500 Changes, the July 1 Valuation and a War on Auctions

**Peter Schravemade** (00:05)

G'day folks. Welcome to Before the Weekend Podcast. It is Friday, the fourth of September, and this is our seventeenth episode of season one. Hopefully there's gonna be a season two coming up. We do anticipate doing that. I'm joined by Kasey McDonald all the way from Brisbane. Kasey, how are you doing?

**Kasey McDonald** (00:22)

Yeah, fabulous. How are you on this amazing Friday? How hot's it been so far in Queensland, start of spring?

**Peter Schravemade** (00:28)

Yeah, well it's welcome reprieve. It has been pretty warm. I had the air conditioner on yesterday. Can you believe that? I've gone from freezing to I'm like,

**Kasey McDonald** (00:35)

From a hater.

**Peter Schravemade** (00:38)

Wow, how quickly it changes here. But yeah, good to see a bit of summer kicking in and beautiful weather. Beautiful weather up this we look, we got a packed program today. Probably one of our biggest yet. We got we got audits gone missing, we've got money that's gone missing, we've got email scam accounts. There's action happening in Victoria on the back of discussions that we've had here before. There's a report out by the Tenancy Skills Institute this week and we're gonna be looking at that as well. We got some buyers with sunset clause issues down on the Gold Coast, all alleged at this stage. And then we got some conversations, some economists have put out some stats around the five percent deposit we wanna look at as well. I think two major interviews. So we've got a valuer coming in today because we've been talking probably for the last four episodes about valuation issues. And we've got a big date looming in July 1st, 2027, where anyone holding an investment property needs to have a valuation done by that day. And we've also got Aaron Barber, general manager of the Real Estate Institute of New South Wales, joining us later in the program to talk about incoming. Well, I actually think yeah, they're still incoming domestic violence regulations for property managers, which is very interesting. So we're gonna cover all of that off Kasey. I don't know kind of where to start at this stage. But that's a that's an action packed program. We yeah, what have you been up to this week? Have you been anywhere interesting?

**Kasey McDonald** (02:19)

No, I haven't actually. I yeah,

**Peter Schravemade** (02:21)

Boring, boring.

**Kasey McDonald** (02:22)

I know, boring right. But actually heading off to the REIQ's Property Insider Luncheon today. So really interested to be able to bring back some insights for our listeners next week, you know, really what are those economists saying in the market? What are we going to be seeing through throughout Queensland? Doing and of course I'm sure that they'll share some national figures and kind of outlooks, which is gonna be really good. So looking forward to a nice lunch with our friends at the REIQ and yeah, heading into the weekend.

**Peter Schravemade** (02:56)

Fantastic. I'm off to London next week. Actually on the weekend. I'm off to PropTech Connect over in the UK and then I'll be over in Denver, Colorado, coming to you live from there the week after. Actually Boulder, Colorado, where our portfolio gathering is. So I've got a bit of travel ahead of me. I it's like I've forgotten to pack my bag. It was only Laing+Simmons last week, but going internationally is a little bit different to driving down to the Gold Coast. Anyway, we should kick off and the first story that we've got today is regarding audits of all things and that it's not altogether that new, although the New South Wales ministerial release is recent, like so that's only just hit. And they're saying that the Fair Trading strata and property task force has completed a statewide compliance operation. Largely targeting agents entrusted with holding consumer money. So it's trust accounts that they're looking at. And what we've got are 34 businesses facing potential licence suspension, 41 overdue audits lodged as a result of the operation, 32 warnings issued, three industry bans, six mandatory training orders, and more than $200,000 in fines. With the specific case being the Western Sydney Agency. I'm not going mention who they are, but they're out of Penrith, lost its licence, fa fined twenty two thousand after repeatedly failing to provide a mandatory trust account audits. Now we raised this. I think we raised it when the flag was, but I think the what has come out this week is the depth of the or the volume, should I say, of agencies who haven't prepared audits. I think that's the big one, right? It's yes, there's been some we'll get it to in our next story, but it appears to be the audit that's missing as part of it. And I'm struggling to understand this. I think I've operated a trust account before. It wasn't an enjoyable experience. But a an audit was something that I got done by, you know, almost more important than my general accounts, if you ask me. What are your thoughts?

**Kasey McDonald** (05:04)

Yeah. Yeah, I think what's surprising to me is the numbers. You know, we spoke a few weeks ago actually, I think when this sort of first came out in the media that this was being looked at and now of course we've got exactly some of those outcomes. I the numbers are certainly high. But I know you know, God, nearly to 20 years ago now, probably when I was operating my business with that trust account, is your auditor also reminded you, you know, when it was due and kind of kept in contact with you. So I don't know if things have changed on that front. But yeah, I think this just kind of comes back to looking at how in which we're operating our businesses and just making sure we've got some of those compliance pieces in place. But you know, it's alarming to see that we're not obliging. So you know to make it clear this isn't fraud. That's not what they're out there doing. They're not saying anyone is mis appropriating in the trust account. It's more for the fact that they haven't actually provided back the audit report to to confirm it's been conducted. So yeah I just think that of course we're under scrutiny in the industry. It's something we talk about every single week. And there's just more and more that keeps coming out about some of the basic ways in which we operate and that we are still not fulfilling those basic duties.

**Peter Schravemade** (06:25)

Yeah. Yeah. A couple of things here. I think one of them wasn't aware that he or she needed to complete an audit. So okay, I don't know what's happened there. We spoke about this a few weeks ago, so I won't dwell on that. That's a weird one. I think that's the one with the band slapped on it. The others have been tardy but have provided them. The thing that drives me nuts the most about this is not that the agents aren't doing it like slightly just do your audit reports. Like we should just end this with that. It's more that I think we're going to get to another story in this program that carries much more weight than this, the domestic violence laws coming in New South Wales, the real estate institute of New South Wales, with Aaron Barber later in the story. And I suspect one of the things that he is going to say to us is that they can't get any communication out of the REINSW. Sorry, out of the Office of Fair Trading. That they can't get a response out of them. Yeah, and the housing minister.

**Kasey McDonald** (07:15)

Yeah. Yeah. And the housing minister right, like they're not getting those responses. Yeah.

**Peter Schravemade** (07:21)

But they're all about this. Like they're all about this. They just yeah, and real estate agents should be doing the right thing. I'm not saying I'm not condoning any of the behaviour that's going on here. It's a regulatory requirement. And by the way, if you're Victorian, this is your law too. So day after royal ascent, no phasing, no transition, it's coming at you. So maybe make this your warning if you're not currently up to date or in the process of being up to date, then you better get there. But yeah, I think the thing that frustrates me the most is that this is making mainstream news. But I you know, from my understanding, there are catastrophic fails in the communication between the peak body, the ethical peak body in New South Wales and the Office of Fair Trading. And I find that sadder because I, you know, a lot of this I'm not gonna speak on Antonia and to especially not Toby's behalf because he we've got Victorian legislation coming in as well. But I would like to think in Queensland the REIQ have such a dialogue with the Office of Fair Trading that you know, they would be actively saying to their members, go and get your audits done, rather than this sanctimonious sanction that goes out and smashes everyone straightaway. There just needs to be a dialogue. And I think the saddest part about this, yeah, aside from the fact that agents should be doing what they're doing is that there's there appears to be a broken i channel of communication between the Office of Fair Trading and the REINSW at the moment.

**Kasey McDonald** (08:52)

Yeah. Do we think you know, on that as well, we keep talking about the fact that we're targeted, right? So yes, we should be doing the right thing, but real estate businesses, agents, property managers, where we're feeling as though we're consistently targeted. And it's like there's this also money grab, right? Of they're not communicating with us. They're not kind of saying, hey, we're going to bring this into play. Peak body send out some comms as a, you know, refresh and kind of give everyone that reminder to do it and hey, this is kind of coming up. But instead it's kind of, you know, just positioned there and it's all of a sudden a money grab of now we're going to kind of find all of these people, but where should the true focus be? Should it be on we're seeing this and identifying it? Hey, REINSW, let's get some training going. So that maybe we need a refresh on how and which people need to organise these audits or what in fact is actually required. So we're definitely missing those gaps, but at the end of the day, it all just comes back onto us and we get scrutinized for not doing what we're meant to be doing.

**Peter Schravemade** (09:56)

Yeah, exactly. And it just it's just poor optics when you know, the ethical peak body are trying to communicate with the Office of Fair Trading and getting nothing back. And then we see this kind of article. And look, it smacks to me of New South Wales elections coming up. I know there's elections in Victoria. It I hate to be the cynical guy that I sometimes am, but looking, you know but looking at the you know Victoria in particular, they've got legislation coming in from a premier who wasn't voted in, who doesn't exist anymore. She's gone, she's leaving. They can't get a stay of execution on that. But yeah, I mean that's for another story. But I I just feel as though all of this policy on the run is just It's coming a cropper. We sh we should move on. Speaking of trust accounts, and we've touched on this before, so we probably don't need to deal with it too much, but there've been a few updates in some of the cases of money going missing across trust accounts. Do you want to take this one?

**Kasey McDonald** (11:04)

Yeah, I think what we've seen is the updates in terms of what those outcomes have now been. I think we've you know we've spoken about what the stories are around, you know, fraudulent transactions, those misappropriating within their trust account. And it's you know, it's not happening just in one state. We are seeing it across multiple, which is really unfortunate. But what we're seeing is the property manager case out of New South Wales, where it was about a hundred and sixty-two transactions. About 150,000, I think it was, or probably just slightly over that. That sentence has now been a 12-month community sentence. So I think you know, looking at that, do we feel it's enough? Is that giving enough of a message to pro you know, are we taking the right course of action? I don't know, in regards to that. We've got others that are just you know then losing their licence and not able to operate. The Brisbane one though, probably the Queensland stands out the most to me here. I think it was about 131,000 they siphoned from clients. So three counts of fraud that they did plead guilty to, and they got 4.5 years jail term. So I think if we look at all of the cases that we do talk about and we have brought to before the weekend, that's the first one I think I've heard of an actual jail sentence. Am I right? Am I right?

**Peter Schravemade** (12:30)

Yeah, yeah. And there's there yeah I don't know Well not

**Kasey McDonald** (12:34)

Or not? Or where have we had an have we had some others that have where we've gone there? Like what I'm saying is are we do we have the same consistency in each state? And I don't think that we do around how each of these cases are reviewed.

