Last week, Elite Agent published an article examining the systemic issues the Tesolin ban exposed. The response – across LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, email and the phone – was unlike anything we’ve seen.
What came back wasn’t a single reaction. It was several different conversations happening at once, and not all of them agreed with each other.
Before we get to those – Peter Brewer, former REIQ Chairman (eight terms on the board, 40 years in the industry) was the first to publish a response of his own. His piece, “The mirror, the mess, and the reset our profession needs,” is sharp on accountability, direct on cheap training, and incredibly personal about what leadership looks like in practice. One line from it: “Volume without values is not excellence. It’s just arithmetic.”
Read it alongside this one. Now – here’s what you told us.
“We did this to ourselves”
That was the line from Samantha Xerri at Real+, who trains agents in CPD and tenancy reform. “
The best thing I take from it,” she added, “is how proud I am to be a part of an industry with so many good people in it still.
“Let’s not push them out by rewarding the deceptive.”
It set the tone for what followed – not finger-pointing at one person, but an industry examining its own reflection.
Hank van der Merwe, an AI leadership strategist, zeroed in on the Quakers Hill detail from the article: “One suspension wasn’t enough to change the behaviour in the area.
The next person just picked up the playbook and ran the same play. That’s not a rogue agent problem. That’s a culture problem.”
Christine Ewin, principal of My Agent Team in Batemans Bay and 25 years in the industry, didn’t mince words: “I have never been more embarrassed. The smug response. Those coming to his aid calling him the GOAT. Those now ducking and weaving their alliance. The biggest volume people have become quiet.”
And Melissa Burtt named the frustration many felt: “It’s tiring – watching and knowing and not being able to do anything about it, because no one wants to hear agents complaining about their competitors.
“It’s considered sour grapes.”
The awards question
If there was one thread that surfaced across every platform, it was this: the industry celebrates the wrong things.
Julie Crockett, who trains buyer’s agents, said the problem is spreading: “We’re starting to see similar ‘volume’ players in the buyer’s agent space winning awards for their ‘success’ by the number of property buyers ‘serviced’ as opposed to the number of clients who’ve seen the best outcomes.”
Rik Rushton put it simply: “What we recognise shapes what the industry chases. If it’s only numbers, we’ll get more of the same.”
Sally O’Connell, CEO of Abercrombys Real Estate in Melbourne, agreed: “For too long, success has been measured by GCI alone, without enough regard for the consequences.”
And Tameka Smith, herself a multiple award winner, was blunt: “Some of them are pure rubbish and given to line others’ pockets.”
Hank van der Merwe offered the line that got shared the most: “Volume without integrity isn’t performance – it’s just noise with a good close rate.”
The underquoting debate – and a map nobody expected
This is where the conversation split open.
Naomi Rogers Twyford from Western Australia challenged the framing directly: “I just sold my own home and according to NSW Fair Trading I am guilty of underquoting – my own home.”
She pushed further: “I am not convinced that underquoting is actually really hurting anyone other than being annoying and time-wasting for a buyer. Maybe intent is the issue – but how do you prove intent?”
Brett Andreassen had a concrete answer: “Let’s say a buyer sees a property that is quoted at $1 million. They get excited, they get the contract reviewed – $500. They get a building inspection done, $750. They turn up to the auction and the opening bid is $1.2 million. The buyer had no hope of getting the property. That is deliberate underquoting.”
What emerged next was something nobody planned – a state-by-state picture of the same dysfunction wearing different masks.
In NSW, Paul Mulligan JP – who has spent five years working with government on reform – was unequivocal: “Every single property I go through in Sydney is underquoted by 15–25%.
“The industry has a denial problem.”
In Queensland, the problem is the opposite; Jane Louise Elvin described agents who over-quote to win the listing then condition the vendor down: “A recent appraisal I didn’t convert, the agent who did said he could get $1.6 million or even higher. His search price was $1.3 million, around where I appraised it and where it sold.”
Ryan McCann confirmed: “It’s somewhat difficult for us QLD agents to comprehend this underquoting term as we have different laws.
“Up here it’s unfortunately more common for poor or desperate agents to over-quote – essentially buying the listing.”
In Western Australia, Paulette Contessi described a version closer to Queensland’s but with an additional layer:
“I stopped listening to the little aggressive male (sorry, there are no women) ‘trainers’ years ago.
“They treat Mr and Mrs Vendor with disdain, without care and diligence, and start conditioning them around price early.”
Nikki Horner watched the thread unfold in real time and commented, “This comments thread is really telling.
“There’s a significant difference between a home selling for overs because of market conditions and an agent deliberately misleading buyers because that’s their only skillset.”
