I’ll confess I really didn’t know how to start this article. The government’s proposed changes to tenancy law, the latest in the Qld rental reforms announced this week, are truly mind-blowing. And I’ll do my best to describe them without sounding melodramatic and over the top. On any measure they are a massive ‘leap to the left’ in policy making and a highly socialist view of investment. And we believe Queensland landlords will exit the market in big numbers. A shortage of rental homes, far greater scrutiny of tenant applications and increased rents are inevitable.
Tenants decide they’d like a pet? Landlords won’t be able to simply reject the request. Tenants feel they’d like a different paint colour in the property? Same deal – they can go ahead and landlords can’t unreasonably refuse. If there’s an emergency repair needed a tenant will be able to spend 4 weeks’ rent on it, double the current limit. Yes dear landlord, that’s your money. As you’ll read below there’s plenty more like these in the government’s plans.
But the most worrying change? The one that (loaded onto many erosions of their rights) will break the camel’s back for many investors? Landlords will no longer be able to ask a tenant to leave without a valid reason, effectively granting them an option to stay in your property indefinitely.
It may be your property, one you’ve saved and sacrificed to buy and hold, but you are about to lose a significant number of your fundamental rights as a property owner. Here’s some of the details and links so you can tell the government what you think:
Reform One: “Ending tenancies fairly”.
Unless a tenant commits clear breaches a landlord will have tightly limited options to ask them to leave. Your tenant can stay for life. And a reminder we’re not talking about during a fixed term lease – these reforms are about what happens after that initial 6 or 12 months.
Like your property vacant so you can decorate and prepare it for sale? Sorry – you can only ask the tenants to go after it’s actually sold (and that contract is subject to them vacating.) Would your family like to move into the home? Okay, but only if they’re immediate family (no nieces going to uni nearby) and you supply the tenant a stat dec. Need to do a significant renovation or repair? You can ask the tenants to move but only after you provide them with evidence you’ve accepted quotes for the work.
It’s an ironic name they’ve given this particular reform, given the government’s own paper says removing a landlord’s right to end a lease without grounds, “may potentially breach the fundamental legislative principle that legislation must have sufficient regard to individual’s rights and liberties”. You might find it interesting to know the government has excluded its own public housing from this reform…
Why the drastic change? The government says there is a “prevalence of retaliatory evictions“. Landlords who, for example, react to maintenance requests from tenants by booting them out. So let’s look at the stats they quote. Apparently of the 28,000 dispute resolution requests to the RTA in 2017-2018 there were 4% about ending tenancies. Tenants Queensland’s own complaint caseload had just 5% relating to terminating without grounds. And by the way, there is already provision in the current Act to stop those 4-5% of landlords allegedly doing the wrong thing.
Landlords will always want to keep a tenant if the relationship is working for both sides. The cost of changeover is high, there’s always a vacancy risk and an unknown tenant to come in. Landlords only end a tenancy if they are very unhappy and the average tenancy getting longer is a big win-win.
This reform has been in the wind for some time and you can see our readers’ comments in 2012, 2016 and again last year. One great example: “Owners should have the right not to renew a fixed term lease. At times tenants become ‘difficult’ in terms of demands or behaviour, not sufficient to create a breach but becoming awkward continuously. At that point, although the owner may lose funds in the changeover, it can be beneficial long term.” The government is about to remove a landlord’s right to choose.
REIQ’s Antonia Mercorella explains this issue in 80 seconds:
Here’s the full 171 page Regulatory Impact Statement (that’s apparently called “consultation” and the deadline is December 28th…) or just do the survey on this reform. You’ll need to create a login but it’s quick so please make the effort. Or email the Premier.
Reform Two: “Renting with pets”.
Landlords won’t be able to stop a tenant bringing in a pet unless they can argue reasonable grounds for refusing (and provide evidence to the tenant). Many of Bees Nees Realty’s landlord clients currently allow pets because they know it broadens their tenant market. They roll the dice on the risks to increase their property’s appeal. There’s no extra bond to cover any damage they cause as the government says your current 4 week’s bond is enough. (And yes we’ve seen some horror stories over the years – chewed door frames, widespread scratches to timber floors, destroyed gardens, shredded curtains and furniture). The reform would allow a limited extra bond of $250 to cover pest control only.
It’s a controversial topic. Interestingly the paper quotes a Qld Health finding that 13% of Queenslanders have an allergy and “cat allergen is known to be especially difficult to eradicate from a property… and can remain in a home for up to six months.” Isn’t this a form of damage, limiting the property’s rental appeal?