**Peter Schravemade** (12:46)

Queensland's much harsh harsher in my opinion. Having followed these cases, you steal money from a trust account, misappropriate it, you're gonna get a jail sentence. You know, that one that's at the top there, I hate to draw a parallel. That we spoke about first, the one in New South Wales, where it's a hundred and fifty one thousand dollars plus about thirty six thousand, and it ends up being a twelve month community sentence. You look at the hundred and thirty-one thousand in Brisbane, they'd got four point five years jail. I mean, that's very comparable in terms of number. You know, I don't know whether one said maybe one didn't plead guilty, I don't have those details, and the other did, but still there's a massive difference between nearly five years of jail and twelve months of community service. So that's crazy. The new other the other new one in i is their licence conveyancer. And It's alleged at this stage, but again, fraudulent conversion of trust account money exceeding it's nearly a million dollars there. So that'll be an interesting one to follow. Although technically not a property professional, which is what we report on. Just I you know, I wonder whether the court sees there has been a difference. I can't imagine there would, so yeah.

**Kasey McDonald** (14:04)

No. Still operating a trust account, you know, still responsible, right? To be holding those funds for somebody else. Mm-hmm. Yes. Mm-hmm. Yeah.

**Peter Schravemade** (14:11)

Yep, pretty simple lesson. If you got a trust account, get an audit done as you're required to. And don't steal money. Like there I don't think there's too clear of messages there. Let's move on because you know, it shouldn't all be doom and gloom. We I think you spoke last week about spam. I think you bought an article where somebody said that ninety nine percent of people couldn't identify a fraudulent emailer. I believe that was an article that you brought to the table last Week. Well, that there's more than that. So they're talking this week, and I think it was spam week or cybersecurity week or something. Do you know? I'm not a hundred percent across it, but

**Kasey McDonald** (14:55)

No, I'm not a hundred percent either.

**Peter Schravemade** (14:56)

Yeah, that they're talking about the propensity for criminals. This is an article from Australian Cybersecurity Centre and Lawyers Weekly are both saying that. No, it was Scams Awareness Week. So that ended up on the 28th of August. And that was one of the 99% that you bought last week of people weren't identifying a scam email. Well, there's been two new articles on that. So they're saying criminals are actively targeting and trying to compromise an email account somewhere in the property transaction. And I've seen a lot of this, actually. I think this is probably one of the more prevalent areas that criminals are able to get money out of the property transaction where they can be monitoring computers or servers for weeks and they see high value, large targets come up where there's going to be, you know, $500,000 or million dollars transferred in one hit. And they will take over the email account, hijack the details that have been sent through, and then they will send through their own details. People won't verify them before they've been sent off. And, you know, part of this pertains to office policy. What office policy do you have? But I speak to Peter Lynch from Aon Insurance about this quite regularly because he they're always called in, you know, when this kind of thing goes on. And some of it is very, very much undetectable. It's very, very hard to spot the fake in there. And a lot of the policies that, you know, is best practice in inside agencies is actually calling through to confirm. Getting high, high pressure, I've noticed to be one of them. So, you know, if you're making a transaction Kasey and I'm at the other end and I'm sending through emails going this has to be done immediately, you know, do it straight away. A lot of people are freaking out there. The one thing that I'd urge you if that happens is to stop and pause. Just take a minute, confirm all the details. Like call the banks if you have to. Like I've got this account. Can I just verify that this account matches the names that are there? Call the people that are you're supposed to be transferring them to and ascertain that is their details. And that should be best practice for any value. Like I think if you're transferring

**Kasey McDonald** (17:14)

Mm-hmm. Agree.

**Peter Schravemade** (17:16)

Anything over five grand in an office, the 30 seconds it takes to make that phone call could save you a lot of heartache down the track. You know, just and angst with your consumers or the people who you have a fiduciary interest to. So, you know, Cybersecurity Week, I think it's a great, great opportunity for business owners and real estate agents to start having a look at what their office policies are around this kind of thing.

**Kasey McDonald** (17:42)

Yeah, absolutely. I think one of those is to consider as well is who in your business is allowed to move the money, who then does a check on that, who's kind of doing that final, you know, press of the button as well. So what kind of policy do you have around the people in your office? And I guess those tracking mechanisms, right? But yeah, I think, you know, i from my property management experience, you know, this is something that I think PMs or most PMs are aware of, and I think have done a good job to make sure that they've got the process right here in terms of if an owner does say, I need to change my bank details, I'm fairly you know confident that most of us understand that's not we don't get them to send it in on an email, and then we're not you know responding back. So we have done a lot of work just knowing that it was a part of the industry that you know many years ago was certainly looked at as wrongly asking for owners to send us an email with new bank details as an example. Yeah. Yeah. We did, right? Yeah, so yeah. Yeah.

**Peter Schravemade** (18:47)

Yeah, yeah. I mean, that's what we used to do. I remember some sometimes I wrote it down on a piece of paper and you'd have these transcription like I gotta admit when I started back in the dark ages, well weren't we still using cheques?

**Kasey McDonald** (19:00)

Well now you're saying your age.

**Peter Schravemade** (19:03)

Well, you were around there at the same time, Kasey. We should let's move on that note. Segment

**Kasey McDonald** (19:10)

Let's move on, I think. No one needs to know how old we are.

**Peter Schravemade** (19:17)

I'm barely a spring chicken. Victoria rewrites the rules. So we alluded to this earlier. Like I just feel for the Victorians like

**Kasey McDonald** (19:25)

Poor Victorians.

**Peter Schravemade** (19:29)

It's like they don't need this. But this one's the shocking one that I think has the potential to do a lot of damage to the auction industry in Victoria, which is by way, like that's a it's a proud heritage for those Victorians. They do very well at auctions. I've been down there. It is a flag or a what would you call it, a hallmark of their industry. And and you know, I spoke to Jacob Caine, I think it was on I think it was on one of the first episodes or it was a quick bite or something like that. That we had Jacob Caine from the REIV and REIA on. And we've obviously had Toby, but I was talking to Jacob specifically about auctions and why they're so important to the market. And like the things that we forget that we have here. That let's say they don't have in flagship markets like the US, for example, because they don't do auctions. They can't tell on a given Saturday or Sunday how their market is going. You know, that's completely unique. You know, one of the reasons why at the moment we look at auction clearance rates in a in an area is it tells us it gives us a fair indication of market sentiment. You know, not relying on the traditional private treaty, which will take, you know, some time. We don't have any evidence of that. We don't have any oversight of it straight away. But an auction is a clear indication of what is going on in the market at any one time. And you can get a fairly good feel for the market based on clearance results. And so what's happening, you know, for the other states, if you're not aware, is that Victorian agents are required to set well, there's a couple of things. So for example, the major one that's coming in that the they're up in arms about is the setting of the reserve 14 days out. Like that it's so they call it a section 32 and it's got to be available 14 days out before an auction. And what that means is like if you have to you've basically got to declare what you know probably where it's going to go on the market at that particular point. And I just I think that takes everything away from an auction. It's like almost like the government has declared war on auctions because people are turning up, they're getting disappointed that they've missed out and they haven't been able to purchase because there's only one winner. That's the successful party, and they seem to be legislating to somehow make people's expectations at an auction somewhat clearer. But I don't know how it can be any clearer. The very nature of an auction, and I like I don't particularly like them. I don't like bidding at an auction. I haven't had a lot of experience in that area. I much prefer private treaty to negotiate. But the reality is if you're turning up to an auction, surely you know the person who's going to put out the most money on the days the one that's going to end up with the property. And I couldn't care less where they called it on the market for my money if I'm at the auction and you know, I th I think the drama has come where first home buyers have turned up thinking they might get it for let's say two million and it's ended up going past two point five or you know into the three. And that price guide that they made them set, you know, again another sanction thing, this price guide that they made them set is some somewhat wrong. But I don't understand because the auction is the true market definition of value on that particular day. Whereas the price guide is an estimate. It always has been an estimate. So it's a bit like saying, you know, we've got five cows, we're going to auction at the agricultural. We think a cow's worth about five grand. But on the day, for whatever reason, I don't know, they look amazing or their sperm is ver virile, or I don't know what the hell. You go on with a bull, but they, you know, they end up going for 10 grand and then I roll out of there going, what a terrible process that was. We need to make them declare what price they are before we actually get there. Seems like just plain stupidity to me and I don't know if I'm seeing it the wrong way. What do you reckon?

**Kasey McDonald** (23:40)

Yeah, look again, it's just those that are writing policy on the run and y they're not understanding the true, I guess, facets of how we operate in our market. You know, it's the buyer who determines what they're willing to pay for a property. We all know that, but that's the whole purpose of the auction. And yes, then there's the private treaty sale, which allows for those negotiations to happen behind closed doors, right? But that's the on the day, if that you know, if the vendor and the auctioneer decide this is where we're kind of estimating kind of, you know, our competence levels in terms of what we believe based on comparatives that the property sits, fantastic, there's the reserve. We know we're gonna sell for that, right? Like that's what we're comfortable with. So, you know, it's using it's kind of just taking, I guess, away the fact that on that day. Any buyer can turn up having registered and say that well I'm prepared to pay this and like if you can't afford where it's gone to in the auction, then that's just a part of how the process works. It's the same as if you're undertaking a private treaty. So it's just that one's I guess more public and the other is behind closed doors. But yeah, it's just It's just silly that we've gone to the stages of all of these different pieces of legislation. And in reading this morning, just all of the different components that are coming out in all at all different times across the next 12 months, right? Like so this is what the bill's been passed but it's not rolled out. Not everything's rolled out today. Everything's going to be staged in terms of when it's actually meant to be required and put into operation. But just reading it all, it's you know, we've got renters in regards to bonds and how that looks like. We've, you know, we've got VCAT's power and ordering compensations. We've got rental providers that can't unreasonably refuse a renter's request for an additional key. Okay, like some of these are, you know, I don't know who would kind of refuse. That they get an extra key. But I mean, like some of them are common sense stuff, and I get that. But other stuff that is here is exactly. And

**Peter Schravemade** (25:47)

Yeah, that section thirty two statement. That's where there's ridiculous.

**Kasey McDonald** (25:50)

That they've got to do a they have to provide the statement of information, which is now becoming a property price statement. It's got

**Peter Schravemade** (25:58)

Yeah, that's right.

