeted real estate professionals in an attempt to win support on housing. Antonia Mercorella and the REIQ were constantly in the media correcting claims and explaining the consequences of proposed interventions.

The broader problem is that governments at every level have failed to deliver enough housing. Shelter costs, rents and the cost of buying have become enormous public concerns. The easy scapegoat is the agent or property manager standing between the consumer and the transaction.

I am tired of governments using the profession as a last-minute vote-gathering device without acknowledging the underlying supply problem. We do not have enough homes for the population we have and the population we are adding. That is not a statement against immigration. It is a statement that housing, infrastructure and construction capacity have not kept pace.

Governments should be building and enabling more homes. Even when a target is missed, actual delivery matters. Victoria has failed to deliver enough public and social housing for years, yet the profession is expected to absorb the anger created by scarcity.

The Australian property sector is also heavily regulated. Agents and property managers operate under an enormous volume of legislation, rules and compliance obligations. That brings us neatly to New South Wales.

Kasey McDonald (18:24)

The industry also has to accept some responsibility. Misconduct does occur, and there are professionals who do not behave as they should. But the overwhelming majority are trying to achieve the best outcome for vendors, buyers, rental providers and renters while working within difficult legislative boundaries.

There are conflicts, cash-flow pressures and challenging conversations every day. It is disappointing when government appears to be fighting the profession rather than working with it. That leads us to REINSW and its extraordinary call for a minister to be removed.

Kasey McDonald (19:46)

Tim McKibbin has called out NSW Minister for Better Regulation and Fair Trading Anoulack Chanthivong. REINSW is asking for the Minister to be removed. How has it reached that point?

Peter Schravemade (20:17)

It is an extraordinary escalation. I cannot remember another real estate institute formally asking a Premier to remove the minister responsible for its industry.

REINSW says it has repeatedly attempted to engage with the Minister and has been met with silence. Tim McKibbin's argument is that professionals are expected to understand 22 legislative instruments and absorb 449 legislative changes this year, all carrying serious consequences for non-compliance, while entry education remains extraordinarily limited.

The institute also says the regulatory burden is contributing to psychosocial harm and workplace-health-and-safety pressure across the profession. Tim has said that even with a legal background, keeping pace with the volume and complexity is difficult.

Government is entitled to regulate the industry, and it does not have to accept every industry recommendation. But if it is introducing rules and penalising people for failing to implement them, it should be prepared to explain how the rules work, consult on whether they are practical and support education.

REINSW's call appears to have been born from frustration. Its position is that the current Minister is not doing the job the public is paying him to do.

Kasey McDonald (22:17)

The Government creates and enforces these obligations, so REINSW has every right to ask why changes are being made, how they are supposed to work and what education will support them. Consultation should be part of that process.

Peter Schravemade (22:52)

Absolutely. Even if government disagrees with the institute, REINSW is the state's peak professional body and has represented the sector for more than a century. It is embedded in the forms, contracts, training and practical operation of the market.

It is highly unusual for the responsible Minister to refuse even a meaningful conversation with the peak body. REINSW says the problem also extends beyond agents to parts of the broader housing and construction sector.

That is disappointing because, in other areas, I think Chris Minns has shown strong leadership. I cannot imagine that a minister refusing dialogue with a major industry body is an ideal situation for the Premier. At the time of recording, there had been no direct public response to REINSW's demand.

Kasey McDonald (24:36)

We now have institutes in two major states saying governments are either ignoring or misrepresenting them. What does that mean for the profession, and what needs to change to create a fair, healthy and workable environment?

Peter Schravemade (25:20)

I do not believe the institutes want a fight. Their preference is usually diplomacy.

The REIV's response to the Premier was measured and professional. It simply said Toby's views had been misrepresented and restated the evidence. My language was much stronger than theirs.

Victoria and New South Wales are also different situations. In Victoria, there has been dialogue, but the institute believes its advice has been ignored and its position misrepresented. In New South Wales, REINSW says meaningful dialogue has broken down altogether.

When government stops listening to organisations that understand how the housing market operates, it creates a larger problem. Institutes must represent their members, even when doing so becomes uncomfortable.

