Queensland community titles reforms: what bodies corporate should expect

Published 24 September 2026

Queensland’s community titles system, the legal framework that governs unit blocks, townhouse complexes, mixed-use towers and gated estates, is built on the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld). That Act is now the subject of ongoing government review and stakeholder consultation, with successive discussion papers and industry submissions pointing toward changes in how schemes are governed, how by-laws are enforced, how funds are managed and what developers must disclose when they create new schemes.

None of the reform directions in this area is settled law. Reform in this space in Queensland has historically moved through consultation, discussion papers and staged legislative amendment rather than a single overhaul, and the pace and final content of any changes remain uncertain. Bodies corporate, committee members, developers and owners can plan for the direction of travel without treating any of it as confirmed law. Where an outcome is not yet settled, plan against the current Act and take advice.

Why the community titles framework is under review

The Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) is now decades old, and the building stock it regulates has changed substantially since it was written. Queensland has many more high-rise and mixed-use schemes than it did in the late 1990s, embedded networks and shared infrastructure are more common, and ageing buildings are increasingly confronting maintenance and defect issues that the original framework did not anticipate in detail.

Government and industry consultation in this area has tended to focus on a recurring set of pressure points: whether committee governance rules keep pace with larger and more complex schemes, whether by-law enforcement and dispute resolution pathways are fast and affordable enough, whether sinking fund and maintenance planning requirements produce buildings that are properly funded for major works, and whether developers creating new schemes give incoming owners and the body corporate enough information at the outset. Those themes, rather than any single finalised bill, are the best current guide to where reform is heading.

Governance and committee decision-making

A recurring theme in community titles reform discussion is whether the governance rules that apply to committees and general meetings remain fit for purpose. Issues raised include the practicality of quorum and voting requirements in larger schemes, the adequacy of record-keeping and disclosure to owners, and whether committees have clear enough authority to make routine decisions without every matter requiring a general meeting.

For bodies corporate, the practical takeaway is not to wait for legislative certainty before tidying up governance practice. Clear committee minutes, a documented decision-making process, and transparent communication with owners are good practice under the current Act and are likely to remain valuable regardless of how any reform lands. Schemes that already run tight governance will have an easier time adapting to whatever changes are eventually made.

By-law enforcement and dispute resolution

By-law enforcement is one of the most consistently raised frustrations in the current system. Bodies corporate and owners alike have pointed to enforcement processes that can be slow, and to uncertainty about how far a by-law can go before it becomes unenforceable or inconsistent with the Act. Reform discussion in this space has touched on streamlining the dispute resolution pathway, clarifying enforcement powers, and giving bodies corporate more workable tools to deal with repeat or serious breaches.

Until any change is finalised, the existing enforcement and dispute resolution pathway under the Act remains the one bodies corporate must use. Committees should keep by-laws current, ensure they are validly made and properly recorded, and take enforcement action consistently rather than selectively, since inconsistent enforcement is a common source of legal risk under the present regime and is unlikely to become less relevant under a reformed one.

Funds, maintenance planning and building defects

Sinking fund adequacy and long-term maintenance planning sit close to the centre of the reform conversation. Many schemes, particularly older ones, were established with funding plans that did not anticipate the scale of major works now required, including facade remediation, waterproofing and, in some buildings, cladding-related works. The direction of policy discussion has generally favoured more rigorous forward planning and clearer obligations around how maintenance plans are prepared, reviewed and funded, rather than a wholesale rewrite of the funding model itself.

For committees, the sensible response now is to treat maintenance planning as a standing governance task rather than a compliance afterthought. That means:

• Commissioning or updating sinking fund forecasts on a realistic cycle rather than only when a levy shortfall forces the issue.
• Obtaining independent building condition reports for ageing schemes, particularly where facade, waterproofing or structural issues are suspected.
• Documenting the basis for levy decisions so owners and any future purchaser can see that funding decisions were made on proper advice.
• Seeking legal advice early where a defect issue may involve a claim against a builder, developer or contractor, since limitation periods can run out while a body corporate is still gathering reports.