**Kasey McDonald** (25:59)

To provide, you've got to give that seven days before the sale going unconditional. Like so there's all of these different things. Yeah, like

**Peter Schravemade** (26:06)

Can you imagine setting the price of an auction for let's say seven days before Albo and Chalmers dropped the budget? Can you imagine doing that? Because like a lot can happen in seven days. And just by way of example, we've seen that. We've just seen that where instantly the buyer tap got turned off, prices started to decrease, like and in Melbourne. It was in Melbourne. Melbourne got hardest hit. So so the difference between fourteen days might have been up to two hundred and fifty, three hundred, maybe even four hundred thousand on some higher ones. And now you've been required to set it. By the way, what the one thing that you said there was transparency. They're bringing this in for transparency. And what I suspect is going to happen is people will move to private treaty. And what we know about private treaty sales is there's no transparency in that. So like great move, Jacinta. I'd wish you well in retirement. Yeah. Come on, genius. You've kicked a goal there. And I mean, I and I'm gonna have a dig at the new guy as well, Ben, whatever his name is, Ben Carroll, who is fending off a lot of interesting issues about public transport and taking money from public transport that shouldn't have been taken at the moment. But Ben Carroll, who's got his hands full at the moment, he should have just repealed this straight away and gone. Look. She bought that in only last week. She's no longer here. It's no longer her will. All of a sudden, I you know, Ben's in there saying, W now we're going to have a government of integrity. Well, show me the where's the proof? Get rid of it. Like get rid of it straight away. But no, no, that one they suspect is gonna get them all votes. So that one's gonna stay in. No, j again, again, here's me here's me being the cynic and all of that. But it just cr It's crazy. I and the poor Victorian auctioneers, they're the ones that look, I'm sure they're going to be okay. But I th I think it will damage the well the overall more the more broader auction spectrum. Like people who are up and coming may not be able to get gigs now because you know the guys that are at the top, the ones that I see that are competing at the Australasian auctioneering competitions and whatever else, I'm sure they're gonna be fine, but it w it should it I think it will damage the younger you know, the what do they call them? The what's the word for they've got a word for it, I can't think of it at the moment. But the auctioneers that are coming through that are maybe amateurs or growing into the role, it'll affect the development of that skill. And I don't I don't think that's the best thing and I don't think they're gonna achieve what they wanted to achieve in transparency. I'd love to see it re I'd love to see the liberal government or one nation come out and say we'll repeal that. Because we agree, but so far that hasn't happened. And yeah, so I mean that's Victoria for this week. We've been talking about Victoria every week. So

**Kasey McDonald** (29:08)

I know. Yeah. It's just more it's just there's just, you know, as a part of this, it just means we're consistently having to change the way in which we review our operations and what our processes are, right? But then comes with that is the fact that, you know, we've got to go under take training, you know, you can't just produce a piece of legislation and then expect that everyone's all of a sudden gonna know what do I need to do with that. So there becomes so much more involved at every single time this occurs. And I think I look at it and go, Well, no wonder we've got many of the smaller agencies going, I've had enough of this industry and moving out of it, and I'm gonna just go and sell my you know business or merge it with somebody else because they don't want to have this responsibility anymore of just how frequent they need to obviously undertake so many changes all of the time, right? But it's also then comes to this kind of burnout piece that we always talk about. In the industry and if we've got so many changes happening at once, how are we actually making sure that the training that we're doing is adequate? How do we actually understand make sure that our people are actually understanding that they now know what they need to do? Then there's mistakes that happen and it's so on it just kind of feels like a revolving door, right? Like we're losing really good people out of the industry because a government is making a change on the run.

**Peter Schravemade** (30:32)

Yeah, exactly. And for all the wrong reasons. But you know, try and tell that it's a difficult period at the moment. And I can you imagine I'd say too many inappropriate things.

**Kasey McDonald** (30:39)

You should become a politician, Pete, I think. You would, actually.

**Peter Schravemade** (30:47)

Let's move on. So this next segment is a very interesting one. I've been following the work of the Tenancy Skills Institute for some time. Paul Tommasini, I would have met about four or three years ago. And he's been slaving away at this. He's also got Chris and Nerissa that are there as part of it. And they have recently released a report called The Two Tides of Homelessness. And this was a survey of 327 property managers managing nearly 126,000 tenancies across Australia and New Zealand. Now they've been surveyed in a 14 day window between March and July 2026, and that what the report says is six point four three percent of Australian or Australasian, let's say tenancies are at risk of failing, like falling over, not the tenants are unable to pay or there's some issue there, up from four point eight percent in twenty twenty five. So that's a big increase in one year. You've gone from four point eight percent to six point four, so nearly six and a half from you know, maybe four and three quarters. An increase of 32.85% in 12 months. And in Australia alone, that increase has been 6.69%. So fairly dramatic increases. And we're seeing a lot of change in areas like Western Australia are up 150%, Queensland up 77%. Every state and territory is up that we can see. No survey in Northern Territory, South Australia, or Tasmania. Victoria is up 25%, even though the market's going back. So here the story is this. Why tenancies are at risk is the rental arrears and financial hardship are thirty six point seven percent. So that's the major one. So thirty over thirty-five percent of them are experiencing rental arrears and financial hardship. Properties being sold or lack of rental stock is twenty five percent, and rent's been too high is just under fourteen. And the local splits are wildly different. Worth reading out is that you know, or worth calling out is that property's been sold is fifty-six percent in the ACT and affordability is zero percent in the ACT. Tasmania affordability everyone all the public servants can afford it, even though it's up by 56%. Tasmania affordability is fifty-five percent and property's being sold is zero percent. And but the big finding and I think this is the huge thing that has come out of this and I'll get your take on this is that the Institute, the Tenancy Skills Institute runs an online referral portal called Property Manager Assist (PM Assist), launched in 2024 in Brisbane. Now, at that stage, the Tenancy Skills Institute was funded by the then government. They had their funding removed. And I'll take notice on this, but I don't think it's been replaced by the current Liberal government. It was terminated under the previous Steven Miles government, and I don't think it's been replaced under the Crisafulli LNP government at the moment. I'll have to check that with Paul. But this portal, PM Assist, which was launched in specific areas, so Brisbane, Ipswich, Mackay and Moreton Bay, it created a natural experiment that's worth talking about. So in Queensland, the general so has no referral pathway. They've called it general and they've divided it into general and early intervention. In general, which has had no referral pathway in 2026, 9.64% were actually terminated. I think is that the story, which is a change of

**Kasey McDonald** (34:31)

Yeah, I believe so. Yeah.

**Peter Schravemade** (34:32)

Up 150%. But the ones that experienced early intervention, so went through the PM assist pathway, the of that they are down 18.47%. And so it's the same state, same year, same legislation. And on tenancies that actually failed, early intervention is 1.42%, general is 3.75%. And what that means is that there's three hundred and four three thousand one hundred and fourteen tenancies failed in the last 12 months across the sample. Estimated 7,854 people. Property managers themselves said that 52%, so half of those failures were preventable. So that's over 4,000 people who may have presented to a homelessness service when they potentially didn't have to, had they just used the early event intervention PM assist. What are your thoughts? So you being a property manager before, like I've been following this and I have, but not to the extent you have, just limited like stepping in when staff aren't there. But surely, surely this PM assist must be a thing that property managers are using, right?

**Kasey McDonald** (35:42)

Yeah, well, that back in my day of owning my agency, I'll say, we're talking about our age again.

**Peter Schravemade** (35:49)

Who's he's setting all down?

**Kasey McDonald** (35:51)

So yeah, we're talking about our age again. There was schemes also like this available, but they were actually run, you know, by the likes of the churches or, you know, Salvos Lifeline, et cetera. And similarly, in understanding that there are just sometimes particular situations that may occur. And that could just be the fact that on that week they've had that job loss and they didn't expect it, but they're out there job hunting again and they're pretty confident they're going to get another job. But unfortunately, it might just mean that they're going to be short on their rent or you know, whatever it is. So I think you know, back then I used to engage and partner with those types, and that's exactly what this PM assist is and should be used for. So it's great to actually see that we're seeing those across Queensland using it. It's come down a little bit in 2026 from 2025. And maybe that's that awareness piece because of the change in government, and it's not now kind of more broadly being kind of spoken about that it's a available option for them to be, you know, getting tenants in to be speaking to them. But I think that interesting stat was that there was 52% that were preventable, right? So that maybe it was about how did what kind of conversations are we actually having to generally understand and are we building enough of a relationship that a tenant also feels confident to be able to speak to their property manager in those instances to say, what can we do here? Right? We're gonna be a little bit short. We don't want to be evicted from the property and we're gonna do everything that we can, but we just need some help, right? So yeah, I think, but you know, as a part of that, it's that knowledge of that support, right? I think it is that the referrals are lesser and are more shallow in that subsample because of the fact that many now or the newer generation of the property managers coming in to the industry are just not aware. And probably skill comes as a part of this. I think a maturity plays a big part in how and which we have conversations. With tenancies that maybe you've identified are at risk. You know, it's speaking to a 50-year-old. Like I saw on the news last night the women in home are the over 55 women homeless, kind of sleeping your car was out. I can't remember what it was called. But they're saying that specifically in Queensland, that's the highest number that they've got in women's is demographic, sorry, is over 55, and specifically women, right? And so

**Peter Schravemade** (38:25)

Demographic. Yeah. Hm. Yep. Yep. Yeah.

**Kasey McDonald** (38:31)

How challenging, and I fully respect this, that you've got a 21-year-old property manager who started when she was 18, who's looking at this as a fantastic career, but that 21-year-old having a conversation with a 54. Year old. Like that's like having a conversation with your mum about your finances and how in which we can help. And that 21-year-old will be feeling uncomfortable or lacking confidence of knowing how to even have it. And the 55-year-old would be incredibly barrassed, right? Here I am talking to my 21-year-old property manager. So we've got a lack of knowledge of what the support service actually is and how in which it can help. And we've got a skill gap in how in which we're training and educating our property managers in identifying the risks early and then knowing how in which to communicate and what it is that they can be doing to support. So you know, that's that's my take on it. That it's out there, and guys, you know, principals, this is a fantastic opportunity to be leveraging and teaching our PMs a skill that they need, right? This is a skill you need to know how to have these types of conversations. But more importantly, it's a referral, it's that value piece of

**Peter Schravemade** (39:41)

Yeah, well that PM assist, right? Like knowing it's there and

**Kasey McDonald** (39:44)

Correct, right? There's a product out there, there's a service out here for you. You don't need to speak to me about it. Here's a link, here's the people, here's the phone number, have a chat to them and we'll talk to them as well and s you know see what the outcome is, right? So, but it's about knowing how to start that conversation, I think.