The timing in Victoria also matters. The Premier published on a weekend through social media, creating a strong narrative before the REIV could respond during business hours. The institute published its formal response on 20 July. To me, it looked less like a policy exchange and more like an attempt to win votes by attacking real estate agents.

That is a bad look for government and a black eye for the relationship between policymakers and the profession.

Kasey McDonald (27:59)

There is a lot of contradiction. Governments say they want more homes and more rental supply, while investors, builders and developers argue that tax and regulatory changes may deliver the opposite result.

The recurring word is uncertainty. Confidence is low, and public political conflict makes consumers and professionals wonder whether they should step back until they understand what is happening.

Peter Schravemade (28:49)

That lack of confidence is the perfect segue to our next guest. I heard Mike Mortlock speak on Wednesday at a property-management breakfast organised by REINSW. He delivered a keynote on what the changing tax and housing settings mean for property managers and their clients. He is an extraordinary source of information, so let us bring him in.

Peter Schravemade (29:23)

We have the privilege, the pleasure and the absolute delight of welcoming Mike Mortlock, Managing Director of MCG Quantity Surveyors. I have known Mike for quite some time.

Mike is also Treasurer of the Property Investment Professionals of Australia, better known as PIPA, and the host of the highly successful Geared for Growth property investment podcast. He launched it in 2017, so it has been running a little longer than our 11 episodes of Before the Weekend.

Mike, welcome to the show.

Mike Mortlock (30:02)

Thank you. Longevity does not necessarily mean it is good, but it is a pleasure to be here.

Peter Schravemade (30:07)

I have been listening, particularly when I am on planes. At your keynote, you said the target of 1.2 million new homes was unrealistic from the moment it was announced. Why?

Mike Mortlock (30:29)

We are now in the third year of a five-year target, and it is clear the run rate was unrealistic. That is not because I am unusually clever. It is because the numbers never stacked up.

Delivering 1.2 million homes requires about 240,000 dwellings a year. Australia has only approached that level on rare occasions, and the target began after construction costs had risen sharply through the pandemic. Builder insolvencies were at record levels, construction remained the leading industry for insolvencies, and the Housing Industry Association estimated that about 90,000 additional tradespeople were needed immediately.

When you combine the required build rate with high costs, builder failures and labour shortages, it was difficult to see how the target could be achieved.

Peter Schravemade (31:17)

That is not exactly rocket science, although I do not want to downplay your intelligence. We seem trapped in a never-ending supply-and-demand cycle, yet there is little political will to address supply properly. Do you agree?

Mike Mortlock (31:45)

I do, although the Government has now shown political will in a different direction through the changes announced on 12 May 2026. They have been presented as support for first-home buyers, but I regard much of it as a tax grab.

Treasury's own modelling says the impact will be modest. It estimates about 75,000 additional owner-occupiers over ten years, which is roughly 7,500 a year in a market already producing about 130,000 to 140,000 first-home buyers annually. Treasury also acknowledges that the policy may have a modest negative effect on new construction.

Governments have traditionally supported first-home buyers on the demand side through measures such as 5 per cent deposit schemes. The problem is that demand stimulus can push up prices and make it harder for the next cohort. Supply was the issue that needed the greatest attention.

Instead, after falling behind on construction, the Government has moved aggressively against property investors. That is where we are now.

Kasey McDonald (33:25)

On the rental side, Treasury modelling suggested the changes would add less than $2 a week to median rent. Where do you think that assumption goes wrong?

Mike Mortlock (34:01)

It is difficult to see how Treasury reached the $2 figure. The same modelling also suggests house prices will grow about 2 per cent less than they otherwise would, so the number two appears quite often.

We recently analysed about 180,000 rental listings and compared new dwellings with equivalent established properties. After matching like with like, the rent premium was approximately 3 per cent for a new house and about 10 per cent for a new apartment. If policy redirects the rental mix towards new property, that alone points to higher asking rents.

Investors also cannot simply move from established property into new construction. We are not building enough suitable stock, and it is not always in the locations where renters want to live. At the same time, national vacancy is extremely tight and population growth remains strong.