Today legislation already allows tenants and landlords to mutually agree to keeping a pet. For some reason this government thinks they need a “framework to meaningfully communicate”. Shouldn’t they be honest that it’s simply another removal of a landlord’s ownership rights?
Have your say by doing the survey on this reform. You’ll need to create a login but it’s quick so please make the effort. Or email the Premier.
Reform Three: “Minor modifications”.
So your tenants want different taps in the bathroom, to paint a wall, to change the light fittings or pop a satellite dish on the roof? They can give 7 days notice then go right ahead unless their landlord (you guessed it) gives reasonable grounds to refuse. And if you miss the 7 day deadline you’re deemed to agree.
The paper admits these “might create substantial damage to properties which may not be covered by bond”. Ahh, yep! And how does this work in apartments with common property not under the control of the landlord? One body corp expert’s already questioned whether tenants might be granted rights not enjoyed by owner-occupiers!
Once again, the current legislation already covers much of this: a landlord today cannot unreasonably reject requests. All this change will do is further force their hand.
Have your say by doing the survey on this reform. You’ll need to create a login but it’s quick so please make the effort. Or email the Premier.
Reform Four: “Minimum housing standards”.
For many years property managers, through the Real Estate Institute of Qld (REIQ) have called for specific standards in rental housing and clearer requirements for landlords. You only need to read the coronial report into Isabella Diefenbach’s tragic death to know that, even with safe homes mandated by current laws, there are gaps in the system for reporting and acting on maintenance.
But allowing a tenant to spend the equivalent of 4 week’s rent on an emergency repair does seem excessive and we’ve rarely seen a bill that could justify this change. The changes demonstrate this government really does not understand what goes on in the rental market. For example, these new standards would mandate inclusion of a cooktop and kitchen sink in every rental. We have managed several inner-city studio apartments that didn’t have either – and the affordable rent made them ideal for certain tenants.
The greatest danger in legislating minimum standards is the reduction in rental housing supply. It’s a delicate balance.
Have your say by doing the survey on this reform. You’ll need to create a login but it’s quick so please make the effort. Or email the Premier.
Reform Five: “Domestic and family violence (DFV) protections”.
Every Queenslander wants to see more done to help those in genuine need and anyone experiencing domestic violence has an obvious need to move home and to move quickly. The reform says an authorised professional such as a doctor or social worker would certify the situation, and the vast majority of landlords would agree with the proposal to allow these tenants to give 7 days’ notice and go. Similarly allowing an effected tenant to change the locks without waiting for landlord approval makes sense. Some of these reforms have the potential to save lives.
The changes do go further. A tenant experiencing domestic violence “would not be liable for property damage or rent arrears during the tenancy caused by acts of DFV against them”.
Have your say by doing the survey on this reform. You’ll need to create a login but it’s quick so please make the effort. Or email the Premier.
So what’s your opinion on the changes? We say they’re an extensive erosion of landlords’ rights and there’ll be less investment in property as a direct result. Ironically at a time this same housing minister has 22,200 applicants on his public housing waiting list, including more than 2,000 known to be at risk of domestic violence.
Do you think Queensland’s tenants should be concerned too? When supply drops rents rise. And with far tighter constraints on landlords there will be far more scrutiny of tenant applications and, regrettably, increased discrimination seems inevitable.
Please share your thoughts – and if you want the government to hear your voice you only have until December 28th to act.
Appauled! Won’t get my vote anymore.
tenant should not have right to modifications on house their own.
really? I did not know. This is serious. Thank you for your information and your businesses important message . I get your emails and read them , not because I am a client but because I can see you run a good business. This message is alarming and I am days away from a purchase. I will research more now thank you. Keep up the good work.
Oh, no!!! I didn’t know I would be facing the same issues I had with my investment in France!!! I am out of here asap. Thanks for the update.
After reading this, and reading the proposed PDFs that you actually supplied, I regard this blog post as an opinion post and not in any real way a factual representation of what is actually planned.
I have sent this info onto a friend in NSW that own a property on the Gold Coast
Interstate owners have no idea that this is going on .
Thanks for the information. I was hunting for a second apartment in Brisbane but now I decided not to proceed. The government should not interfere with private businesses as long as investors pay tax honestly. Moreover govt. shouldn’t put their nose into private legal matters as they have many important things to do. I am disappointed as the reform will create a mischievous tendency.