Nick Blaxell added: “Let’s not forget dummy bidders. Potential underquoting in a moving market is one thing, but dummy bidding – that’s systemic and deliberately misleading the market.”
Leanne Pilkington, CEO of Laing+Simmons and former REIA President, echoed a point the original article had made: “We absolutely need to come together as an industry to make change.
“But legislation is not always the answer, and I agree, you can’t legislate character.” (More from Leanne in the next piece in this series – she has a lot more to say.)
Reform is coming – but will it work?
NSW has a draft bill before Parliament that would significantly sharpen the consequences for underquoting.
Among the proposed reforms:
- Fines of three times the commission or up to $110,000
- Mandatory estimated selling price for vendors and statement of information for buyers, adjusted immediately when offers come in
- Power for the Commissioner to require agents to publicly display their disciplinary record on shopfronts, websites and marketing material
- Immediate on-the-spot licence suspension for repeated offenders
- Compulsory valuations at the agent’s expense in certain circumstances
But Tony Rowe, with 30-plus years in the industry, offered a reality check.
“NSW Fair Trading proclaimed 500 inspections and 300 fines issued at an average of about $1,100 each.
The offenders could consider that a ‘cost of business’ and move on.
Increasing the penalties and fines doesn’t work unless there’s a commensurate increase in enforcement action.”
He went further: “It won’t get the discussion it deserves, because there are too many ‘leaders’ in almost every sector of the industry who have much to lose by taking the actions proposed.”
The questions we didn’t ask
Some of the sharpest observations came from angles the original article hadn’t covered.
Emily Morgan from eXp Realty was direct: “He did the wrong thing. Knew he was doing the wrong thing. Doubled down on it. Collected his money and all his awards. Should be banned from coaching too.”
Sonia Tafilipepe from NZ asked the question that followed naturally: “It states banned from the industry – isn’t coaching the industry?”
Hermione Gardiner, founder of property management coaching firm Sidekick, broadened it further: “The coaching industry – not just in real estate, but broadly – is still unregulated. Anyone can position themselves as a coach, regardless of training or experience.”
Amy Bennett flagged the gender imbalance twice, on both LinkedIn and Facebook: “What’s been most evident in conversations is the lack of commentary from women.
“So thank you for putting your name to the conversation.” ‘
And Sarah Cincotta, founder of BDM training firm RISE, extended the conversation into property management: “Agents not pricing properties correctly online.
“Staff leaving and bragging about listing numbers at their new agency when they stole data from the previous employer.
“Another big training organisation not fully disclosing how they ‘organically’ grow and lie about their numbers yet are praised.
“A BIG change needs to happen.”
So what comes next?
Scott Gemmell – a former Queensland police officer turned three-time International Auctioneer of the Year – wrote what amounted to a policy paper in the comments (and more from Scott soon too!)
His six proposals:
- Publish list-to-sale ratios – including withdrawn listings, not just the wins
- Appraisal estimate vs result – publish the agent’s initial estimate against the final sale price
- Seller verification of search prices – a link sent to the seller to confirm, not just the agent’s word
- Independent review audits – triggered automatically on settlement by the industry body, no opt-outs
- Portal accountability – REA and Domain allow unprompted buyer and seller feedback
- Franchise accountability – performance questionnaires on every listing, whether it sells or not
“Until we move from ‘How much did you make?’ to ‘How accurately did you serve?’,” Gemmell wrote, “The cycle will just repeat.”
Trent Regan was honest about the difficulty: “I’ve been saying for years that it feels like there’s no real way of removing unethical people from our industry. Every time someone speaks up, it seems to get shut down or pushed aside.”
And John Minns – the former NSW Property Services Commissioner, whose comment received the most reactions of any in the LinkedIn thread – reminded the industry that change has always had a price:
“We should also applaud those in the industry who have stood up against unethical behaviour over recent years, often at personal cost. Leaders recognise that when people do the wrong thing it impacts more than themselves. It undermines the whole sector.”
Heidi Walkinshaw perhaps framed the challenge best: “I read something recently – at some point we stopped listening to the wisest among us and started listening to the loudest.”
None of this is resolved. It’s barely started.
None of this is resolved. It’s barely started. But the fact that an industry not exactly known for public self-reflection spent a week doing exactly that is, at the very least, a different kind of conversation.
This was the public conversation. Next week, we will publish the private one – seven industry leaders who went on the record with answers to my questions this article raised. Including one response that challenges everything the original piece hoped for.
The Mirror Has Many Faces is available to read at eliteagent.com. If you want to add something to the mirror, email samantha@eliteagent.com.au.