**Peter Schravemade** (40:02)

Yeah, yeah. Well and it might be worth in the coming weeks trying to get Paul Tommasini on here. Like it and probably the Tenancy Skills Institute, if you're listening to this, I actually thought they were gone. So I wonder if that has impacted the drop off. And I'll tell you why. I followed the story of that the cut in funding to the T. And I didn't know that the cut in funding was not going to be terminal for them. I just assumed that they weren't there. And it came as quite a surprise. They were at the lift conference. They were walking around. I said, get eight of them there. And it took me as a surprise that they were still operating. So I wonder whether some of the awareness was based around that press of them losing their funding. But you know, they do a fantastic job. The two examples, and this is the ones that are worth saving. So a Metro New South Wales property manager with three and a half thousand tenancies identified a hundred at risk and knew of no local service, made no referrals. Fifty of the tenancies failed. So that's fifty percent. They said half of those tenancies, so twenty-five probably could have been saved. A Metro WA property manager with nine hundred tenancies identified three hundred at risk. That's one third of their portfolio. Wow. And that r yeah.

**Kasey McDonald** (41:14)

That's two in five, yeah, it's crazy, right? Yeah.

**Peter Schravemade** (41:17)

And they had referred two to five times in total. Fifty failed. They said at least one in ten could have been saved. And you know, that I think that's the real thing that we should be looking at there. So well done to the Tenancy Skills Institute for bringing this to our attention via way of report. And a big thank you to all of the REIs who I think came together. This is a great example of real estate institutes working with the Tenancy Skills Institute to make this happen. So there's also Upstream involved in there and Homelessness Queensland. But that's been supported by the REIA, REIV, REIQ, REIACT, all of the REIs, including New Zealand, by the way, were involved in that. So well done to the REIs and the Tenancy Skills Institute of bringing that to our attention. I suppose the big thing now is to do something about it. If you're a property manager and you're not certain about it, or if you're anyone, let's say you're in a position where you're experiencing difficulty. In those areas. The Tenancy Skills Institute is a fantastic place to start. So, you know, we'll put the links and by all means go and follow that up. But yeah, kudos to them for doing that. Let's sorry. Yep. You're right.

**Kasey McDonald** (42:30)

Yeah, just in closing that out, Pete, sorry, I just wanted to share as well, like, you know, sometimes when we think about the tenancy failing, we may be looking at that kind of a risk component and I just addressed it in that way. But, you know, there was a those statistics in that report around the landlord selling, and of course they have a right to do that. But property managers listening this morning, you know, I would really encourage you to be having the conversations with your renters when you're notified of that. And any consumers, those landlords who may be also listening to our podcast today, make sure that you do effectively communicate with your property manager. You typically don't and you go straight to find the selling agent and then it's kind of a the selling agent just sends through here, I've got a an a con a an authority now to sell that home. But property managers, speak with your tenants. Help them find the next property. You know what's coming up on your vacancy list. You know what renewals you've got managing. Refer them on to another agency if they're if there's a similar property that they're already in. So that's the time that we need to really step up and become that a trusted advisor, not just to our landlords, but we need to absolutely be considering our tenants as well.

**Peter Schravemade** (43:42)

Yep, well said. Yeah, I think a lot of that is common sense, but sadly common sense is not that common anymore. Sunset Clauses on the Gold Coast. This is an article. Obviously, all of this is alleged at the moment. Ongoing investigation. I of course we know very well that we don't believe everything printed on the news. But where we are at the moment is Gold Coast investors are up in arms because there's a Queensland property developer, and I've actually seen instances of this before. The purchasers have played paid deposits five years ago. That their contracts have all been terminated with the homes pretty much ready to move into. And this is called a sunset clause. If you've never signed a an off-the-plan contract, there are always sunset clauses built in. And generally, that release is for the purchaser, not for the developer. So the reason. That you normally have a sunset clause. I mean, it can benefit either party, but mostly in investment property, the reason the sunset clause is in there is because if the developer doesn't deliver in a certain amount of time, like let's say that they're saying in three years we'll have all of these apartments up and running. If they're saying that and it's dragged on to five years, you're probably gonna want to move on. There's been no action. The sunset clause allows for termination and you can move on. But one area that I have seen it. Been used, especially in a rising market, right? Is where the properties five years on are worth double or triple or let's go with double, just conservatively. You sold them at 500, they're now worth a million. There's a developer looking at that going, you know, these are all under sunset clause. I could terminate these coming up, which is not the has never been the intention of that particular sunset clause. And we could then put them back on the market and see if we can sell them for more money. Now why this one's so interesting is because in 2023 there was a little known reform. And this case should not be possible. So this is going to be the test case. The actual reform was about developers not being able to use that sunset clause to put them back on the market and sell for a profit. So if they are able to deliver those, then there should be reasonably, it should reasonably be expected that they are delivered. I don't know. What are you what are your thoug what are your thoughts on this? Like I'd be peeved. I'd be peeved if I'd waited five years for a property,

**Kasey McDonald** (46:12)

I would be yeah.

**Peter Schravemade** (46:15)

Especially watching the market going up. You're effectively banking that rise.

**Kasey McDonald** (46:19)

Yeah, exactly right. So and I think as a part of this, again, what we obviously just spoke about a homelessness report. And now from you know some of those that were on the news when I sort of heard this come out is that they were looking to, you know, put their families into it and you know, they've been waiting this whole time to get out of that rental market to then have their own home. And now they don't have that and they're still remaining in the rental market and maybe in a property that's not fully suitable for their entire family. So I think that's the sad bit you know, in regards to this happening, right? Like that's where the developer is potentially and alleged, right, that they've you they've leveraged that sunset clause in that way. So yeah, it'll be interesting to see being the test case as to what actually does come out of this and then what it certainly then does mean for our developers and construction industry.

**Peter Schravemade** (47:11)

Yeah, yeah. And I'm hoping it's not the case. I'm hoping that there's something else there and it's just alleged, but or, you know, even if it is a developer acting unconscionably, that the law actually the twenty twenty three reform does what it's meant to do and steps in and goes, you know, what you know what, you can't set resell those as a profit and put them back on the market. It's an interesting one though, because the reform, even though it says you can't sell them at a profit, you know, does that mean that they have to go back on at five year old prices and it becomes a lottery of who gets it? I don't know. We'll watch that one and see how it how it plays out. One more story I want to go over just really quickly is the number 1522, 1522. That's the number of construction firms that have collapsed in New South Wales in the 2025, 2026 financial year. Like I among them, we've talked about a few, the Bathla Group. Beechwood Homes, Novati Constructions, and Built Lifestyles. There are administrations on all of them, but like we, you know, Bathla alone, 2,000 homes under construction, thousands more in the pipeline, 3.2 billion in liabilities, and administrators seeking 20 million just to keep sites moving. I don't know if you're reading this the same way I'm reading this, but we've got some, you know, we've spoken about supply issues all year. And construction's right at the very start of that. It just seems to me we still don't have it right. We still haven't even changed the tap to turn on to be able to supply us with more houses.

**Kasey McDonald** (48:49)

I totally agree. I you know, construction costs are just continually increasing. You know, the developers and the builders just I guess are having to then put particular prices on homes for those buyers to buy just simply to cover costs, right? So and then if we're seeing these, you know, go into administration or s you know simply collapsing just because of that, right? They just can't afford to pay their the bills that they need to and their trades, right? In to ensure that those homes can be built in time. And so yet again, just in one state, if we have a look at the impact of those construction or development companies moving away from the market, what does it actually mean? Like I feel like it actually means we're not going to get anywhere near the number of homes that they've indicated that we need to build or supply to the industry. In fact it actually is probably going to make it worse because right that right now that's that happened last year, right? Like as in example in the financial year, we're going to start to, as we see, right, you don't start to see the true effect of that until a little way down the path. And that's now going to start to happen across the next 12 months because they're already gone from the industry. So who's out there building and developing? Who how many have we got left? You know?

**Peter Schravemade** (50:01)

Yeah. Well I a hundred percent agree. I think that point's really valid where whereby this these are last year's figures and we we you know this could be the tip of the iceberg because those changes only came in at tax time at the end of the financial year. So I you know that it could be creating a catastrophic storm and I just hope, you know, I hope there is some light at the end of that the tunnel for our construction industry because they're doing it pr particularly tough at the moment.

**Kasey McDonald** (50:29)

Absolutely. Absolutely. So yeah, we're back to the supply piece, but we can't supply if we don't have builders and developers in the market. Right? And we can't build

**Peter Schravemade** (50:35)

Mm. If we can't build Yep.

**Kasey McDonald** (50:39)

Them because the construction costs are too high to build them. So something's got to give. And we the yep, the government really nailed the budget tax changes. Amazing. Well done.

**Peter Schravemade** (50:50)

And on that note we'll leave it. We've got Josh Stanton coming up, so we'll transfer to him in a second. Josh Stanton, thank you very much for joining us. Josh, for the listeners and the viewers on YouTube out there, he's a certified practising valuer with Opteon. I believe Opteon Residential Valuer of the Year twenty twenty-four. Is that you or is that a is that actually them? What is that an award you've won? Or

**Josh Stanton** (51:20)

Yeah, that was an award I got back in twenty twenty four just through our internal Opteon awards, yeah.

**Peter Schravemade** (51:27)

Yeah, and you're two time API regional valuer of the year finalist, is that correct?

**Josh Stanton** (51:32)

Yeah, that's right. And then I've got a RICS.

**Peter Schravemade** (51:34)

Look at you go. As I wasn't aware that I wasn't aware that these things existed. I mean, we come from the real estate industry where they throw on a ward at anything really. So it doesn't surprise

**Kasey McDonald** (51:42)

At everything, yeah. Yeah.

**Peter Schravemade** (51:44)

Me that valuers have them, I suppose. I'just never heard of them. And you are quite prolific. I've actually been down staying at Tannum Sands and called Joshy on a few wondering what things were going for down there. This is going back three years now, but you're in the Gladstone, Boyne Island area, Tannum Sands, is that correct?

**Josh Stanton** (52:04)

Yep. Yeah, that's right.

**Peter Schravemade** (52:04)

Central Queensland in general.

**Josh Stanton** (52:06)

Yeah, so I cover anything in the Gladstone Regional Council area. So yeah, it's pretty broad, go down to Agnes Water every week, Boyne Island, Tannum, Gladstone, Mount Larcom. Yeah.