As ‘Mum and Dad’ investors of 3 rental properties in QLD if this reform is passed we will be looking to sell. It will take our fundamental right as the OWNER of the property, that we have worked hard and sacrificed for away from us. If other like minded investors do the same the government will have a huge housing crisis on their hands. If this reform is as good as the government makes out why then does it not apply to public housing. Just ridiculous
I was thinking of purchasing a small rental unit. In FNQLD but I will now look else where? I not purchasing for a tenet to redecorate it to thier liking if they don’t like it then they shouldn’t apply!
Agree with Chez Watts that this blog is an opinion and not a factual representation of the proposed changes. This article is designed to make headlines.
This is shockingly misleading fear-mongering and I think it’s very disappointing to see Bees Nees spreading this kind of misinformation about reforms which are straightforward, balanced and likely to serve the interests of both landlords and tenants.
Thanks for your comments Jonathan. As a public promoter of introducing rent controls we’d have been surprised if you could see a landlord’s or agents’ perspective as reasonable. But being an elected representative (as our area’s local councillor – you omitted your surname from your comment Mr Sri) we’d hope you would appreciate everyone being able to have a say on a major reform like this. A reform the govt admits will lead to rent increases. It would be helpful if you can tell us what is misleading or misinformation in what we’ve written. We took the time to read the 171 page “consultation”.
Agree with Chez Watts – this article is propaganda fodder for amateur property investors, cherry picking and using some worst case scenarios to benefit their cause. Anyone who has ever rented enough places in their life will know the infinite joys (sarcasm) of dealing with Landlords, Real Estate Agencies, Property Managers and Owners. Some states already have better rental laws or will be implementing them in the next year. Do the world and yourself a favour – don’t believe everything you read, and do your research.
The system is overweighted in favour of tenants. It should be an even playing field. Just look at the penalties for Landlords versus penalties to tenants.
QCAT is in crisis, it’s a joke.
It’s the labor politics of envy, as usual.
I’m getting out of property, use my money where I, not bureaucrats, have control.
I’ll never vote labor, ever.
For those agreeing with Chez Watts, all of the scenarios put forward are possible under one or more of the options put forward by the government in the attached PDFs.
The idea is to contact the government and let them know which of the proposed reforms you can’t live with BEFORE they become law.
I was a renter for most of my life and a landlord for much less. I have an appreciation for both sides.
Thank you for the update. This is terrible and will destroy the Investor property market as they will no longer have full ownership of their property. The people criticizing this as “propaganda” or “misinformation” are the people who want to take advantage of these unfair rules at other people’s expense.
Owners losing their rightful control and ownership over their property. This is absolutely terrible. It will cause rentals to go up (to cover risk, damage to property etc) just to make it worth having an investment property. A lot of people will not want to invest in rental properties due to the risk, giving tenants less options furthering demand and further increasing rentals. Its a lose, lose for every party involved. When will Labor wake up? Hopefully common sense will prevail.
I am a landlord and I don’t have a major problem. I will just increase rents to compensate. The only people who will get hurt are dodgy landlords and tenants who will ALL have to pay more rent. Why would the government mess with this. Makes no sense.
I just had the worst experience with my tenants in regards to making structural changes without my knowledge. Tenants then breached again. I just sold my investment property because of it. They did not place the property back to its original state as agreed. A total waste of my time and money. Never again!!
As landlord of 5 properties in QLD, I strongly object to the proposed changes. I see no other option but to sell all properties whenever vacant. On 24 Dec. I received an email from Hon. Mick de Brenni MP,Minister for Housing and Public Works, informing me of the proposed changes and inviting my submission by 8 Jan. !!
Timing is fascinating , as most professionals take time off these 2 weeks.
You are an alarmist fool!! Try telling the truth backed with actual facts in your articles you moron🤬🤯
I believe these key proposed reforms are unconstitutional under the section 51(xxxi) of the Australian Constitution and have the substantial effects of depriving of one’s property under the section 24 of the Human Rights Act (QLD) 2019.
Traditional lease contract is an agreement reached by both tenant(s) and the landlord for a fixed term stipulated in the contract. The rights conferred by the landlord to the tenant(s) is the temporary possession right for the fixed term, not the ownership rights.
