Buying a home is the biggest decision most of us will ever make and buyers deserve the facts upfront.
For more than two decades, my work has focused on property policy, examining how transactions operate within the legal framework, how reforms shape real‑world outcomes and how market failures affect buyers, sellers and professionals alike.
Working closely with property lawyers and regulators over many years has reinforced one clear truth: when things go wrong in property, it’s rarely because people don’t care. It’s because the right information didn’t arrive early enough.
For most Queenslanders, buying a home is the biggest financial decision they’ll ever make. It’s not a speculative trade or a casual purchase. It’s where families live, where savings are committed, and where long‑term financial security is often decided.
And yet, for a long time, our system allowed critical information to surface late, sometimes weeks after contracts were signed, when the emotional and financial stakes were already high.
That’s exactly the gap Queensland’s seller disclosure laws are designed to close.
These reforms didn’t happen overnight. The Queensland Law Society has spent more than 15 years working with governments of all persuasions, regulators and industry to bring clearer, fairer disclosure arrangements to life.
Over that time, QLS consistently raised concerns about late‑stage contract failures, buyer detriment and the downstream costs borne by sellers, agents and the broader system when problems only emerged after the deal was effectively done.
Seller disclosure reform has long been about improving confidence and reducing risk, not slowing the market.
At its heart, seller disclosure is simple. It ensures buyers receive key facts about a property before they commit, not after. Information about zoning, encumbrances, heritage issues, resumptions and other material matters that, frankly, buyers have always had a right to know.
From a buyer’s perspective, this change also carries a practical message. Buyers should expect disclosure materials early and should feel confident asking for them, at open homes or at the very start of negotiations, before making an offer. Transparency works best when all parties engage with it early.
Like any significant reform, the changes haven’t been friction‑free. New systems take time to bed down. Documentation takes longer while people adjust. That can feel uncomfortable in a market built on momentum and speed.
But discomfort doesn’t automatically mean the policy is wrong.
Queensland’s property market continues to operate as markets do. Around 200,000 residential property transactions occur here each year, and Queensland remains one of the fastest‑growing property markets in the country.
Properties are continuing to transact, buyers are continuing to commit, and sellers are continuing to achieve outcomes. Prices have moved upwards, selling timelines remain broadly familiar, and transactions are completing across the state.
There have been adjustment costs. Some transactions take longer at the front end, sellers must prepare earlier, agents must exercise greater discipline around process. But these are process changes, not structural market damage.
Over many years of policy work in this space, I’ve seen what happens when issues are discovered too late. Contracts collapse days before settlement. Buyers lose money they’ve already spent on inspections and finance. Sellers must relist properties under pressure and agents are left trying to manage disappointment on both sides. Nobody wins.
Finding issues earlier doesn’t create problems, it surfaces them when they can still be managed. A transaction that takes longer to prepare is very different from one that fails days before settlement.
We accept this principle everywhere else. We wouldn’t buy a car without knowing whether it’s roadworthy. Banks are required to disclose fees, risks and conditions before customers sign a loan. In healthcare, informed consent is a fundamental right. Property shouldn’t be an exception simply because it’s complex.
Some commentary around seller disclosure has focused on worst‑case scenarios, including concerns about buyers walking away from contracts.
It’s important to be clear about the law. Termination rights do not arise because of minor or technical errors. Where information is inaccurate, it must be materially inaccurate such that a buyer would not have entered into the contract if they had known the truth.
The real risk arises not from disclosure itself, but from incomplete preparation or failure to provide prescribed material.
Claims that trivial matters, such as misstated rates, automatically give buyers an exit are simply wrong.
Concerns about gazumping, while understandable, are ultimately matters of process. They are entirely avoidable when offers are not invited or accepted until disclosure is complete. That discipline protects buyers, sellers and agents alike.
As the market becomes more familiar with the new requirements, many of these concerns will ease. Comparable disclosure regimes have operated successfully in New South Wales and Victoria for years. They have not broken markets; they have stabilised them.
This reform represents a shift in how we do things in Queensland, a shift more than a decade in the making. But it is a shift toward transparency, trust and fairness in the most significant purchase most people will ever make.
That is a goal worth adjusting for.
Share this article