**Peter Schravemade** (52:18)

Yep. And the tie-in here is I believe I have known Josh for I'm gonna say twenty six years. Even though he probably hasn't known me, I would have just been a face. But I worked a bit

**Kasey McDonald** (52:29)

We're talking about our age again, Pete.

**Josh Stanton** (52:29)

That'll be available, huh?

**Peter Schravemade** (52:37)

With his dad back in the day and Josh he used to come into the office. So it's a really interesting turnaround. Another good central Queensland lad doing big things in his area and his industry. So I really appreciate you joining before the weekend, Josh, and taking time out of your morning to come and say good day to us.

**Josh Stanton** (52:56)

Yeah, no, thanks Pete and Kasey. I'm really looking forward to this.

**Peter Schravemade** (53:00)

Now, we've had so many articles where we've been saying we need to get a valuer on, and I kind of threw them all at you this week. So I'm really so I'm really sorry about that. But we'll kick off because like there's quite a bit happening in the valuer space that does impact the property professionals. We've got this you know, this Treasury's explanatory memorandum that says that changes will cost eighty eight point four million dollars a year to comply with. Now this is specifically in relation to the whole there's been the budget handed down and there is a requirement, correct me if I'm wrong, on July first, twenty twenty seven, for people holding an investment property to have a valuation done by that day. Is that correct? Is that the way you see it?

**Josh Stanton** (53:47)

Yeah, that's the way we're sort of seeing it in the industry. And I guess it is to essentially bring the cost base back so people will be able to use the old capital gains laws up until that date. And then from then on it's a new thing.

**Peter Schravemade** (54:06)

Yep. It changes.

**Josh Stanton** (54:08)

And yeah, and I guess that's not fully clear at this stage, but I believe it's a minimum tax rate of thirty percent. So it is likely to mean more capital gains tax payable for a lot of investors from that point onwards.

**Peter Schravemade** (54:25)

Yeah, that's right. And so the big thing that started us off on this is Treasury's model says that these changes are gonna cost roughly eighty-eight and a half million a year to comply with the CPA Australia, which is a certified practising accountant, say it's three to six times that amount. Wilson Asset Management says the valuation bill could alone be four point five billion dollars. And the work is at least three times what the industry can handle. Now, what do you think of that? Who's closest? Do they know what they're talking about? What's Opteon doing? Are you guys panicking or I suppose not? You'll share

**Josh Stanton** (54:59)

No, I think we're actually looking forward to it and getting the right systems in place. I think like those figures there, like the four and a half billion, that's probably factoring in a lot of values as such rather than the actual like cost of valuation and compliance. So yeah, they're two different figures, but I think it's certainly going to be a lot of money and people are going to have to get valuations done to see where they're at.

**Peter Schravemade** (55:33)

Yep. Yeah, gotcha. So I'm counting around five thousand valuers, two million plus properties. So you got four hundred in each per lot of you. How is that gonna happen, Josh? How are you doing na how are you doing four hundred on July first?

**Josh Stanton** (55:55)

Well, like it's a lot of valuations for taxation purposes, but you've got a lot of valuers are basically in the larger metro market. So I think they will be fine to, you know, sufficiently service a lot of this. The regional markets, it's a different thing. You know, some valuers and me included, you know, you've got to go to multiple regional centres at a time to keep up with the work. But you know, Opteon's well service, got networks all over Australia. And I think the other thing about this is not everyone is going to get the valuation exactly on July one. And they will have time to yeah, to get their taxation affairs in order. So I think it will retrospectively be dated back to July one, maybe in the preceding months after. But yeah, we'll have a lot of information ready to go for that period, I'm sure.

**Peter Schravemade** (56:58)

Well, can you speak to that, Josh? Like if I'm if I'm holding one, like when do I get it done? Do I get it done before? Do I get it done after? There's a lot of hearsay in the industry, I know there's a guy out there who's modelled well he's basically saying that we should do it four to six weeks after because of the fact that, you know, let's say RP Data or the sales that the sales evidence comes through is actually indicative of that date. Is that would that be wise, what are you what are your recommendations?

**Josh Stanton** (57:28)

Well I think four to six weeks is quite close. It might even be up to sort of three months to allow a lot of the data to come through into Cotality, RP Data price finder, things like that. In the regional markets I sort of see the more remote it is, the less data that is available, like in a timely manner. But I think in the metro markets, four to six weeks is probably quite suitable. So, you know, that would put you early to mid August. And then in the regional areas it could be more like a September or October sort of date you'd be looking at to get the most indicative value for July one.

**Peter Schravemade** (58:12)

Yep. Gotcha.

**Kasey McDonald** (58:12)

Mm-hmm. Yeah. Hold in terms of that, you know, those differences, right, in getting that valuation, that then obviously impacts the timing of them submitting their tax returns, right? So like it from an investor's point of view, could you maybe sort of talk to that? I think there's kind of a, you know, a piece out that's sort of saying, you know, kind of don't rush, you know, like kind of take your time with this. You know, do maybe any works improvement works as well on your property. Would you y what's your kind of feedback around that?

**Josh Stanton** (58:45)

So think with lodging your tax return through a tax agent, you've usually got till sort of May the following year. But I guess it's going to be circumstantial when they really want to lodge it. But it would be like if you want a valuation done on July one, twenty twenty seven, you know, like valuation companies would now be taking orders for that time and they can get ready because basically, if you are valuing a property on July 1, you will just be using the sales evidence up to six months within that period. And that's where that's where it will be. So it's more so for when people are looking at holding their assets, you know, far into the future beyond July 1, they sort of have the option to order valuations whenever they like. But generally, the further you order a valuation into the future, the more costly it is and the accuracy may not be as strong as they're looking back in time. Like if we're looking back twenty years, we might not be up with the complete market conditions at that moment.

**Kasey McDonald** (1:00:00)

Mm-hmm. Yeah, and I guess because of the delays through settlements, right? So I think that's something for them to take into consideration that the, you know, you property, you're not gonna getting to see those records as a value until it's been settled to confirm sale price, right? And we know that could be sixty, ninety days, sometimes longer, in the cycle, right?

**Josh Stanton** (1:00:20)

Yep, yep. No, that's right.

**Peter Schravemade** (1:00:22)

By the way, listeners out there, if you're listening to this, none of us are giving you financial or taxation advice here. That's not what this is about. This is just a general conversation. So please don't go away and change your whole tax modelling. I'm not an accountant, Josh is not, Kasey's not. You'd be an absolute mug if you did that. But we're trying to provide you with experts in the area to give you some idea of maybe those questions that you should be asking those professionals to go and do that. So I just thought I'd say that in case anyone's taking notes and rolling up to their account and going, Josh said and Peter said and Kasey said. Yeah, good on you guys. And now Joshy, I've seen a few models. So there's one out there, there's one out there that is saying that I it's a certain model that claims I can save twenty-two thousand. JLL have come out and they've said that the there could be a gap of fifty-eight thousand. When Gladstone, where you are, what do these models look like as so far as you're concerned? Do you have i any examples that you can give us as to what this might look like once that valuation has been done and corresponding?

**Josh Stanton** (1:01:31)

Yeah, I can give an example to this. So I'll read it out quickly because yeah, I have seen a lot of models there sort of conflicting.

**Peter Schravemade** (1:01:41)

I bet.

**Josh Stanton** (1:01:42)

I guess the general consensus from them is that more tax will be paid under the new system than what it is at the moment. But I've workshopped something, so I'll go through it and this is sort of real world figures. So Kirkwood, new estate out at Gladstone, four-bed, two-bathroom houses. Five years ago, they were 270,000, which was quite cheap. Then five years later, that same property, 600,000. You know, it demonstrates how volatile the market is, and I guess why valuations are required for something like this. So the market experienced five years of strong compound growth, including some years of double-digit growth. And by first of July, let's say the property's worth 720. So it's gone from 270 to 720. Now, depending on when you purchased a property during the cycle, you can get dramatically different compound growth rates. And that's where I think the treasury model is sort of going off a linear growth rate that may happen in a lot of the metro markets, but not so much in regional. So, you know, I've seen examples during my career in Gladdy where properties have increased by 70% in five years. And there's also been periods after the LNG boom where it declined by 70% in five years. But anyway, I'll go to the taxation side of this. So the historical gain from the 270 to 720, so the purchase price to the estimated value for this example at first of July, that's 450,000. So if someone were to sell that property for that price under the current system. And let's say they're on the highest tax rate, they would have the 50% CGT discount applied to their 47% marginal tax rate, which brings it to 23.5%, which effectively means tax of $105,750. Now that would be up to that date. Now, let's say that property rose to 850,000. So it gained that 130,000 in value over another five-year period. So under that new system, the calculation would then consider the inflation adjusted gain over that period with the applicable minimum tax rate of 30%. So we've gone from a 23.5% tax rate. If it was held for over a year to now 30% minimum without a clear structure on how that minimum is going to be calculated. So simp simplified example, we take that 130,000. So we've got the valet 720. We've got now a theoretical sale price 850. That 130,000 between those two figures is going to be taxed at Treasury's new rate. Which would result in an extra thirty-nine thousand in tax, which that gives our total tax bill for that property from a purchase in 2020 at 270,000 to a sale price of eight fifty in twenty thirty-two of a hundred and forty-four thousand seven fifty. Now, if it was if the taxation system had remained unchanged and they were on the same tax rate at the to at the date of sale. That tax bill would be $136,300. So to simplify, there's an eight thousand four hundred and fifty dollar difference, more payable tax under this new regime.

**Peter Schravemade** (1:05:30)

Which is pretty much what everyone's been predicting. I mean, I it's interesting, you know, hearing it in that regional sense, knowing that Gladstone's boom or bust, most of the time it tends to be up or it's down, very slowly moving at times and then all of a sudden it rockets up and everyone's a millionaire, or close to it. But I like I think I don't think that's as dramatic as what a lot of the press is printing at the moment. You know, like a lot of the press is saying you're gonna, you know, you're gonna pay and I've seen there like twenty two thousand, JL said fifty eight thousand. I suppose, you know, if you're looking at million dollar property investments, that may be the case or a couple of million dollars, but most property investors don't have properties of that value. They'd be sitting under the million mark no matter where they are, maybe it with with the exception of the inner city metropolitan areas, I would imagine. So do you think that the are the regional value supplies thinner than metro if the you know, so do you think you're going to be dealing with less property investors than in the metro areas?