Bodies corporate dealing with a building defect or a shortfall that may trace back to how the scheme was originally developed and financed should also consider how the property was structured at the outset. Developers carry obligations under the current framework, including the Property Law Act as it applies to Queensland developers, and those obligations are the starting point when a defect issue raises questions about original construction or disclosure.

Developer obligations in new community titles schemes

Developers creating new schemes are a particular focus of reform discussion, largely because the decisions made at the point a scheme is established, how common property is defined, how the initial sinking fund is set, what by-laws are registered and what disclosure is given to early purchasers, shape the scheme for decades afterwards. Consultation in this area has generally pushed toward more upfront disclosure to purchasers and to the body corporate at handover, and toward closer scrutiny of initial funding assumptions so that new schemes are not underfunded from day one.

Developers structuring a new project should treat this as a reason to get disclosure and initial fund planning right now, rather than waiting to see what reform requires. Getting the underlying legal structure right at the outset also matters. If a project involves multiple parties or staged development, the joint venture agreement for the development sits alongside, and often ahead of, community titles compliance.

Disclosure obligations at the point of sale are a related area developers need to watch closely, since Queensland’s seller disclosure regime interacts directly with how off-the-plan and completed lots in a new scheme are marketed and sold. The Queensland seller disclosure scheme already sets disclosure requirements for residential property sales, including lots in community titles schemes, and any community titles-specific obligations that emerge from reform will sit alongside it.

What bodies corporate should do now

Reform of this kind tends to be incremental and consultative in Queensland, and it is common for changes to be flagged well before they take effect, with transitional arrangements for existing schemes. That gives bodies corporate and developers time to prepare, but it also means acting too early on assumptions about the final shape of any change carries its own risk.

A practical approach for committees and managers is to:

1. Keep governance, meeting and record-keeping practices tidy under the current Act, since good practice now is unlikely to be wasted effort under any reformed regime.
2. Treat maintenance and sinking fund planning as an ongoing discipline in ageing or larger schemes, revisited on a regular cycle.
3. Review by-laws for validity and consistency with the current Act, and apply enforcement consistently.
4. Monitor official consultation and discussion papers rather than industry commentary alone, and seek advice before assuming a proposed change is final.
5. For developers, build disclosure and initial fund adequacy into project planning now, rather than treating it as a compliance step to revisit later.

GRM LAW acts for bodies corporate, committee members, developers and owners across Queensland on community titles matters, from governance and by-law disputes to structuring new schemes. As reform progresses, we will continue to track developments and advise clients on what is confirmed law, what remains proposal, and what that distinction means for decisions being made today.

Frequently asked questions

Has the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) already been amended as part of this reform?

The reform process has involved consultation and discussion papers on the direction of change, but the detail and timing of any resulting amendments are not yet settled. Bodies corporate should continue to operate under the current Act and by-laws unless and until any amendment actually commences, and should seek advice before changing practice based on a proposal that has not been legislated.

Do we need to update our sinking fund plan now, or should we wait for the reforms to settle?

Sinking fund and maintenance planning obligations already exist under the current Act, and the direction of reform discussion suggests those obligations are more likely to be reinforced than relaxed. Waiting for reform before addressing a known funding shortfall or deferred maintenance issue is not a safe strategy. It is more sensible to get current planning right and adjust later if and when new requirements commence.

Will by-law enforcement become easier for bodies corporate under the reforms?

Streamlining enforcement and dispute resolution is a theme raised in consultation, but no specific mechanism has been finalised into law at this stage. Bodies corporate should continue to use the existing dispute resolution pathway under the Act, keep by-laws valid and current, and apply them consistently, since those fundamentals will matter under any version of the framework.

How should a developer planning a new scheme respond to the reform discussion?

Developers should not wait for final legislation before improving disclosure practices and initial fund planning, since both are already areas of scrutiny under the current framework and are consistently flagged in reform discussion as needing improvement. Structuring the project properly, disclosing clearly to early purchasers, and setting a realistic initial sinking fund reduce risk regardless of the ultimate content of any amendment.

If you are a body corporate, committee member, developer or owner dealing with a governance, by-law, funding or disclosure issue in a Queensland community titles scheme, contact GRM LAW to discuss your specific situation.

Disclaimer: This is general information only and is not legal advice. For advice on your circumstances, contact GRM LAW.