New real estate disclosure laws to come into effect in Queensland - what it means for sellers
The tough new laws coming into force in Queensland from August 1, will allow buyers to get their entire deposit back, and even claim compensation, if the vendor fails to offer up vital information
Here's what every seller must know before they put their house on the market.
The sales bundle of documents includes what is known as a "seller disclosure statement — Form 2" and various prescribed certificates.
A vendor can't sign a contract of sale until they provide this statement.
Some of the things the statement will have to include are:
Legal costs to prepare this seven-page document vary from about $600 to $1,500, depending on who you ask, and the money that will have to be paid by the seller up front.
However, agents have said the vendor may try to add it into the final sale price.
In a state so prone to severe weather events, flooding or other natural hazard history does not have to be disclosed.
Nor does structural soundness, pest infestation, limits imposed by planning laws or if there is any asbestos on site.
What the laws don't cover
The current or historical use of the building (e.g. if it was once a massage parlour or a boarding house) will also not have to be disclosed on the statement.
Real Estate Institute of Queensland CEO Antonia Mercorella said this new law would create some consistency and bring Queensland in line with other states.
However, buyers still need to remain vigilant and think about other types of due diligence, she said.
"Similarly, the seller needs to understand that a property cannot be sold, or a contract entered into until the statement is given," Ms Mercorella said.
The regime applies to all contracts entered into on or after August 1, 2025, regardless of when the property was listed for sale.
While it is not mandatory for the buyer to sign the statement, REIQ said it was best practice for them to do so to confirm receipt.
The Form 2 can be prepared by the seller, the seller's solicitor, or the seller's real estate agent (if authorised).
All parties can sign the statement electronically.
This new framework was designed to reduce disputes and improve transparency in property transactions.
You will find everything you need to know by searching for the Property Law Regulation 2024.
Brisbane property manager Brett Andreassen said the new law would create "more confusion" in the industry.
He said existing contracts already contained 90 per cent of the information required and believed that the 10 per cent not included could be placed in formal contracts.
"For a lot of sellers, this is making it too complicated — they are already asking why do we have to have these costs on top of everything else?" he said.
"What is going to happen is their solicitor's work will then be duplicated again by the buyer's solicitors.
"So, the buyer is paying again because their lawyer will say we can't trust what has been provided to us".
Mr Andreassen also raised a red flag for private sellers who may not be across the changes.
"Sellers have been bringing their sales forward to try and miss out on the confusion that is going to happen," he said.
Real estate agent Michael Shean said vendors were "in shock" when they were told of the added costs to comply.
Lawyers are telling agents the document will take at least five days to prepare, Mr Shean said.
He said transactions could be slowed by up to a week, and the process could hinder anyone trying to quickly close an unsolicited cash offer.
But at the end of the day, he believed the change would give "buyers some peace of mind".
This is where — cost-wise — it gets messy.
While lawyers and conveyancers are still nutting out the "true" cost to be passed onto clients, there are fears Queensland's 52,000 body corporates, which manage the sale of units and townhouses, will be out of pocket.
According to Strata Community Association general manager Laura Bos, said this was because the government sets a prescribed fee for the data gathering involved in community title schemes.
That fee is $84.10, but she said the real cost for a body corporate certificate was more than $200.
Ms Bos said the fact some records are still on paper would complicate work some are assuming could be done by "pressing a button".
"There is going to be a $3 million headache for Queenslanders in the next twelve months," she said.
"We have done time and motion on it; it is not just a figure we have plucked out of the air.
"Somebody is going to have to pay the shortfall."
She's worried there will be people living in body corporates "who are not parties to a transaction, who are now going to have to foot the bill".
"The government has sent a signal to the market that is completely at odds with what the commercial reality of the situation is," she said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

ABC News
6 hours ago
- ABC News
Could a 4-day working week be coming to Australia?
The 5-day working week has been the norm for as long as most of us can remember but across the world more companies and governments are trying out a 4-day version. Jason Om finds out whether Australia could be moving in the same direction.

ABC News
6 hours ago
- ABC News
CSIRO report shows renewables still cheapest form of energy
Chris Bowen is the Minister for Climate Change and Energy and he speaks to Sarah Ferguson about the increased government support for clean energy projects.


SBS Australia
6 hours ago
- SBS Australia
Federal judge dismisses COVID cruise ship class action appeal but negligence ruling upheld
Federal judge dismisses COVID cruise ship class action appeal but negligence ruling upheld Published 29 July 2025, 6:46 am Federal judge dismisses COVID cruise ship class action appeal but negligence ruling upheld ABSTRACT: The Federal Court has dismissed two appeals related to the class action against Princess Cruise Lines over the Ruby Princess COVID-19 outbreak in 2020. One appeal sought to increase compensation for a passenger, while the other was filed by Carnival Cruises, challenging an earlier court finding of negligence.