What Is Comparison Rate in Queensland Real Estate? Definition and Agent Guide
If you have come across the term comparison rate while researching Queensland property advertising rules, the first thing to understand is that it does not mean what it means in the mortgage world. In home lending, a comparison rate combines interest and fees into a single annual percentage to help borrowers compare loans — but that concept has no direct equivalent in property sales. In the context of Queensland real estate advertising and agent conduct, the operative concept is the prohibition on false or misleading price comparisons: the strict legal framework that governs how an agent represents a property’s price, estimated value, or prior sale history in any advertising or communication. Getting this right is a compliance requirement, not a courtesy.
How Comparison Rate Works in Queensland Real Estate
When Queensland agents talk about “comparison” in an advertising context, they are dealing with the rules governing how any quoted price must relate to the vendor’s actual minimum acceptable price — and how any reference to comparable sales must be grounded in fact. The core mechanism sits across two intersecting legal frameworks: the Property Occupations Act 2014 (Qld) and the Australian Consumer Law (ACL), which applies nationally as part of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth).
Section 212 of the Property Occupations Act 2014 (Qld) — often called the PO Act — relates to false representations about property. Section 212(1) states that a licensee or real estate salesperson must not represent to someone else anything that is false or misleading relating to the letting, exchange or sale of real property. This is the provision that catches price misrepresentation: advertising a property at a figure that does not honestly reflect the vendor’s position, or citing comparable sales that are not genuinely comparable, both fall squarely within its scope.
Section 212(3) of the PO Act provides that a representation is taken to be false or misleading if it would reasonably tend to lead to a belief in the existence of a state of affairs that does not in fact exist, whether or not the representation indicates that the state of affairs does exist. Notice what that means in practice: the test is objective, not subjective. Whether the agent believed the comparison was accurate is not the deciding question — whether a reasonable person would have been misled is. And under subsection (4), if a person makes a representation relating to a matter and does not have reasonable grounds for making the representation, the representation is taken to be misleading.
The Form 6 appointment is the anchor document for price compliance. The vendor’s minimum selling price is the price they have noted on the Form 6 — Property Occupations Act 2014 appointment. An advertised price that misrepresents or undercuts that minimum creates an immediate compliance exposure. It is considered a false or misleading representation if the property agent knows the seller provided incorrect details on the form. Critically, it is the agent’s responsibility to make sure the seller is aware of the law. Ignorance on the vendor’s part does not shelter the agent from liability if the agent proceeds with a misleading price without correction.
In Queensland, an agent can only use the phrase “offers over” if the price is the actual minimum that the vendor is willing to consider. This is more restrictive than what many agents from interstate expect. In other states, “offers over” is sometimes used aspirationally. In Queensland, it carries a specific legal meaning tied directly to the Form 6 minimum.
Why Comparison Rate Matters for Queensland Agents
The professional stakes around misleading price comparisons are high, and they operate on two levels simultaneously: state-level obligations under the PO Act, and national obligations under the ACL.
Making a false or misleading representation about the sale of land and property is an offence under the Australian Consumer Law. The penalties reflect how seriously the legislature treats this conduct. A breach of Australian Consumer Law can be punished by a penalty for an individual of up to $500,000 per offence. An agency is liable for a fine of either $10 million or three times the value of the accrued benefit. If there is no way to calculate the benefit, then the penalty may be 10% of the agency’s previous annual turnover.
At the state level, the PO Act carries its own penalty structure for section 212 breaches. The maximum penalty for breaching this provision is 540 penalty units. At the current Queensland penalty unit value, that translates to a significant financial exposure for an individual licensee or salesperson — separate from any ACL liability the agency body corporate may also face.
The prohibition is found in section 18 of the ACL, and it applies to verbal representations, written material and online advertising. This is a point agents sometimes miss: the rules do not only cover portal listings or print advertising. A verbal estimate given to a buyer at an open house, a price indication shared in a private message, a comparison mentioned in a social media comment — all of these are caught. Agents must not engage in misleading or deceptive conduct. This includes statements about likely sale price ranges, fee structures, rebates, and what the commission covers.
The REIQ has been clear on the breadth of these obligations. Misleading and deceptive conduct is a broad concept which includes words, actions and pictures. It is irrelevant whether there is an intention to mislead; what is relevant is the overall impression created by the conduct and its actual or likely effect on the target audience. For agents who trade on their market knowledge — citing recent comparable sales to justify a list price or to reassure a buyer about value — this standard demands care and documentation.
Common Mistakes Agents Make With Price Comparisons
Understanding what the law prohibits is half the battle. Understanding how well-intentioned agents still inadvertently breach these rules is the other.
Using comparables that are not genuinely comparable
An agent who quotes a recent sale to justify a price or to suggest that the subject property is “good value by comparison” is making a representation. If the comparable sale involved different land size, configuration, or condition, or occurred in a meaningfully different market period, citing it without those qualifications can create a false impression in the buyer’s mind. At any stage in the selling cycle, a real estate agent must be able to support their price estimate as up-to-date, fair and grounded in real sales.
The “up-to-date” requirement is particularly relevant in Queensland’s regional and coastal markets, where price movements can be sharp. Using a comparable from eighteen months ago in a market that has moved 15–20% in either direction is not a neutral act — it is a representation that the market context has not changed, which may be demonstrably false.