**Josh Stanton** (1:06:42)

I would say like broadly over the last few years, you've had so many investors come into regional Queensland and I a lot of that has been based off the affordability and you know, the yields. Like when that you know, boom, I g I guess you would call it started, the yields would have been circa six percent or above, and then they sort of were shrunk all the way down to four percent. So it's a hard one to say. I th I think the one with this proposal that changes a lot of things, especially with negative gearing, is your blue chip properties in you know, your Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne that could be worth millions of dollars. They now don't have that negative gearing component to them. And the capital gains implications on all these examples are you know obviously quite dramatic in the sense they are multi-million dollar properties. So in terms of say supply of regional valuers, there it is improving, I believe over the last few years. You know, there is adequate servicing across the state. It's just sometimes the valuers aren't living in those areas they are. You know, going out into them and providing you know, bulk valuations.

**Peter Schravemade** (1:08:09)

Yeah, yep, gotcha. Now you sorry, Kasey.

**Kasey McDonald** (1:08:11)

Josh, sorry, I just got one. Sorry, I just sorry, Pete. No, I just wanted to jump in because I just wanted to go back to what how that modelling that you're working through those numbers before, super, super interesting. And I c I guess my question is around that renovation piece. And the tax institute put a renovation floor to the Treasury. And I was just hoping that you could maybe talk through that. The and it's probably more for I guess you know, certainly our investors if any. Are listening and our property managers listening today just to be understanding any kind of support or if they should be recommending that their investors undertake improvements or renovations during this period. So I'd love your take on that, your feedback.

**Josh Stanton** (1:08:56)

Yeah. So with the renovations, that is probably the part in all of this scenario where an investor would be penalised the most from a taxation perspective because it is not sort of factoring in the same cost base to my understanding as what it was before. So there's some examples I've seen there where you know you could have a two million dollar property and they've spent two million in renovations and sell it onwards and the tax bill is astronomically higher than what it would be if all the cost base was sort of looked at in those renovations. So a short answer would probably be that it should be something that is looked at before we get to July 1 is to do a lot of those renovations under the taxation system that everyone knows quite well, that has been around, you know, since the late 90s. Whereas this new one it doesn't appear like renovations are being treated in that same light.

**Kasey McDonald** (1:10:02)

Okay, yeah, property ma property managers listening. That's I would be revisiting any

**Peter Schravemade** (1:10:02)

That's crazy. That's crazy.

**Kasey McDonald** (1:10:07)

Of those recommendations around improvements and renovations that you've been, you know, I guess suggesting to your investors. Now

**Peter Schravemade** (1:10:12)

Yeah. That's a really good point.

**Kasey McDonald** (1:10:14)

Is the time to be talking to them about these capital works. So that at valuation

**Josh Stanton** (1:10:19)

Yeah, temperament.

**Kasey McDonald** (1:10:20)

Time it's going to be more beneficial for them than if they continue to hold off, right?

**Josh Stanton** (1:10:25)

Yeah, yeah, absolutely. From what I've read in a lot of these articles, it doesn't seem like that is something that has been sort of fully workshopped how that is going to work. Yeah. Yeah.

**Peter Schravemade** (1:10:39)

That's crazy. Josh, I don't know if you've been following on the rental minimum standards and things like that where renovations have been required, but that's gonna give investors no incentive to do that for the poor tenants. It's like they're governing one against the other. Anyway, I'll stay out of the politics of it. The we've only got w time for one more question. And I guess that's over to you. Like real estate agents have a funny relationship with valuers, right? I would imagine you've got fairly good relationship with some of them. But there were some valuers that I remember in my time as a real estate agent that weren't particularly nice to deal with. They didn't have the best bedside manner, let's call it that. But what advice do you have for an agent or a property manager? What do you think they should do differently on Monday? I think we just identified one there. Would that be your big tip or is there something else that they should be doing?

**Josh Stanton** (1:11:34)

I think a l a lot of it is probably staying on top of the government legislation and changes as much as possible because it is going to impact everyone that is involved in the real estate industry, yeah, the sales agent, the property managers. I think it is always best to, you know, develop relationships with valuers where possible, you know, and have a transparent sort of network of information. We're all working in the real estate industry together. But yeah, I guess the advice to them is there's going to be a lot of changes up until the first of July. Like there is a real quelling of demand, what I've noticed here, but it's just keeping on top of everything and keep working, I guess.

**Peter Schravemade** (1:12:32)

Yeah, yeah. I if listeners wanna know where to find you or w how to follow you, where do they go?

**Josh Stanton** (1:12:40)

Yep, so I have a Facebook page. I'm probably one of the few valuers in Australia that does Gladstone Property Valuer Josh Stanton. I'm on LinkedIn as well. Josh Stanton, all the value information will be under that. Pete will be a mutual connection there. Yeah, that's probably the best way. And then yeah, if you want to follow on my journey of doing food reviews, Gladstone Food Reviews, Facebook, Instagram. TikTok.

**Peter Schravemade** (1:13:10)

That's awesome, mate. And you also publish I think you publish you've done ten Gladstone reviews yourself since twenty nineteen, is that correct?

**Josh Stanton** (1:13:18)

Yeah, so a of them will be on the Facebook, on the LinkedIn, also on the Opteon website. So basically just a Google search, Opteon Gladstone Full Time Review, or it even comes up a lot in Gladstone property market forecasts or those sort of Google searches. You'll find that review. They're comprehensive. They have info on, you know, land, strata title, dwellings, rental, a little bit of industry that is going on around Gladstone, vacancy rates. So it is a really comprehensive resource for anyone that is looking at, you know, investing or operating in Gladstone more broadly.

**Peter Schravemade** (1:13:59)

That's awesome, mate. Thank you so much for joining. It's good to see you kicking goals there. That's Josh Stanton, Opteon valuer, food reviewer, amateur boxing commentator, and soon to be the mayor of Gladstone and the Boyne Island. Josh Stanton, thanks for joining, mate.

**Josh Stanton** (1:14:14)

Thanks, Pete. Thanks, Kasey. Really appreciate you having me.

**Peter Schravemade** (1:14:16)

We're excited to be joined by Aaron Barber here this morning. Here, Aaron is the general manager of the Real Estate Institute of New South Wales. Aaron has been in that role, I think nearly two years, or is it three years now, Aaron? I can't remember, but welcome to Before the Weekend, two and a half. I was pretty much bang on. Welcome to

**Aaron Barber** (1:14:30)

Two and a half. Hmm.

**Peter Schravemade** (1:14:35)

Before the Weekend, mate. I think this is your first appearance.

**Aaron Barber** (1:14:38)

It is, and thank you, Pete and Kasey for the invitation to come along and talk about the matters that are happening in New South Wales.

**Peter Schravemade** (1:14:45)

No, you're most welcome. And this one actually came up yesterday. We pride ourselves on being across a lot of news articles that are hitting the front line. This one blindsided me yesterday. I happened to be on a property management webinar and Aaron wasn't even on it. I think he was in the background. But there were the point was raised that there are rental reforms coming in. There's a statutory review of the domestic violence provisions of the Rental Tendencies Act. And I believe there are some significant changes coming up that involve quite a bit of training for your property managers. Aaron, can you walk us through what exactly is happening? 'Cause we've seen no news on this, we've seen no information. Obviously you're pushing stuff to your members, but we haven't been across that because we're unfortunately for you Queenslanders. But what is going on? What's happening down there?

**Aaron Barber** (1:15:40)

Well, to give a bit of background, the DV reforms actually form part of a whole suite of changes that actually have occurred in our legislation over the last eighteen months. So if you actually tally up all the changes that actually have occurred, we've actually had five hundred changes within our legislation in eighteen months, which is actually putting a lot of pressure on

**Peter Schravemade** (1:16:01)

That is ridiculous.

**Aaron Barber** (1:16:02)

It's absolutely ridiculous. And there's been no support from Fair Trading or the government and they're not actually listening to us the peak industry body or industry in relation to the actual issues and the actual risk that it's actually placing on the actual industry itself. And the DV Yeah.

**Peter Schravemade** (1:16:18)

Well hang on a second. Five hundred legislative changes and they're not communicating with you as to what you know, what you should be doing, how you should be implementing this. Are you getting anything out of that office?

**Aaron Barber** (1:16:33)

We get the bill prior and we get the opportunity to make a submission, but then that's it. We don't actually get a copy of the bill before it goes to parliament. And we're actually not getting any information from government or for Fair Trading once it actually gets gazetted and actually goes live. And that was a big instance here with the DV legislation. We actually found it by accident that they actually released the CPD topic to us on the seventh of August. And when I was reading through the content they actually gave us a copy of the regulation that we actually thought was still cabinet in confidence that we couldn't share the information. And but they actually had published it on the New South Wales legislation website on the seventh of June. And they actually gave it to us on the seventh of August. And so we're actually now on the backtrack trying to understand the actual regulation and the act and how what is how does it influence and impact the industry and how do we actually communicate and train our members? And the actual other issue is that with the CPD topic Fair Trading requires us to submit our content for approval, which I did two and a half weeks ago. And I'm still waiting for approval. And we're already now in September of the CPD year, and we actually haven't been able to even run any CPD topics to actually deliver any training in relation to this. And the actual CPD topic for DV is they want me to actually deliver four hours of content on DV. And I actually went back to

**Peter Schravemade** (1:17:52)

Why four hours? Is that just a made up number or is that something is it warranted?

**Aaron Barber** (1:17:58)

No, it's I mean it's there's thirty seven changes to the DV legislation. So we could actually cover it quite quickly, within an hour or so to actually get through and actually make sure that this goes through. I mean, they've actually added into the CPD topic that I actually have to cover the actual surveillance act because they want to actually talk about tenants who wanna put up cameras on property and now so Property managers now need to understand the Surveillance Act around what information they have to give to tenants around the installation of wireless cameras on property, where they can be pointed, what they can capture, and all this information. So property managers are now becoming a lot of ek now an expert in a lot of fields other than just managing the property and actually looking after the asset for the vendor. They're now getting pushed into managing the relationship of the tenant. And this is very clear in the DV legislation that actually puts a lot of risk on property managers. So when we've been talking to property managers about this, that the psychosocial and mental health risk aspect of this legislation and on top of the other five hundred changes is now it's leading to that agents or property managers are now leaving the industry where we're finding it hard. We've spoken to recruiters. They can't even get property managers now for jobs that are vacant. And when we did our survey out to our current property managers, they're not even enjoying their job anymore. They're actually saying that it's not enjoyable. Where twelve my two years ago they were enjoying their role, they were looking forward to trying to find properties for tenants and to look after assets for landlords, but now they're stuck in the middle. They got landlords who don't understand the five hundred changes and what that means to their asset and to and landlords still pushing after eighteen months saying just evict the tenant, but they can't with no grounds. And then they got tenants who are now using ChatGPT, AI to push their rights under the act and saying to property managers that I have the right to four pets. Yep, you can have four pets, but you have to apply for four pets. And the landlord still has the opportunity to say no. So their landlords are now stuck in the middle of trying to manage a very complex relationship between landlords and tenants to try and actually make sure that everyone understands the actual changes and making sure that everyone has the well it has the rights to their what the actually says. But the DV, it actually it is very complex and it actually now is causing our property managers to become more intra integrated into the relationship of the actual tenant where that's not our role. Our role is not to manage the actual relationship of our tenant.