1. The abolishment of a landlord’s right to not renew a tenancy at the end of an agreed term has the essential effect of equating tenant(s)’ possession rights with the landlord’s ownership rights by extending the possession rights indefinitely at the tenant(s)’ options. Although under certain approved reasons a landlord can terminate the lease, however this proposed change operates on a “first-removal of rights” basis with limited exceptions. And this shift of legal onus has deprived one’s property under the section 24 of the Human Rights Act (QLD) 2019: a person must not be arbitrarily deprived of the person’s property.
The State Government proposes these reforms to ensure safety and fairness in the community, however the abolishment of a landlord’s right unlikely directly correlates with the safety aspect of the community but on the contrary defeats the fairness objective of the reforms. By fundamentally stripping off the landlord’s ownership rights outright, this will have arbitrarily deprived the person’s of his/her property.
2. As for the removal of a landlord’s decision-making ability regarding pets, please find attached two photos: IMG_Before Lease and IMG_After Lease, showing the permanent damages by pets to a brand new carpet only after a 6-month lease (even after professional carpet cleaning). These sort of damages are permanent and cannot be repaired even by a pet bond, unless the bond is held for the purpose of a carpet replacement altogether.
Tenants make their conscious decisions to or not to own and keep pets, and these voluntary choices are not made under duress or hardship. It is unfair to the landlords that the tenants’ arbitrary pets decisions result in deprivation of the owner’s property decision (unless by the owner’s consent), and such choice should only be catered for by a landlord who is willing to take on such potential damage risks.
I personally am compassionate on animals, however, how do the reform safeguard against irresponsible tenants from negligent custodianship of pets, especially multiple pets.
If you have three toddlers in your house, you have dapers for the children. For additional tenants, the tenants would also require the owner’s consent. The reform creates a significant loophole for pets without consents, which are much more difficult to manage.
Again, the correlation between the removal of a landlord’s decision-making ability regarding pets and the reform objectives of safety and fairness is uncertain as to be justified by the State Government, and I would like to seek clarification from the State Government on such correlation and the supporting justifications.
3. The unrestricted ability for tenants to make modifications to personalise the rental accommodation unreasonably disregards the landlord’s long term objective with respect to his/her own property. Such un-consented modification constitutes such acts as illegal under common law and is usually liable for entitlement for remedy such as damage compensation: e.g. in Tabcorp v Bowen (2009) 235 CLR 64 where the landlord was awarded $1.38M damage to restore the property to original condition after the tenant disregarded landlord’s rights and commenced modifying part of the premise at costs of only $35K. The modifications could be minor, however the restoration could likely be costly.
This proposed reform is making legal of such unapproved/unconsented acts which would otherwise be illegal, but in addition unreasonably deprives the landlord of his rightful entitlements to substantial damage due to a modification, which can be significantly inconsistent and deviant with his/her ownership objective. As such, such modifications by tenants and this proposed change will arbitrarily and substantially deprive the landlord’s property and his/her rights to compensation.
The State government claims the reform sets a standard for property conditions that an estimated 94% of properties already meet. However, it is unjustified that this standard for property conditions are necessary or just good to have. It is also unfair to make these condition mandatory responsibilities to property owners for both the 94% or the remining 6%.
Without just compensation by the tenants and/or the State, these proposed reforms arbitrarily impose substantial adverse structural alterations to the landlord’s fundamental rights in the QLD, and hence unconstitutional. Such property rights are rightfully entitled to the owners, who have committed large deposits and incurred funding/borrowing costs, for which the benefits the tenants have been enjoying already. The effect of removal of the owner’s substantive rights essentially passes these rights over to the tenants while the owners are committed to fulfil their existing financial obligations, as the tenant(s)’ possession rights indefinitely under the proposed reforms would override landlords’ ownership rights at the tenant(s)’ discretion.
Injustice of the Reform
The reforms propose to legalise certain rights of tenants with a QLD statue, which are otherwise not permitted currently under contract law and common law. In doing that, the reforms threaten to infringe upon fundamental individual rights in relation to property rights.
Our Constitution and existing human rights protections require all public powers capable of restricting such rights to be clearly and carefully limited to avoid the danger of it being exercised arbitrarily or disproportionately.
With owners’ fundamental rights or freedoms essentially abrogated or curtailed by these specific reform initiatives (alone and collectively), the unjust and unfair aspects have not been mentioned by the QLD State Government.
The State Government has been stressing on fairness in these reforms. However, the legitimate aims of fairness and stability should be further scrutinized to examine that the State Government actually intends to annul the fundamental rights and liberties of property owners.