The other issue is trust. People made long-term investment decisions based on the rules and on election commitments that those rules would not change. They cannot retrospectively change the decisions they made. The rules have changed around them.

Kasey McDonald (36:24)

Will the changes affect smaller mum-and-dad investors more heavily than wealthier investors with larger portfolios?

Mike Mortlock (36:52)

Yes, smaller investors are more exposed. Ironically, that includes many of the people the policy is supposedly designed to help.

The pre-Budget debate focused heavily on the wealth gap between baby boomers and younger Australians. Yet existing holdings are grandfathered, so many older owners retain the previous settings while younger people trying to build their financial future face a more difficult pathway.

We could have debated alternatives such as limiting negative gearing to one or two properties or reducing the capital-gains-tax discount to 33 per cent. Instead, the Government has made sweeping changes to both negative gearing and capital gains.

There may be less competition for some first-home buyers, but a buyer has to be financially ready at the moment the opportunity appears. Demand-side stimulus also tends to make the next purchase more expensive.

The larger story will be rent. The effect will take time to appear because rent-review rules vary by state, but I expect materially more pressure than Treasury's $2-a-week estimate. The human consequence may be increased homelessness.

Peter Schravemade (38:42)

Tim Lawless told us in an earlier episode that tenants have very little capacity left to absorb higher rents. I am already seeing people living in cars and seeking rentals at budgets that no longer match the market.

Let me shift to property-investment professionals. You work closely with that part of the industry through MCG and PIPA. How are advisers and their clients responding to the Budget and the collapse in investor confidence? Have investors genuinely left the market, or are some still transacting?

Mike Mortlock (40:01)

Broadly, investor demand has fallen sharply, although transactions have not stopped. Wealthier investors can still absorb a property running at a $400 or $500 weekly cash-flow loss, and some will continue to buy.

New property retains more favourable treatment, but that part of the market can be difficult for inexperienced buyers because it also attracts project marketers and spruikers. Advisers are therefore looking at different assets and higher-yield strategies, including houses with granny flats, small unit blocks and commercial property.

The hardest day to hold an investment property is usually day one. Nobody buys because they want to be negatively geared. Negative gearing is a consequence of the early cash-flow position, and over time rent may rise and the debt may reduce. Removing the immediate ability to offset losses against personal income makes those early years much harder.

Buyers' agents working with investors tell me the pool of people who can qualify and carry the property has shrunk. There is also fatigue. Investors have been politically demonised through several elections and have faced repeated tenancy-law changes at state level.

Most investors are ordinary people trying to build financial security and reduce their future reliance on the age pension. They should not automatically be treated as the enemy.

Peter Schravemade (42:35)

At your presentation, you said 91 per cent of rental housing is provided by the private sector. What do the investor-ownership figures actually show?

Mike Mortlock (42:44)

Public housing represents only a small share of the total rental system. About 72 per cent of individual investors own one investment property, and fewer than 10 per cent own more than two. Once you reach six or more properties, the number of investors is very small.

Peter Schravemade (43:01)

That challenges the picture of every landlord as wealthy and sitting on a huge portfolio. The typical investor is closer to a household that owns its home and has one additional property because it regarded property as a stable way to build wealth.

Those households also face cost-of-living pressure. When their holding costs rise, they either absorb the loss, increase rent where the market and law allow it, or leave the market.

Peter Schravemade (43:45)

Has the investment playbook been thrown out? Strategies once seemed relatively clear from first-home buyers through to sophisticated investors. The Budget and tax reforms changed the rules quickly, and some people may also be waiting to see whether a future government reverses them. Are new strategies being written, or is everyone simply holding?

Mike Mortlock (45:04)

There is Australian precedent. Negative gearing was restricted between 1985 and 1987 and later restored. People still debate the effects, and the conclusion can change depending on the cities and data selected, but the policy was reversed for a reason.

I would not say the investment playbook has been thrown out. It is more like a shaken-up snow globe. Investors are leaning more heavily towards yield, and lenders have already adjusted serviceability assessments to remove some negative-gearing benefits.

