thank all members for their contributions and their support for the progressive amendments contained in
this bill. At the outset I want to thank the departmental and ministerial staff for their assistance and
expertise in relation to this bill. These amendments will simplify and refine the residential real estate
contract process in Queensland, delivering benefits to industry as well as to sellers and buyers. These
amendments were developed following feedback from the real estate industry after a number of court
cases arising from the legislation as it currently stands.
The purpose of chapter 11 of the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000, or PAMDA as I
will refer to it, is to provide consumer protection for buyers entering into residential real estate contracts.
Real estate agents operating under the current PAMDA legislation have found some of the provisions to
be too prescriptive and onerous and, as a result, the purpose of them has been overshadowed by a
complicated process that is leading to inadvertent errors. This was highlighted by a review undertaken
by the former Service Delivery and Performance Commission. The government has taken heed of the
recommendations made by the commission and this bill brings to fruition those recommendations
through amendments to chapter 11 of the PAMDA legislation. These consumer protection measures are
mirrored in the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997. The bill also introduces a
number of other red-tape reduction measures in other areas of the PAMDA, most notably streamlining
the application process for a residential letting agent licence.
I thank the member for Mermaid Beach for his support of the bill, although I do not agree with his
speculation that these amendments may give the legal fraternity the opportunity to exploit loopholes—
quite the opposite in fact. As the member himself pointed out, the bill is designed to remove the
opportunity for minor and technical breaches that may give rise to termination of a contract.
I also do not accept the member for Mermaid Beach’s assertion that the government has been
responsible for poorly drafted legislation in this area. The real estate market is ever changing. Demands
of both buyers and sellers change depending on financial circumstances. Sales and marketing
techniques also change over time. It is completely appropriate that the PAMDA be amended as needed
to respond to these changes to ensure that the objectives of the legislation, particularly the consumer
protection objectives, continue to be met. Technology also changes. In the recent past we had to
change legislation as a result of a court case which related to the attachment of documents. When that
legislation was changed it was not contemplated that facsimile machines would be available, and
obviously when you fax documents there is no ability to attach documents. That is an example of where
technology has overtaken the legislation, which then, as a result of a court case, needed to be
amended.
The member for Mermaid Beach described at some length the detail of some of these
amendments over time. It is apparent from his descriptions that the government has been proactive in
ensuring that Queensland’s property agents and motor dealers regulatory environment remains an
effective tool in ensuring a fair and equitable marketplace. Contrary to the member for Mermaid Beach’s
claims, this government has also listened carefully to the industry in developing this bill. He went
through some of the people who were consulted. The department has consulted with key stakeholders
including, for instance, the Real Estate Institute of Queensland and the Queensland Law Society and
has taken their feedback on board.
As was mentioned by the member for Bundaberg, we will be working with the industry to conduct
information sessions throughout the state to ensure best practice in the contract process. The bottom
line is that not everyone will be 100 per cent happy with these amendments. The bill aims to strike a
balance between the needs of all industry stakeholders, including sellers and buyers. I thank the
member for Mudgeeraba for her support of the bill and agree with her statements that these
amendments will give industry greater certainty and clarity about the way it does business.
I thank the member for Kawana for his gracious allowance of the bill. His comment that the bill
corrects the government’s mistakes is simply incorrect. This bill is responding to a number of court
cases, as I mentioned, and the member should understand that it is ultimately up to the courts to
determine cases on their merits. The member for Kawana asked why the requirement about the top
sheet has been removed. The point of these amendments is to simplify the prescriptive requirements of
the PAMDA legislation. To continue to prescribe placing a statement as a top sheet would be contrary to
this aim. However, it will continue to be recommended to sellers and sellers’ agents to maintain this
practice of attaching the warning statement as the top sheet of the proposed contract documents to
maximise opportunity for buyers to sight and sign the warning statement prior to signing the proposed
relevant contract.
The member for Kawana asked me about the cooling-off period in terms of when it starts. It starts
on the day that the buyer receives a copy of the relevant contract and not, as the member suggested,
the day after. The member for Kawana also asked me about the communication of acceptance. This can
occur by any means acceptable in contract law, including orally, written notice, fax or by return signed
contract.
The member for Kawana also referred to clear statements. The proposed amendments contain a
requirement to give a clear statement directing the buyer’s attention to the warning statement and
proposed relevant contract. The proposed amendments give an example of how a clear statement in
writing could be framed. The intention of requiring a clear statement to be given to buyers is to ensure
that their attention is drawn to the important advice and information contained in the warning statement,
as well as to the proposed relevant contract. It has the additional benefit of ensuring that the warning
statement is attached to the proposed relevant contract, as the seller or the seller’s agent cannot draw a
buyer’s attention to a document which is not attached to the proposed relevant contract. If a clear
statement directing the buyer’s attention to the warning statement and proposed relevant contract is not
given, and providing the buyer has not signed the warning statement indicating the buyer’s attention has
been drawn to the documents, the buyer may terminate the contract within 90 days of the formation of
the relevant contract without penalty. Any deposit paid by the buyer must be refunded.
Essentially, the warning statement, when it is signed by the purchaser, is basically conclusive
evidence that the warning has been given. It even says in the buyer’s acknowledgement, which is
essentially a declaration, ‘We have read all sections of the warning statement. We acknowledge that by
signing this warning statement our attention has been directed to the warning statement and the
attached proposed relevant contract by a clear statement. We have signed the warning statement
before we signed the attached proposed contract.’ So it is quite plain that, when they have signed that,
that is an acknowledgement that they have had their attention directed towards that warning statement.
The member for Gaven raised the issue of 90 days. Essentially, short-term contracts typically
extend from 30 to 90 days. Longer term sale contracts can be up to 5½ years. So 90 days was chosen
as the longer period of the shorter term contracts, and that was considered to give parity to all
purchasers.
Opposition members made a number of claims that the government has had to make a number of
amendments to PAMDA over time. I think I have addressed most of those comments. It is ironic that the
member for Bundaberg was full of praise for the amendments proposed in this bill. In terms of other
members such as the member for Hervey Bay, I am not sure what that was about. But as well as I could
understand it, he asked a lot of questions or made statements. I think the answer to all of those
statements or questions is a pineapple. That is the answer.
As I previously noted, these changes have been necessary in order to respond to an everchanging
market. I accept, however, that there is a need for the government to recognise that the
legislation can be simplified even further and I am considering options for how that could be done in the
near future. The bill affirms Queensland as a safe market in which to purchase real estate. The bill is just
another way that the Bligh government is working to simplify life for Queensland businesses—in this
case, the real estate industry—while at the same time ensuring that consumers have their rights
protected. I thank all honourable members for their support of this bill, and I commend the bill to the
House.
Sitting suspended from 6.31 pm to 7.30 pm.