For example: the reform has the effect to force owner to rent to the same tenants indefinitely (except for limited reasons). Is it fair and necessary?
If the notice period is sufficient, how is it unfair? Unless the notice period is not sufficient, the reform initiatives represent substantive removal of ability to deploy his property
Fundamental rights and socio-economic policies
The QLD government should distinguish between fundamental rights and socio-economic policies. The former encompasses uncompromisable rights; any restriction of which should be regarded as “disproportionate” unless justifiable as no more than a “minimal impairment.”
Without clear evidence and argument to substantial the reforms, the reform initiatives are only social-welfare or social-economic policy at most.
From the Property manager type chart in the RIS, the QLD government are only responsible for 9.5% of accommodation, which highlights the State government substantial under-investment expenditure to address the potential social shortage.
The owner community provides substantial community benefits in covering this gap by providing large capital upfront, funding the ongoing financial commitments and maintenance. Recent bushfire crisis demonstrates well the ownership risk that this group bears compared to tenants.
The reforms will strip off all the essential rights of property owners, and all that is left to them is only their financial obligations, extra maintenance commitments and ownership risks.
The reform initiatives go way more extreme than necessary to achieve the legitimate objective in question and the impairments are not minimal.
The reform has the effect of disguising the outright deprivation of owners’ fundamental property rights to make up for the government under-funding in the name of fairness without substantiating concrete arguments with any justifications.
This asymmetry of the reform initiatives is turning private ownership into long-term accommodations for someone else.
While renters have choices to rent wherever they want from the rental market, however, The reforms limits their choice in how the individual owners their property represent their entire assets in proportionate term except for approved reasons.
If the notice period is sufficiently provided, how is this arrangement unfair to any party? Unless the notice period is not sufficient, the substantive removal of ability to deploy his property
Once the landlord leased out to one tenant, s/he no longer has any choice to rent out the property to anyone else, except for his/her family and/or other restricted reasons.
Significant Sample Bias
The survey of over 135,000 has a strong bias towards the tenant population with almost 80% participation rate of the sample.
If this ratio holds true the approximation of the underlying proportion of the owners and tenants population, this reflects the minority nature of the private owners in supporting the accommodation needs in QLD.
It is questionable in the reform that these restrictions of the fundamental rights of this minority are rationally connected with one or more of the legitimate purposes.
The QLD Government attempts to justify the reforms by the response of majority of the sample (e.g. with the majority being tenants). Without regards of the fundamental rights of owner population, this utilitarian approach with significant sample bias will only motivate the reform by populism.
Apart from the sample results, there has not been any substantial evidence and clear argument that the reforms would enhance the fairness for the renters but there is clear evidence and argument that the owner’s rights will be deprived arbitrarily.
While renters have choice to rent wherever they want from a market pool of rental properties, however, The reforms limits their choice in how the individual owners their property represent their entire assets in proportionate term except for approved reasons.
For example: the reform has the effect to force owner to rent to the same tenants indefinitely. Is it fair? Is it necessary?
There is an inherent asymmetric unfair bias against the property owner community and a favourable bias towards renters which would benefit from these reform initiatives at substantial expenses of the owners’ rights.
Market Disruption
From a social-economic perspective, why would anyone in QLD need to ever buy a house? It is structurally disruptive to the property industry. Basically, there is no reason anyone who moves to QLD or moves out of the home to purchase and own a property in their lifetime, as the proposed rental arrangement for life provides a cheap alternative to paying a heavy home deposit and financing costs under a long-term commitment.
In this sense, what is the motivation to property investment, let alone home purchase? By these reforms, the government is turning private investments into a social housing-like arrangements to solve social issues (responsible by the State) instead of keeping development approval in line with the population demand and first home subsidies. This is robbing Peter for Paul.
At the individual ownership level, this minor modification destroys investment value. If tenants became eligible to decide to make a modification at their pleasure, e.g. paint the wall red to personalise their rental accommodation, the landlord most likely has to repaint the house after the lease termination as this personalised modification does not suit the liking of the general public. This reform denies the landlord’s rights for any compensation.
Without reasonable justification, the means used to impair the property rights must be no more than is necessary to accomplish the legitimate purpose in question. However, in this case, many substantial fundamental rights of the owners population are deprived by these social welfare initiatives.
Hence, the reforms have the effect of promoting popular initiatives which is not necessary, but at the great deprivation of owners’ rights. At such, they counter the intended purpose of fairness and stability for this reform.