Advertising at a price below the Form 6 minimum
Underquoting, bait advertising and price baiting are terms used to refer to the act of representing a property at a price that is less than the true expected sale price. Under the Property Occupations Act 2014, a real estate agent is prohibited from giving any type of price guide to potential buyers when a property is going to auction in Queensland. This is one of Queensland’s most distinctive rules. Agents coming from New South Wales or Victoria — where auction price guides are standard practice — need to understand that the rule in Queensland is absolute for auction properties: no price guide, no range, no “indication.”
For private treaty listings, the Form 6 minimum governs everything. In addition to federal law pertaining to misleading commercial behaviour, bait advertising in real estate is also prohibited under Queensland law. The Property Occupations Act 2014 imposes strict rules on a real estate agent providing misleading property price guides. Advertising a property at $750,000 when the vendor’s Form 6 minimum is $820,000 is not a negotiating strategy — it is a prohibited practice.
Misusing pricing language
Terms like “asking price,” “price on application,” “by negotiation,” and “offers invited” each carry implied representations. If a buyer asks an agent for a price indication verbally and the agent responds with a figure that has no nexus to the Form 6 minimum, that verbal exchange constitutes a representation. The fact that nothing is written down does not create protection — section 212 of the PO Act and section 18 of the ACL both apply to verbal conduct.
Agents also sometimes cite a vendor’s original purchase price or a historical valuation as a reference point to create a sense of current value. This is dangerous territory: past prices are not comparable to current market value unless they are presented with full context, and even then they must not create a misleading impression about what the property is worth today.
Photography and visual price cues
Photographs used when marketing a property for sale or rent may be false or misleading if they lead a prospective buyer or tenant to believe in the existence of a state of affairs that does not in fact exist. While this applies primarily to structural and locational accuracy, the principle extends to staging and presentation choices that might imply a different standard of improvement or finishes than what is actually present. An agent who uses photographs of a renovated comparable property to illustrate potential is making a visual comparison — and that comparison must be accurate and clearly framed as such.
What Queensland Agents Need to Know About Comparison Rate
The practical compliance picture for Queensland agents on price comparison and representation involves four concrete disciplines.
Anchor every price statement to the Form 6. Before any price appears in any channel — portal, print, social media, verbal briefing — confirm that it is consistent with the vendor’s Form 6 minimum. If the vendor wants to change the minimum price, get a Form 6 variation in writing before amending the advertising. This simple process eliminates the most common pathway to a misleading representation.
Keep comparable sales evidence on file. If you have advised a vendor on price by reference to comparable sales, document which sales you used, when they occurred, and why they are genuinely comparable. This file note is your evidence of “reasonable grounds” under section 212(4) of the PO Act. It is necessary to have evidence in writing of the misleading pricing in order to successfully complain about an agent’s behaviour — but that evidentiary standard cuts both ways. When regulators investigate, they look for the same documentation from the agent’s side.
Apply the same standard to all communication channels. Agents must be vigilant in ensuring that they comply with their legislative obligations when marketing properties for sale or rent. As well as being careful to ensure that all written and oral representations and statements made in relation to properties are completely accurate, agents should ensure that they actively encourage all prospective buyers and tenants to undertake their own enquiries and investigations. The REIQ’s recommendation on the use of disclaimers in marketing material reflects this multi-channel exposure. A well-drafted disclaimer does not immunise an agent from a clearly misleading representation — but it supports a position that buyers were directed to conduct their own due diligence.
Understand that principal liability extends to salesperson conduct. Under the PO Act, a principal is responsible for the acts and omissions of salespersons employed at their agency. A junior salesperson who quotes an unsupported comparable during a buyer enquiry call does not carry the liability alone. The agency carries it too. Principals running multi-agent offices should treat price representation compliance as a team training matter, not just a matter for the listing agent.
Agents should also ensure that all of their marketing material contains an appropriately worded disclaimer. That disclaimer should note that all information has been sourced from the vendor and third parties, that it has not been independently verified, and that prospective buyers should make their own enquiries. It does not replace accurate information — it supplements it.
What This Means for Queensland Agents
The concept of a “comparison rate” in Queensland real estate practice is not a calculation or a disclosure formula — it is the legal standard applied to every price representation an agent makes. Whether you are quoting comparable sales to justify a list price, using “offers over” language on a portal listing, providing a verbal estimate at an open home, or posting a “sold for” figure on social media, the same framework applies: the representation must be accurate, grounded in reasonable evidence, and consistent with the vendor’s Form 6 minimum.
The overlap between the Property Occupations Act 2014 and the Australian Consumer Law means that exposure is not limited to one regulator. The Office of Fair Trading administers the PO Act at the state level; the ACCC enforces the ACL at the federal level; and private civil remedies are available to buyers or vendors who suffer loss from a misleading representation. Underquoting can be difficult to prove, as the disparity between the price guide and the sale price can be attributed to higher demand or vendor change of mind — but that grey area is not a safe zone. An agent who systematically advertises at figures disconnected from vendor instructions is exposed regardless of how the market behaves at auction.
For agents working in high-demand Queensland markets where vendor expectations regularly shift mid-campaign, the obligation to update Form 6 minimums whenever the vendor’s position changes is non-negotiable. The alternative — leaving outdated price representations live in the market — is a compliance failure that accumulates exposure with every day the advertisement runs.
The professional obligation is straightforward: every price comparison you make should be one you are prepared to defend with evidence, on the day you make it. That standard protects buyers, protects vendors, and — most directly — protects your licence.