Victoria is making sellers disclose their reserve before an auction. Should New Zealand buyers get the same clarity before spending money chasing a home they cannot afford?
You inspect the property. Speak to the bank. Pay for advice. Perhaps commission a building inspection.
Then auction day arrives — and the seller’s minimum acceptable price turns out to be beyond your budget.
Competition can always push a property out of reach. But should buyers have to invest time and money before discovering the seller’s starting position?
Victoria’s new property transparency rules have brought that question into sharp focus.
Property Noise believes New Zealand should seriously examine advance reserve disclosure, with clear safeguards for both buyers and sellers.
The objective would be straightforward: give people useful price information before they commit substantial resources to a purchase attempt.
WHAT VICTORIA HAS CHANGED
Consumer Affairs Victoria says agents must publish the seller’s reserve at least seven days before an auction or fixed-date sale.
The requirements apply to those sales held on or after 16 October 2026, following commencement of the reforms on 1 October.
The reserve must be expressed as a single dollar amount, without qualifiers such as “from”, “over” or “+”. Advertising must reflect it, and the sale cannot proceed unless the disclosure period has been met.
That changes when buyers receive an important piece of information.
A published reserve does not establish market value or predict the winning bid. It provides visibility of the seller’s stated threshold.
NEW ZEALAND GENERALLY KEEPS THAT NUMBER PRIVATE
New Zealand’s Real Estate Authority describes an auction reserve as the price set by the vendor, usually representing the lowest amount they are willing to accept.
Its guidance says the reserve is typically established shortly before the auction and remains confidential to the vendor, auctioneer and agent.
That creates an information imbalance.
The selling side knows the threshold. Prospective buyers may be preparing to bid without knowing whether their finance can reach it.
Property Noise previously examined the broader problem in “No Price, No Thanks: Should Every NZ Property Listing Show a Price?”.
Reserve disclosure takes that debate further: what price information should buyers receive before an auction, and when should they receive it?
BUYERS SHOULD EXPECT COMPETITION — BUT NEED A USEFUL STARTING POINT
Consider a hypothetical buyer with an absolute limit of $900,000.
If a seller has already decided that offers below $1 million are unacceptable, that difference matters before the buyer pays for property-specific advice.
Advance disclosure would let the buyer make an informed choice about proceeding.
It would not prevent disappointment. Another bidder could still offer more. The property could still attract unexpected competition.
But losing to a stronger buyer is a different experience from discovering that the seller’s minimum was never within reach.
A transparent process cannot promise a successful purchase. It can help buyers decide where to spend their time and money.
A RESERVE IS DIFFERENT FROM A PRICE GUIDE
These terms need to be kept distinct.
An agent’s estimate concerns the likely selling price. A reserve reflects the vendor’s stated minimum for the auction process. The final result depends on what buyers actually offer.
Consumer Affairs Victoria also cautions that a sale above the initial advertised figure does not automatically establish underquoting. Genuine competition can lift the result.
That distinction matters in the NZ debate.
A reform should improve the accuracy and timing of information. It should not treat every competitive sale as evidence of wrongdoing.
Nor should publishing a reserve be presented as a promise that a buyer can purchase the property for that amount. Sale conditions and the applicable auction rules still matter.
SELLERS HAVE A LEGITIMATE CONCERN TOO
A homeowner may reasonably ask why their negotiating position should become public while buyers can keep their maximum budget private.
The reserve can also be difficult to settle early. Feedback during a campaign may change the owner’s expectations.
These are practical concerns that any NZ proposal would need to address.
There is also a possible benefit for vendors: clearer expectations could attract buyers who are genuinely able and willing to participate.
Whether that improves attendance, competition or results would require evidence. Transparency should not be sold to homeowners as a guaranteed route to a higher price.
THE SALE METHOD COULD BECOME THE NEXT BATTLEGROUND
The Guardian reports some Victorian agents are shifting towards open-ended campaigns and private sales following the reforms.
That raises an important design question for New Zealand.
If disclosure obligations depend on having a fixed sale date, some vendors may choose a different process. Such a choice is not automatically improper: sale methods serve different circumstances.
However, policymakers should consider whether an obligation achieves its purpose if changing the campaign format removes the requirement.
The wording of an advertisement should not become more important than the quality of price information available to buyers.
VICTORIA IS ALSO CHANGING THE INFORMATION AROUND THE PRICE
Victoria’s reforms extend beyond reserve disclosure.
A new Property Price Statement provides pricing information and comparable sales, with prominent placement in online advertising. Agents must also publish the final sale price within seven days of an unconditional sale, subject to applicable exceptions, and keep the statement available for at least 18 months.
For buyers, the broader principle is valuable: a price should come with a basis for assessing it.
Comparable properties need to be genuinely comparable. Buyers still need to examine differences in location, condition, land, floor area and sale circumstances.
Disclosure is useful only when the information itself can withstand scrutiny.
WHAT SHOULD A NEW ZEALAND APPROACH LOOK LIKE?
Property Noise would support consultation on a system that includes:
- Advance publication of auction reserves.
- Clear definitions distinguishing estimates, reserves and asking prices.
- Consistent updates when material price information changes.
- Supporting sales evidence that buyers can assess.
- Practical rules for changed instructions and postponed auctions.
- Effective oversight of misleading price representations.
These are proposed principles, rather than current NZ requirements.
The goal should be a process that buyers can understand and vendors can use confidently.
Simply adding another document would achieve little if the information were vague, outdated or difficult to find.
BETTER INFORMATION COULD REDUCE WASTED EFFORT
Agents may also benefit when prospective buyers have a clearer understanding of the price position.
An enquiry from someone whose budget is far below the seller’s minimum may add to campaign activity without helping either side reach an agreement.
From our perspective, meaningful participation matters more than impressive enquiry numbers.
That connects with the wider question explored in Property Noise’s examination of agency commissions and vendor costs: what does a homeowner receive from the selling process, and how can that value be assessed?
Clear communication should be part of the answer.
SHOULD NEW ZEALAND END THE SECRET RESERVE?
Victoria’s approach deserves close attention, including its practical difficulties and any unintended consequences.
New Zealand does not need to copy every provision to recognise the problem it addresses.
Buyers are expected to make serious financial preparations. They should have enough credible information to decide whether pursuing a property is realistic.
Sellers deserve flexibility and sound representation. Buyers deserve honest communication and respect for the costs they incur.
Our view: advance reserve disclosure is worth serious consideration. The debate should focus on how to make it workable — and whether the current secrecy delivers enough benefit to justify its cost to buyers.
Would you support published auction reserves in New Zealand, or do sellers have a right to keep their minimum price private?
Property Noise analysis and opinion, based on information available on 25 October 2026. Victorian requirements are described from Consumer Affairs Victoria guidance; New Zealand auction practice is described from REA guidance.
More coverage: New Zealand property news | Real estate agent news