Over a long time horizon, even major shocks tend to look like relatively small interruptions in Australian property values. That means the current reduction in competition may create opportunities for prepared first-home buyers and owner-occupiers. The fever pitch has gone, at least temporarily.

The core supply problem remains. We are still not building enough. Rent growth cannot continue indefinitely because households eventually change behaviour, share homes or delay household formation. We saw some of that as rent growth slowed in 2024 and 2025 after the double-digit increases of earlier years.

People who believed in property before the Budget may still believe in it, but the key questions are whether they can qualify and whether they can carry the asset. If investor participation falls, the private rental pool will shrink unless another provider replaces it.

We can debate whether housing should be an investment asset, but we need an alternative before removing the existing model. Australia has about 300,000 public-housing dwellings and requires roughly 3.4 million rental dwellings. Around a third of Australians rent for many reasons, including employment mobility, migration, credit constraints, disability and personal preference. I rent myself, and rentvesting has also been a meaningful pathway into property ownership. Much of this policy has been poorly thought through.

Peter Schravemade (48:18)

That brings me to my own situation, which Kasey says we discuss far too often. I have a block of land I was preparing to build on. Two years ago, the construction cost was about $1 million, but the rent would not support the cost.

Separately, I moved superannuation into an SMSF and bare-trust structure and was preparing to invest when the rules changed. From my perspective, that could mean two potential dwellings do not enter the market, and I am only one person.

What are you telling investors who own land or were preparing to build but can no longer see a clear path forward?

Mike Mortlock (49:49)

The first step is to speak with a qualified property investment adviser. PIPA has many of them, but I am not one. I am a tax and depreciation specialist, so I cannot tell you what to do with your personal circumstances.

Construction-cost growth has slowed, but costs remain at a much higher base after the pandemic surge. Global oil and diesel disruptions may also flow through to freight, materials and site operations. Reece Plumbing, for example, warned of substantial price increases across parts of its range.

In many markets it is still cheaper to buy an established dwelling than to build a new one. A major reason is the accumulation of federal, state and local taxes, duties, charges and compliance costs. Industry estimates often put the government-related component of some new house-and-land packages at 40 to 50 per cent.

If governments genuinely want to move the needle on new supply, they need to examine their dependence on property taxes and the cost layers attached to development.

Peter Schravemade (51:54)

So your solution is to put politicians into property-tax rehab. That is not the reason I expected, but I can support it. More seriously, what does this mean for investors' time horizons and the value of deductions today rather than years from now?

Mike Mortlock (52:02)

For many investors, it stretches the time horizon. Someone who planned to buy, create equity through market growth or renovation, and then move to the next property may now need much longer because the asset is more cash-flow hungry.

Government will say negative gearing has not disappeared because losses can be quarantined and used later against rental profits or a future residential capital gain. But in some of my modelling, the accumulated losses are larger than the capital-gains-tax liability. Some deductions may never deliver their full value.

Timing is the central issue. A dollar today is worth more than a dollar in ten years. The first years of ownership are usually the hardest, which is precisely when the immediate tax deduction helps an investor carry the property.

Negative gearing has cost government roughly $3.6 billion over a five-year period in the modelling I have considered. Replacing the private rental system with millions of publicly owned dwellings would require vastly more capital. If government is not going to provide the rental supply itself, it needs private investors to participate.

Kasey McDonald (54:16)

Builders are warning that thousands of signed new-home contracts connected with SMSF borrowing may be cancelled. Is that a credible warning, and are you already seeing panic?

Mike Mortlock (54:43)

The building industry needs help for many reasons, including low productivity, skills shortages, financing constraints and the difficulty of funding newer construction methods such as modular building.

Residential property inside SMSFs is a relatively small part of the total investment market, but the short transition has created real panic. Mortgage brokers and advisers have been working intensely to complete assessments and transactions before the new restrictions apply.

There are also technical edge cases and unintended consequences. One example is the treatment of a former principal place of residence that becomes a rental after Budget night. Earlier tax reforms sometimes used a clearer test based on whether the property was already producing income at the relevant date.

