Professor Sharon Christensen, Executive Dean of the Faculty of Business and Law, QUT
For many Queenslanders, buying or selling a home is the biggest financial decision they will ever make. So, it is not surprising that Queensland’s new seller disclosure regime has prompted a lively discussion across the property sector.
Change in property laws often bring uncertainty, particularly in a fast‑moving market, but much of this debate risks overlooking what seller disclosure is actually designed to do: improve how property transactions work in practice.
As someone who has studied, taught and helped shape property law in Queensland for decades, including contributing to the development of modern seller disclosure reform, I see something different. Proper seller disclosure does not undermine the market; it strengthens it by aligning legal practice with improved information transparency and reduced risk of failed contracts.
At its core, seller disclosure is about moving key information about the property to the point where it matters, which is before a buyer signs a contract.
For too long in Queensland, buyers have only discovered critical facts about a property after committing to a purchase. That information might include a heritage listing, a notice of intention to resume, a road‑widening proposal or restrictions affecting future development. By the time those matters emerge, usually through legal searches, buyers are already committed, legally and emotionally, to buying a property and delaying settlement or seeking to withdraw from the purchase will cost time, money and often significant stress.
What the new laws do is bring consideration of key matters forward. That is not radical. It is pragmatic.
Disclosure obligations already existed for sellers, just not where buyers could see it
One of the ironies of the current debate is that much of the information now required to be given by the seller disclosure regime was already required to be disclosed by real estate agents by legislation or the standard REIQ contract.
The problem was never the absence of legal disclosure obligations, the problem was that sellers, and often agents, did not fully understand the contractual warranties being given, or what needed to be disclosed when those warranties were inaccurate.
In practice, real estate agents, who are the predominant channel for contract preparation in Queensland, frequently completed contracts without asking sellers key questions. Has the property been affected by a notice of intention to resume? Is there a heritage listing? Are there planning constraints that affect future use? Is there contamination on the land?
If those matters were not disclosed and later came to light, buyers may be entitled to terminate the contract. That has always been the position. What the new regime does is make disclosure explicit, upfront and far more likely to occur before anyone signs.
Importantly, this means the new regime is not creating new termination risks, it is making existing risks visible earlier, when they can still be managed rather than detonating at settlement.
Upfront disclosure means fewer failed contracts
There is a misconception that seller disclosure creates risk but failure to disclose is what creates risk. This is not new.
When buyers discover adverse information after contract, they terminate and seek refunds. Disputes can then arise over whether termination was valid and everyone spends more money on legal advice, on delays, and sometimes on litigation.
Upfront disclosure reduces this friction.
A buyer who knows the property is heritage‑listed will not purchase it expecting to redevelop. A buyer who understands a road‑widening proposal will price that risk into their decision or walk away early. That is not a failed system; that is the system working properly.
Contracts that proceed after proper disclosure are more likely to settle. That should matter to agents, sellers and buyers alike.
Critics argue that without a “materiality threshold”, even small or clerical mistakes can allow a buyer to terminate. But debates about what is “material” are exactly what lead to expensive post‑contract disputes. A clear, bright‑line rule avoids those arguments by giving everyone certainty, and certainty is what property markets rely on.
The gazumping argument doesn’t hold
Some opponents have linked the new disclosure requirements to fears of increased gazumping, a practice that occurs when a seller backs out of an agreed sale to accept a higher offer before contracts are formally signed.
That argument does not withstand scrutiny. Gazumping has always been possible in Queensland because there is no binding agreement until contracts are signed. Seller disclosure does not create gazumping, and it does not meaningfully increase its likelihood.
Gazumping generally occurs when sellers delay formalising a contract or disclosure documentation, not because they are complying with disclosure obligations. It is more likely to occur in a rapidly rising market as Queensland has experienced since disclosure became mandatory in August last year.
If anything, encouraging sellers to engage earlier with their lawyers and properly prepare documentation may reduce the window in which gazumping can occur. If the disclosure documents are ready when the property is listed for sale, then a buyer can sign a contract as soon as they decide to make a formal offer.
Buyers benefit but so do sellers and agents
Much of the public discussion frames these reforms as buyer protection. They are that, but they also benefit sellers.
A seller who has properly disclosed relevant matters is protected from later termination claims. An agent who knows disclosure has been completed accurately can be confident in most residential sales that only finance or building and pest inspection issues are likely to derail the sale.
Certainty matters in a market where failed contracts are costly, reputationally damaging and emotionally draining.
Concerns about “cascading financial risk”, where a seller relies on one sale to fund another are not caused by disclosure laws. That risk has always existed in Queensland because a sale is never certain until settlement. The reform doesn’t create the risk; it brings it to light earlier, so better decisions can be made.
There is also a broader issue at stake: trust.
Property transactions are among the largest financial decisions most Australians will ever make. A system that relies on marketing gloss followed by post‑contract surprises undermines confidence. Transparency supports confidence and confidence supports market efficiency.
Yes, the forms are longer but that’s not the point
It is true that disclosure forms are detailed, and sellers may find them annoying. Lawyers certainly know they are not light reading.
But length is not the issue; relevance is.
The information required goes to the subject matter of the property itself. These are not speculative future risks; they are known matters that materially affect value and use.
Examples such as pool safety certificates illustrate the point. A missing or outdated certificate is not a harmless technicality, it is a compliance issue that directly affects safety, liability and insurability exposing the buyer to additional costs post settlement. The law prompts sellers to resolve that issue before sale rather than transfer the risk downstream.
A seller who truly does not know the answer is prompted to discover the answer. It may lead to the seller addressing concerns before the property is listed. Ultimately, the buyer then knows what they are offering to buy. What the law demands is honesty and transparency.
Reform isn’t about slowing the market – it’s about modernising it
Other Australian jurisdictions and comparable overseas markets have long accepted seller disclosure as standard practice, Victoria in 1962 and New South Wales in 1985. Queensland is not out on a limb; it is simply catching up.
Those jurisdictions have not seen their property markets grind to a halt. Instead, seller disclosure is an unremarkable and accepted part of ordinary conveyancing practice.
The reforms do not make buying property risk‑free, nor should they. Buyers still need advice, they still need to read documents, but they should not be asked to sign first and discover fundamental limitations later, especially if they are about to pay a large amount of money for a property.
Seller disclosure does not break the Queensland property market. It makes it more transparent, more efficient and ultimately more trustworthy.
That is something all participants should welcome.
