Key takeaways
Pet bidding is emerging as a concerning new trend in Australia’s rental market, with some tenants offering to pay more to secure a lease that allows pets.
Desperate renters are being pushed to offer higher rents—sometimes hundreds of dollars extra—to ensure landlords accept their furry companions, adding to rental affordability pressures.
Experts warn this is another sign of a broken rental system, where basic rights—like keeping a pet—are becoming commodified and subject to bidding wars.
There’s a growing call for reform, with advocates pushing for clearer, fairer rules around pet ownership in rentals to prevent further exploitation of tenants.
This trend is part of a broader issue: housing supply shortages, surging demand, and a lack of consistency in rental legislation across states are creating a volatile and inequitable market for renters.
Just when we thought we’d seen it all in Australia’s rental crisis—skyrocketing rents, chronic undersupply, and fierce competition for even the most modest of properties- a new phenomenon is emerging that reflects just how desperate tenants have become.
It’s called pet bidding.
Yes, really.
We’ve long been talking about rent bidding, where would-be tenants offer to pay more than the advertised rent to jump ahead of the pack.
But now, tenants in New South Wales are reportedly starting to make another kind of offer, to voluntarily give up their right to keep a pet, in the hope that it will make them more appealing to landlords.
It’s a direct response to recent tenancy reforms that, while well-meaning, may have once again missed the mark.
The background: when good intentions meet harsh market realities
In early 2025, the NSW Government introduced new residential tenancy reforms, including a rule that effectively grants tenants the right to keep up to four pets in a rental property.
This followed similar legislation rolled out in Victoria several years ago, aimed at making renting “fairer” for tenants.
But we’ve seen how those Victorian reforms have played out, and the lessons haven’t been heeded.
According to Tim McKibbin, CEO of the Real Estate Institute of NSW (REINSW), this new regulation has opened the door to a perverse new trend.
He explains:
“With landlords now forced to accept up to four animals in their property, it opens up another opportunity for tenants to distinguish themselves by offering to forego their right to have pets."
In short, instead of negotiating for better terms, tenants are now negotiating away their rights.
What does “pet bidding” actually mean?
According to REINSW, the concept is straightforward, if unsettling.
A tenant applying for a property might say in writing, “I will not apply to have pets, as is my right”, in an attempt to look more appealing to the landlord or property manager.
They’re giving up something they’re legally entitled to in exchange for the chance to simply secure a place to live.
As McKibbin puts it:
“This would presumably occur in two ways. One, by foregoing the right to have four pets, and reducing that to three or less. Or two, by foregoing their right to have a pet entirely.”
It’s essentially the mirror image of rent bidding.
Instead of offering more money, tenants are now offering to accept less freedom, all in the name of gaining an edge in a brutally competitive rental market.
The real issue: a brutal lack of supply
Let’s not sugar-coat this.
Pet bidding, like rent bidding, isn’t something tenants want to do.
It’s not driven by greed or opportunism, it’s driven by scarcity and desperation.
It’s a consequence of years of policy missteps that have reduced investor confidence, stalled housing supply, and turned renting into a battle of survival.
McKibbin says it plainly:
“Obviously, forcing investors to accept pets and removing their right to recover possession of their property has driven them from the market. It’s tenants who suffer.”
- Also read:Melbourne housing market update | May 2025
- Also read:Auction Report May 17th 2025 | Reviving Melbourne Continues to Lead Auction Markets Ahead of Interest Rate Decision
- Also read:Brisbane housing market update | May 2025
- Also read:Sydney housing market update | May 2025
- Also read:Australian housing market update | May 2025
And the data backs him up.
In Victoria, the reforms that NSW is now replicating have already shown their downside.
According to the Victorian Government’s own data, the top reason a no-fault notice to vacate was issued in 2023–24 was because the property was being sold, in 53% of cases.
In other words, the very policies designed to help tenants have actually led to a reduction in available rental properties.
Investors are pulling out, selling up, or simply not entering the market in the first place.
That’s the real crisis.
Tenant rights vs. investor confidence: can we balance both?
On the surface, it sounds compassionate to give tenants more rights, especially when it comes to having pets, which are often considered part of the family.
But when these laws are implemented without regard for market dynamics, the result is predictable: less rental stock, more competition, and worsening affordability.
What’s missing in this debate is balance.
Investors aren’t the enemy here.
They are an essential part of the rental ecosystem.
If they’re not confident that they can manage risk, whether that’s the risk of damage from pets or an inability to reclaim their property when circumstances change, they’ll take their capital elsewhere.
McKibbin warns:
“Once again, politically populist policies harm those Government is attempting to win favour with more than anyone else."
And he’s right.
The people these policies aim to protect—tenants—end up bearing the brunt of the fallout.
Final thoughts
Pet bidding is not just a quirky headline, it’s a canary in the coal mine.
It’s a sign that Australia’s rental market is under extreme pressure, and people are starting to trade away rights in order to secure basic shelter.
That should alarm all of us—landlords, tenants, policymakers, and industry professionals alike.
McKibbin leaves us with a sobering warning:
“In New South Wales, we are already seeing tenants going to extra lengths as they are faced with fewer options. Who knows what other new and desperate measures tenants will be forced to take?”
It’s time to stop treating housing policy as a popularity contest and start treating it as the serious economic infrastructure issue it really is.
Because without a course correction, pet bidding may just be the beginning.