**Kasey McDonald** (1:20:53)

Yeah, no. Aaron, operationally, I feel like it's absolutely all landing on the property manager. So you know, for those listening this morning, you know, at a high level, can you just talk through maybe some of those, you know, key aspects that are changing or, you know, what it is that the property managers are now going to have to do and being involved in that relationship, like we've got locks, photography, you said about security. Can you talk through some of those elements? Elements?

**Aaron Barber** (1:21:24)

Yeah, yeah. So they've actually changed the definition of domestic violence. So where a person used to have to provide evidence that one of those evidence points now is just a declaration. So a competent person declaration. So they can actually go to a person that's named within the in the regulations and they've actually extended that list to now seventeen professions and also government a agencies. So as long as that person has a relationship with the competent person, they can actually issue a competent person declaration. And saying that this person has disclosed that they're part of DV and that they can actually then terminate their agreement based on that competent person's declaration. Now I need to yeah so I need to actually say that look there is genuine cases of DV and we understand and that we're not taking away the importance of the legislation that yes we do want to protect people who do have genuine cases of DV and that it's not right. People shouldn't be abused in their relationship or within their homes. And that's not what we're trying to we don't want anyone to think that we're trying to say no it's okay to commit DV. It's not. But we need to ensure that the legislation is fair for tenants, for landlords and also for property managers and that we're not exposing the risk to anybody within that relationship. And that's what that this legislation does. So one of the key points that's really concerning is that previously it was up to the tenant to inform the other co-tenants that they were leaving the actual the premises and that they had terminated their portion of the actual lease agreement. Under the new DV legislation, the landlord or the landlord's agent now has to make that notification to the other co tenant within at the end of the termination or within seven days of the end of the termination. That's been provided by the tenant that's leaving. So we're now putting young property managers in the firing line of persons who May be violent.

**Peter Schravemade** (1:23:24)

How does that work? Like let's say they're not answering their mobile phone or they don't is service to an email address okay?

**Aaron Barber** (1:23:33)

And that's what we're trying to c seek more clarification from the regulator. Is that it Yeah. No, so we're trying to get more information.

**Peter Schravemade** (1:23:35)

Are you but they're not talk they're not talking to you about it.

**Kasey McDonald** (1:23:36)

Right. Okay. Yeah. They've asked you to train on something that they haven't given you information on effectively how to train it, right? Yeah.

**Aaron Barber** (1:23:45)

Correct. Yep. So

**Peter Schravemade** (1:23:46)

So can I give you two scenarios here? We got a pro I'm a property manager, maybe a female, a young female who's experienced domestic violence before, and I'm being asked to separate another couple who I don't know. I d you know, I might not even have met them before, but I'm I now have to go to one of the parties involved there and say, you know, I've got this information and you're we've changed the locks, you can no longer come back to this house.

**Aaron Barber** (1:24:20)

Yep. So yes.

**Peter Schravemade** (1:24:21)

That is the way that works.

**Aaron Barber** (1:24:24)

That's the way it works. So there's no the government and we actually I actually have to go back to Fair Trading around the CPD course for DV. And I said I've already been contacted by seven property managers who are refusing to do the four hour course because they currently or have had DV and that this is going to be triggering for them. And

**Peter Schravemade** (1:24:46)

That just seems tone-deaf and stupid and everything in between. Mate, and speak on the other side. Like I know that you know, we're all in agree. It's domestic violence shouldn't happen. So if it's happening, it shouldn't happen. I just want to speak on the other side because I've got experience in this area. I'm a justice of the peace in Queensland. Very similar to the role in New South Wales, almost exactly the same. There used to be this thing called a JEO, which was a justice examination order. And it was like the it was there to be used for people who we suspected were not of sound mind. So they're doing crazy things. A loved one or significant other could fill this thing out and say, look, the I have reason to believe that John is not of sound mind. And then I would sign off on that. If I agreed as a justice of the peace, I'd read the whole thing. If I agreed, I'd sign off on that. It would then be sent to the police station. A warrant would be issued for that person's arrest. And that person would then be assessed in a s by a psychiatrist or psychologist. I can't remember which one, but it would always be on their record as a flag. And when this happened, there was actually coaching out there that would exist that if you were in a separation, that you should go by default and go to a JP. So I had these people bringing justice examination orders to me. That just didn't make any sense. Like that it and they would openly say to me, My solicitor told me just to get this signed by you. And I'd actually refuse it because I didn't have to sign it if I didn't believe that it was a you know, and that was a stat deck. Now those things don't exist anymore, but there are instances of people who wrote a system to in incur maximum damage on someone that they previously loved, right? And so I s I see that becoming an issue. And then the enforcement. Well, is would there be legal recourse? Like imagine if I got kicked out and I hadn't done anything. Is there legal recourse? Can I come back and sue the property manager for changing the locks on me? Like

**Aaron Barber** (1:26:57)

Well that's yeah, and that's and this is what has to be tested with the new legislation. If I mean the legislation does there is fines for persons who do falsify documentation. So they actually have put that into legislation, which is a good thing, is a deterrent that if someone does d falsify a claim under DV that there is quite heavy penalties in place for it. But again, you've got to prove that person actually falsified the documentation and who are you going to go and question a person who's made a declaration of DV? Are you going to put them through the third degree? No, no, you're not. You're just going to accept that documentation. So

**Peter Schravemade** (1:27:36)

Y well, I read somewhere in the legislation that it's not up to the property manager to question if the paperwork's in order they have to proceed with it,

**Aaron Barber** (1:27:44)

Correct. Yeah. So and in your instance, yeah, I mean if we do and this is one of my arguments that I've put back to Fair Trading is that what happens if we do follow those paperwork and we do lock out the wrong person? And 'cause the person who's actually committing the actual DV could actually go and get the declaration as well and saying that they actually had DV against them. So there's no actual right or wrong here when it comes to who is the person committing the DV and who is the actual victim of DV. So the property manager again is in the middle and they're stuck. And I the one of those examples that we're taking back to fair training is what happens when both parties come to us with a

**Peter Schravemade** (1:28:27)

My gosh.

**Aaron Barber** (1:28:28)

With a consent, with a declaration saying that they're both victims of DV.

**Peter Schravemade** (1:28:32)

And which could be the case. It could be the case. It in a lot of A lot of instances it can be. But Kasey, what do you think about this? What the hell? Would you feel comfortable doing this as a former property manager?

**Kasey McDonald** (1:28:46)

No, and I think that it's just kind of shifting a liability onto the property managers and it's I think we're putting, you know, that workplace I you know, safety risk, you know, it's just I think it's just crucial and you said it before, Aaron, you know, many of our younger property managers are probably those that may have to deal with this situation, you know. It's as much as you're saying we want to train them, right? But it's at that point in time that they're needing to have that conversation, change the locks. What about property damage? You know, how and which are they then needing to manage that? You know, so then walking into certain situations, you know, I just feel as though that we're putting others at risk unnecessarily by introducing a piece of legislation on here as to you know what kind of training are we now going to have to what other training do we literally have to put the property managers through I think it's a tough conversation to have in itself. And to your point, what if you've got two that walk into the office and say we're both experiencing this and this property manager is, you know, 21 that haven't had those different life experiences, in having to even know understand how to conversate or how to manage that, right? And their own mental wellness, moving away and going home, imagine what they're taking with them.

**Aaron Barber** (1:30:17)

Yeah, I mean, just on a couple of those things. So damage of the property is that this legislation now requires the person who is the who's been identified as the person who's committed the crime or the DV, is responsible for the damage. And the person who's the victim is not. So the person who leaves is not responsible. So they can leave. They there's no break lease fees, there's nothing, which again, as we said, if it's a genuine case of DV, then that should be the case. They should be able to leave a dangerous situation. However, the person who's staying behind, the property manager now needs to confront that person around the damage that's been caused in the property. And they again have to talk to this person who could be aggressive and actually say, Well, now you're responsible for thousands of dollars of damage to this property, pay up. And again, they're

**Peter Schravemade** (1:31:01)

What if they haven't committed the damage?

**Aaron Barber** (1:31:04)

Correct. They again it's and this is what we said. It's that again they could be the actual victim and the other person has actually used the competent person declaration to put further pressure on the person who's the victim who's staying behind.

**Peter Schravemade** (1:31:19)

Well, some damage to properties could be like I left a kettle on the bench. It's not even related to DV. But what you're what you're telling me is yeah, okay, so let's say there is a serious DV incident and one party has to leave. Well, one party leaves and is able to break lease, but that party was responsible for, I don't know, breaking a shower screen or leaving a kettle on a bench that's burned through it. General wear and tear things that do happen as a course of the tenancy. Now it is incumbent on the other person that's there to fix that up, even though they're completely separate issues.

**Aaron Barber** (1:31:55)

Correct. Yeah. So any damage that's onto the on the property, then it as soon as DV has been declared at the property, then basically the property manager will have to declare that any damage is part of that DV 'cause how c how do you justify that the kettle wasn't left on the bench as part of the argument, between the two people? So

**Peter Schravemade** (1:32:15)

My God. I've heard it I've heard it all now. This has got to be this has got to be one of the most stupid updates I've ever heard. Like what are they thinking, Aaron?

**Aaron Barber** (1:32:25)

They and they're just knock there's just no consultation. So our Minister for better Practice at the moment, Mr Chanthivong, Minister Chanthivong is he's just refusing to talk to industry. We've tried to meet with him. He has sent his policy writer or tried to send his policy writer to the meeting and we could say, Well no, we want to talk to you as the minister. You as the minister need to understand the pressures that you're putting on our industry. Five hundred changes in eighteen months is not acceptable. And it's not just around this DV legislation. As I was explaining to the property managers yesterday is that we can train property managers, but we also now need to train licencees in charge about what they now need to implement within their business to protect them against the work safe the work health and safety act here in New South Wales. But and I was saying to them, if I had a choice between what I had to do when it came to this DV legislation, I'll breach the DV legislation. Other than the Work Health and Safety Act. Because the Work Health and Safety Act, I can be put in prison if one of my staff members are physically injured or killed in the event of them carrying out work. Rather protect my staff. Correct.