The broader concern is that legislation of this scale appears to have been implemented without enough time to work through practical scenarios.

Kasey McDonald (56:08)

One final question for property managers. They are already having difficult conversations with rental providers who are asking what to do next. What is the most important advice for property managers when speaking with owners?

Mike Mortlock (56:56)

Property managers should become as informed as they reasonably can about the Budget and how it affects property investors, while staying within the boundary of their professional role and referring clients to accountants or licensed advisers.

I would break the owner conversation into three parts.

First, help owners identify the questions they should ask about deductions. Depreciation and other eligible costs can still matter, even where losses are quarantined for future rental income or a residential capital gain.

Second, help owners plan for maintenance. A property that is already difficult to carry becomes much harder when a hot-water system, roof or major appliance fails unexpectedly. Forward planning reduces the shock.

Third, consider lawful and sensible ways to improve rental performance. A renovation, additional amenity or property improvement may increase the rent, attract a stronger tenant and improve long-term value.

Property managers also need to prepare for more tenant distress. It is too simplistic to assume that every investor who sells will be replaced by a renter becoming a first-home buyer. Many renters cannot buy, do not want to buy, have recently migrated, work temporarily in a location, have impaired credit or rely on a disability support pension.

Around one-third of Australians have rented across a very long period of history. Those households still need somewhere to live, and property managers may be dealing with more difficult human situations as rental supply tightens.

Kasey McDonald (58:57)

That is valuable guidance for the property managers listening. Mike, I could keep talking to you for a long time, although you may prefer my company to Peter's.

Mike Mortlock (59:12)

Kasey does seem charming. Peter is a work in progress.

Peter Schravemade (59:14)

This is the third time we have crossed paths in two weeks, Mike, so we have to stop meeting like this. Thank you for joining us and sharing your insights.

We will include links to MCG Quantity Surveyors, PIPA, Geared for Growth and Mike's social channels in the episode notes. Enjoy your weekend.

Mike Mortlock (59:52)

There is no rest for the wicked, but the Tour de France is heating up, so I will be glued to that over the weekend. I appreciate the invitation. Thanks, both.

Peter Schravemade (1:00:02)

Take it easy, mate.

That was Mike Mortlock. He is a fountain of information and a very funny person, particularly when he is talking about subjects some people might regard as dry, such as tax and economics.

He presented exceptionally well at the REINSW property-management breakfast. We were both keynote speakers, but when it came to questions, the property managers had plenty for Mike and almost none for me. Being trumped by tax depreciation is not cool, Mike.

Seriously, though, his final point matters. Property managers now need a working understanding of the Budget and changing tax rules so they can identify issues, communicate accurately and direct owners to qualified advisers. Let us move to Queensland.

Peter Schravemade (1:00:35)

Queensland has significantly increased public-housing evictions for repeated and serious behaviour. Normally, repeated serious breaches leading to eviction would not surprise either of us. But in a housing shortage, the question becomes what happens next. Kasey, how do you read the policy?

Kasey McDonald (1:02:06)

The private sector has always had processes for serious breaches, so it is interesting to see the Queensland Government strengthen its approach.

Under the policy, three warnings for serious behaviour such as aggressive language, harassment or deliberate property damage can lead to eviction. Severe or illegal conduct can trigger immediate eviction and a two-year ban from social housing.

There must be consequences, particularly where neighbours or housing staff are at risk. But the difficult question is where an evicted household goes. The private rental market may be inaccessible, references may be poor and homelessness may be the result.

We also need to consider why the behaviour occurred and whether disability, mental illness, addiction or domestic and family violence is involved. Accountability and compassion have to operate together.

Peter Schravemade (1:03:18)

It is a sophisticated issue. I have followed the experience of a couple living beside a public-housing property where the alleged behaviour was appalling, including faeces being thrown over the fence. Nobody should have to live in fear or lose the peaceful enjoyment of their home.

They said it took roughly 18 months for the tenancy to end despite repeated complaints. I cannot independently verify every part of their account, but it illustrates why neighbours feel abandoned when serious conduct continues.