**Kasey McDonald** (1:33:37)

Yeah, they contradict each other, right? Like we've not considered it. Already that sometimes the challenge challenging components of property management, you know, and in certain situations outside of DV, there can be the fact that tenants and sometimes landlords can get aggressive even on the phone. There can be situations where you can feel even uncomfortable. And it's not a DV situation, right? And so you know, now we've not even considered what another legislation is and how in which they these are just so too far worlds apart. They're not complementary in any way. And I do agree with you in those real cases, this absolutely should be in place if they're genuine. But when we're talking when we're talking about what they're what the changes actually are and with no consultation with REINSW as a as the peak body is just baffling to me.

**Aaron Barber** (1:34:37)

Yeah, I mean we just can't get any traction with the regulator or with the minister. So our CEO Tim McKibbin and myself actually attended a town hall where the commissioner for rental and the minister were talking. And I actually went up to the minister and said, Hey, when are you gonna come and meet with us to talk about these changes? And to actually get some consultation. And he said he basically just said to me, he said, You are playing games, stop playing games. That's what he said to me. Yeah. And I just said, Well, no, I'm

**Kasey McDonald** (1:35:03)

Right. Okay. Yeah. Well I just think that we're putting people's lives at risk, right? So who's actually playing games? Yeah. Yeah.

**Peter Schravemade** (1:35:09)

It's worse than that. They're like the DV stuff shouldn't be the property managers too. Like I know I know there are you know the instances of DV still need to be sorted, but that's not the role of that should never be the role of the property manager. I don't think I don't think that sits in their remit and I think the you know there's more in that. Hey, Aaron, it for the sake of time, if we've got listeners out there you know, who are as outraged and disgusted as I, and I'm sure Kasey is, and probably you as well, even though you tend to hide it very well. What do we do? How do we put pressure on this guy that you're apparently playing games with it? It appears that's round the other way, but how do we put pressure on this guy to actually come to the table talk and maybe reconsider some of these things?

**Aaron Barber** (1:35:58)

Yeah, so we're actually just about to work through trying to do a whole campaign on respect, but also to try and put some pressure on government around they need to pay respect to the industry as well. But we anyone that is actually outraged with the actual changes are coming through, people who are finding it very difficult to do their roles, they need to get in contact with us at REINSW so they can give us a call or they can send me an email or Tim an email. We're very eager to talk to property managers or to agents or licencees who will find it difficult around these changes. Because we need to actually make sure that the government and especially the minister are aware of the pressures that they're actually putting on businesses, but also onto agents. We're actually physic we're about to go and talk to the small business commissioner and actually get them involved in this as well about the actual pressures that the minister is putting on business and basically that so we've been very we want to be very active in this section. We want to start putting pressure on him and that it's about making sure that he is basically forced to be in the room with us to listen. And it and even if we get agents we to come into the room and actually sit there and actually voice concerns to him directly, then that's what we want. We want to make sure that the government is actually listening, that the last eighteen months, yes we know reforms need to happen, but there needs to be a controlled measure around the release and there needs to be consideration and cons consultation with the industry about what is the impact of these reforms and how do we work together to ensure that everybody is a winner in this relationship. Because at the end of the day, all these reforms, the government keeps saying that it's there to protect tenants. And what we keep saying is that in the short run, yes. But in the long run, investors are now packing up and leaving the industry leaving the market.

**Peter Schravemade** (1:37:57)

What's no not just investors. Like we've got a really high nineties percent of professional management and I actually can't imagine a world where a landlord is able to manage a property on their own anymore. I just I think that ship has sailed. There's, you know, five hundred changes as you say, and even if all of them aren't to property management, a large percentage are. It would be nearly impossible in this market to manage a property on your own. Like as an amateur, unless you've had experience in the industry before. And what I see happening is a massive shortage of property managers. Like, you know, what's keeping a New South Wales property manager from looking at another state and going, well, I it's a lot easier to be professional up there. I might have a crack at it or down there or wherever it is. And a vacuum of professional management. And I think that is probably even more catastrophic than some of the other outcomes that are there because legislation doesn't mean anything. If it all crashes and you don't have somebody who's beholden to

**Kasey McDonald** (1:39:02)

But no.

**Peter Schravemade** (1:39:02)

It, you'll end up in this anarchist state where you know, tenants and landlords are at loggerheads and I don't know how your Office of Fair Trading is going or yeah, the court of arbitration that you have there, but I can imagine that will chalk up and it one thing will follow another. So look, we've run out of time for today, but I really appreciate you jumping on and making us aware of this. I'm sorry we didn't track it earlier. We definitely did

**Aaron Barber** (1:39:28)

That's right.

**Peter Schravemade** (1:39:29)

Track the lack of conversation between Minister Chanthivong and and the off and the REINSW and we'll follow this through. If you're listening, I'm gonna put all of the links on before the weekend.com under the episode that you can have your say and get amongst it and really just be a voice to the industry because this should this should definitely not be happening. This is by far out of all of the regulation and legislation that we've had heard bought in Kasey, and I think we've heard a lot quite a lot. I mean, Victoria's

**Kasey McDonald** (1:39:58)

Yeah, we have, yes.

**Peter Schravemade** (1:39:59)

Been having a bag full of monkeys down there, Aaron, but I think he might have just said, Hold my beer. So yeah, well

**Aaron Barber** (1:40:04)

Yeah. We're following we're not far behind Victoria. So we're yeah. So the New South Wales government is very quickly watching what happens in Victoria, to the point that Tim's actually gone to a seminar today around the new privacy bill that they're actually trying to put in about the information that we can't actually collect. And one of the actual guest speakers is actually from Melbourne. So they're actually bringing Melbourne up to actually talk about their experiences around the legislation changes down there. So they're trying to support change by bringing other states in to say why it's such a good idea.

**Peter Schravemade** (1:40:38)

Mate, I notice they don't have any Queenslanders there. I don't know if they've looked north for a while. I don't know if they've had a look north of the border, but we seem to have a pretty good o relationship with our Office of Fair Trading and our Minister here and it's hunky dory between them and the ethical peak body. So maybe, maybe, just maybe they should take a leaf out of Queensland's book. I know New South Wales is really sick of us saying that. The grass is not always greener on the Gold Coast side of the highway, but whatever. It's good to

**Kasey McDonald** (1:41:06)

Yeah. Thanks, Aaron.

**Peter Schravemade** (1:41:06)

Good to have you on board, Aaron, and thank you s thanks so much for letting us know about this today.

**Aaron Barber** (1:41:11)

No, thank you. And thank you for having me. And it's great to have the chat around what's actually occurring in New South Wales. We're here to support our members, we're here to support the industry as a large. So it is important that people do reach out to what they're experiencing. Great, thank

**Peter Schravemade** (1:41:24)

Thanks, mate.

**Aaron Barber** (1:41:25)

You.

**Kasey McDonald** (1:41:26)

Well it was really great to have Aaron come on and certainly share and provide some insights as to what's happening with that change around DV. And of course, for any of our listeners today or those watching on YouTube, if this is close to home or that topic certainly you know was triggering in any way, please ensure that you reach out to 1800RESPECT. So that's 1800 737 732. That's the national service there for you. You know make the call if at any point in time you feel that anything we spoke about today within the DV legislation has been a little close to home. But really appreciate that Aaron's come on and provided us those insights. And property managers, make sure you do reach out to the REINSW training team, understand what it is that you need to do, learn the legislation, and really be up to speed with how this is going to affect you and your operations and what it is that you need to learn. To to I guess handle this matter should a you ever be faced with it. And fingers crossed none of you ever are.

**Peter Schravemade** (1:42:35)

Yeah, and just as an aside to that, like if you ever want to know why you should be part of a real estate institute in your state, this is a prime example. Like you know, the this could be career ending for some property managers in particular. But we have issues like this all the time. And you really do need a real estate institute with a voice to get out there. Even when Minister Chanthivong is not listening, those guys won't lay down. They'll keep coming at him. You know, you're gonna see campaigns coming up as they mentioned in the coming weeks to put more pressure on the government. And you really need that. This kind these kind of changes can't go unfettered. They there needs to be conversation. So if you're not a member of your real estate institute, I'd urge you to investigate it and a and have a look at what that means in your particular state or area or territory. Kasey, massive programme today. I feel exhausted and it's only the start of a Friday. But look

**Kasey McDonald** (1:43:30)

Massive program, yes.

**Peter Schravemade** (1:43:34)

I really thank anyone who's still listening. I we've covered quite A lot of titles, contents, issues today, from the valuation to the DV all the way back to the topics we raised at the start. It feels like four hours ago that we started doing this, but I really appreciate you joining us for our seventeenth episode. And wherever you are this weekend, whatever you're doing in the industry, we really wish you success and safety, particularly on the back of that conversation. But thank you for joining us. You can find us at all the majors. If you've got anything that you need to speak to us about, hello at before the weekend.com. You can find that on the website be at before the weekend.com with all the episodes. Kasey, thanks so much for joining. I

**Kasey McDonald** (1:44:17)

Thanks, Pete.

**Peter Schravemade** (1:44:18)

Will be doing this all from London next week and we might be a little bit late on the transmission because of the time changes. But we'll have a crack at doing it from

**Kasey McDonald** (1:44:27)

We will.

**Peter Schravemade** (1:44:28)

Distance. Will you have a great weekend, Kasey, and I'll see you in episode

**Kasey McDonald** (1:44:31)

You too?

**Peter Schravemade** (1:44:32)

Eighteen, I suppose.

**Kasey McDonald** (1:44:33)

Yeah, absolutely. Well, next time will be a little later. We can maybe have that beer and wine in our hand at the same time, right? Yeah where you are. Well, you know, I've you say anytime exactly,

**Peter Schravemade** (1:44:40)

I think it'll be five AM wherever I hasn't stopped me before.

**Kasey McDonald** (1:44:47)

Right? But no, thanks everyone for listening. We hope you have enjoyed our episode today. Be safe on the weekend. Happy selling, of course. We're into spring season now, and happy leasing for those property managers and BDMs out there working on the weekend. And that's a