At the same time, social housing exists for people experiencing poverty, disability, mental illness, addiction and family violence. Most social-housing tenants do the right thing, just as most private tenants do. It would be wrong to stereotype an entire group.

The challenge is deciding when support and intervention have failed and when community safety requires a tenancy to end. With limited housing available, I understand the argument that people who respect their neighbours and their tenancy should not lose access because a small minority repeatedly causes harm.

I hope the officers making these decisions have the experience and discretion to understand complex needs. Good property managers regularly advocate compassion to rental providers, and government housing officers should do the same where it is safe and appropriate.

Kasey McDonald (1:07:10)

The figures are significant. The first year produced 1,016 breach notices across 911 tenancies and 122 evictions. The article also says officers can consider complex needs and the circumstances behind the behaviour.

Selection, placement and support matter. A person escaping domestic violence, for example, should not be placed into an environment that recreates danger or worsens trauma.

It is incredibly complex, but the basic expectation remains that every tenant, public or private, should respect neighbours and meet the responsibilities of the tenancy.

Peter Schravemade (1:08:42)

For anyone experiencing homelessness, we will include support links in the episode notes. I also want to recognise Orange Sky, one of my favourite charities, which provides mobile laundry, showers and genuine connection for people experiencing homelessness.

Our final story is about privacy and the responsibility property businesses carry when holding sensitive information.

A man alleged in an Instagram video that he and his family relocated because of serious safety concerns. There is no independent confirmation that he was in witness protection, and we have not verified every part of his account.

According to his story, he moved interstate without telling friends or extended family. After settlement, someone in his wider circle said they knew where he lived and disclosed details of the purchase. He later traced the information back to an employee in the real estate office involved in the sale.

He alleged the employee had shared his address, purchase price and other transaction details, after which threats were directed towards the property. The employee was reportedly dismissed, and the man praised the office or franchise for acknowledging the problem and acting once it became aware.

The lesson for every agent, property manager and administrator is simple. You are entrusted with names, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, income information, identification and transaction data. You cannot access agency records out of curiosity or share information because someone asks. That includes a renter's address.

Kasey, have you seen private information disclosed without proper verification?

Kasey McDonald (1:12:48)

I have seen phone numbers, email addresses and even income information disclosed without the caller being properly identified. I have heard property managers answer questions before establishing who was on the other end of the phone.

I have not personally seen anything as extreme as the allegation in this video. The employee was reportedly dismissed, and the man acknowledged the way the office responded. But termination may not be the only consequence. Depending on the facts, there could also be privacy, regulatory or civil issues.

Kasey McDonald (1:13:30)

To the office's credit, it appears to have dealt with the allegation rather than dismissing it. The larger point is that the employee allegedly disregarded basic privacy obligations and shared information that may have created further danger.

Peter Schravemade (1:14:06)

The man did not appear hostile towards the franchise after the response, and the issue may have been resolved, although we do not know that.

The office could have denied everything and forced him to prove the disclosure. Instead, it appears common sense prevailed. That deserves recognition, even though the original allegation is serious.

It is also a reminder that one employee's conduct can create risk for the principal, the office and the wider brand. The video named the franchise and attracted thousands of views, so reputational damage continued even after the employee was dismissed.

Businesses need role-based access, audit logs, training and a clear response plan. Trust money is protected by strict controls. Sensitive personal data should be treated with the same seriousness.

Peter Schravemade (1:15:37)

That brings us to the end of the week's topics. My frustration is the way governments use real estate and property professionals as a political wedge when elections approach.

We have seen this playbook before. When housing pressure becomes politically dangerous, the big, bad real estate agent is an easy villain. It happened in Queensland under the Miles Government, where Antonia Mercorella and the REIQ repeatedly rebutted claims and explained how the market actually works. That government was later removed from office. My understanding is that the REIQ's relationship with the new Government is not perfect, but it is workable.

We are now seeing a similar pattern in Victoria. The Allan Government is under pressure over housing, infrastructure, spending and transparency. Consumer Affairs Victoria has always had powers to pursue underquoting, and underquoting should absolutely be prosecuted. But the sudden political focus and high-profile cases invite questions about timing, particularly when the regulator and tribunal system are under pressure elsewhere.

In New South Wales, Tim McKibbin is entitled to ask whether the responsible Minister is creating a fair and healthy environment for property professionals. Regulation cannot work when the people expected to implement it cannot secure meaningful engagement.

Much of this reflects a poor understanding of how the housing market operates. The system is also so heavily regulated and fragmented that even experienced professionals struggle to keep pace.

There are three takeaways for the profession.

First, our social standing is taking an absolute pasting. It has never been wonderful, and genuine misconduct has created some of that damage. But agents are now absorbing anger generated by a housing shortage they did not create. Governments failed to enable and build enough homes, planning and infrastructure did not keep pace, and construction capacity deteriorated. The agent at the open home has become the visible face of a much larger failure.

Second, we need to be more transparent than ever. Every misleading price guide, badly handled tenancy, hidden financial relationship or poorly explained process gives governments another opportunity to portray the whole profession as dishonest. Do not behave badly at any time, but particularly not in this environment. Professional standards, records and communication need to be beyond reproach.

Third, property professionals in Victoria and New South Wales need to recognise how politicised the regulatory environment has become. High-profile enforcement examples may be used to demonstrate action. That means pricing evidence, authorities, conversations, access controls and compliance records must be meticulous.

Governments should prosecute wrongdoing and protect consumers. But using an entire profession as an election prop will not build a single home, resolve an urgent tenancy dispute or make housing more affordable.

Kasey McDonald (1:18:34)

I agree with those takeaways. My closing message, particularly to anyone in government listening, is that agents did not create the housing shortage.

Turning property professionals into campaign villains will not solve the supply problem. We are here to help people buy, sell, lease and manage property within an increasingly complex framework.

The profession must keep its standards high and give government no legitimate reason to attack it. But the housing shortage will only be solved by addressing housing supply, construction capacity and the policy settings that shape investment and delivery.

Peter Schravemade (1:19:18)

Amen. That is exactly right. Agents did not create the housing shortage.

Kasey McDonald (1:19:27)

We should not be pushed aside as the villains in a crisis we did not create. Let us keep professional standards high so there is nothing legitimate to use against us.

Peter Schravemade (1:19:48)

Exactly.

You can find Before the Weekend on the major streaming services and at beforetheweekend.com. You can also write to us at hello@beforetheweekend.com with story suggestions, guest recommendations, questions or topics we may have missed. You can even send us T-shirts. I will apparently wear them inside out.

To every property professional heading into the weekend, we wish you the very best, whether you are selling, leasing, managing or doing anything else the industry demands.

That is Episode 11 for Friday, 24 July. We will be back in seven days to discuss whatever happens between now and then. Kasey, thank you. Enjoy your weekend.

Kasey McDonald (1:20:43)

Thanks, Pete. You too. Everyone out there, have a fantastic weekend. That is a wrap on Before the Weekend.

EDITORIAL AND FACT-CHECK NOTES

1. Jacinta Allan is an elected Member of the Victorian Parliament. Under Victoria's parliamentary system, the Premier is the leader who holds the support of the Legislative Assembly, not a separately elected statewide office. Victorians have not yet voted at a general election with Ms Allan leading Labor.

2. The figure of up to $15 billion connected with alleged CFMEU corruption and inflated Big Build costs is a disputed estimate, not a confirmed amount of missing union funds. The Victorian Government disputes it.

3. The REIV says 94 per cent of surveyed Victorian property owners would fundamentally change their selling strategy if required to disclose an exact reserve seven days before auction. That is not the same as saying every respondent would abandon auctions.

4. REINSW's published figure was 449 legislative changes in 2026, not 488.

5. The privacy segment discusses allegations made by a man in a social-media video. The transcript does not establish that he was in witness protection, nor does it independently verify every part of his account.

6. Comments on tax, investment and legal matters are general discussion and personal opinion. They are not personal tax, financial or legal advice.