IN THE PROPOSED FORMAT THESE REFORMS ARE STUPID.
IN THE PROPOSED FORMAT THESE REFORMS ARE NOT FAIR FOR EITHER SIDE.
I own properties in NSW and Qld. I think these changes are sensible and welcome them. Supporting people facing domestic violence, less companion animals having to be surrendered, housing stability for tenants? Go right head please.
It is extremely unfair that 95% of landlords who do the right thing are being punished because of the behaviour of 5% of landlords. Another example of the minority rules.
I am particularly concerned about the ‘minor modifications’ and who can implement them. Who will enforce that only qualified tradepeople will perform these modifications?
Certainly time to seriously consider whether we want to continue to own an investment property.
Madam Premier,
I write to object in the strongest possible terms to your Government’s proposed re-writing of the residential tenancy laws in this State, and especially to the proposal to remove the landlord’s ability to terminate a residential tenancy without cause.
I hope I may express my concerns forthrightly. It grieves me to make the following uncharitable comments. But they reflect my genuinely held views, speaking as one who has been closely following the Australian property market for many decades, and as a (very small time, and not especially successful) ‘mom and pop’ property investor.
I have only ever invested in Queensland real estate, and have recently divested myself of most of my (derisorily small) real estate holdings.
‘And thank God for that’ I am now tempted to add. It seems to me that I am being treated as a pariah, and being constantly targeted by Labor administrations of all types. I’m now seriously considering getting rid of every bit of real estate I still own. I suspect many other small property investors will be thinking the same thing – especially once the full enormity of the Government’s foreshadowed changes become more widely known.
If this happens, it will be very bad for our State, surely?
Actions have consequences, Ma’am. I understand that, typically, when an investor sells, that property will be purchased by an owner occupier. If Queensland property investors start selling en masse (and I think they probably will – we small investors are very easily spooked) there will obviously follow a dramatic shrinkage of available properties for rent in Queensland, along with increasing rents. The demands on public sector housing will increase exponentially, and more (lots more) public money will be needed, to make up the rental housing shortfall..
It makes no fiscal sense whatever to be imposing these tenancy changes, but it does demonstrate ideological purity. I guess that’s the important thing.
It’s long appeared to me axiomatic that the Labor Party despises those who save and invest, and does everything possible to penalize such people. Investing in residential property is the most popular investment vehicle in Australia, but, again, it seems clear to me that, in Labor’s view, we retrograde individuals who attempt to do so must be punished, and shown the error of our ways.
It does not matter which level of Government Labor controls. Sadly, it now also appears to me, Labor will always use any powers at its disposal to penalize private landlords, and to punish those who seek to improve their financial situation.
To illustrate:
Federal:
At the recent Federal election, Labor foreshadowed an intention to double the rate of the capital gains tax (which is already levied at one of the most punitively high rates in the developed world, while making no allowance for inflation) and to partially abolish negative gearing.
Fortunately (in my view) the Australian people rejected these proposals.
When Wayne Swan was Federal Treasurer, he prevented pretty much every individual who owned negatively geared real estate from claiming the Family Allowance. Was this just Labor vindictiveness, masquerading as social justice? Because their properties were negatively geared, these property investors (with small children) not only earned no income from their property, they also had to pay an after tax loss, out of their own after tax income. They were solely reliant on a possibly illusory capital appreciation, to make the investment sustainable long term. So why were their children seen as less deserving of Government assistance than the children of others , including those others who make no effort to save, Invest or contribute anything.
State:
State Labor administrations have progressively changed tenancy laws over the years, making them more and more anti-landlord. This latest tenancy law re-write is simply a more extreme version of what has gone before, under Labor. Politics truly is the Art of the Possible. Labor’s tenancy law changes have been incremental, stretching over several terms in Government, way back to its initial changes to the old Residential Tenancies Act of 1975. Once these latest changes have been implemented, no doubt with zero resistance from a supine State Opposition and the tacit approval of an uncritical and ideologically blinkered media, I assume rent controls will be next on this Government’s agenda. This is certainly what Labor’s Green-left wing is agitating for, so, one must assume, that is what will ultimately happen.
Queensland Labor’s recent changes to the State Land Tax rules also disadvantage many Queensland home owners and property investors, in specifically targeting those whose circumstances oblige them to live overseas for a reasonably extended period. Why? Many of the Queensland real estate owners now caught in Labor’s Land Tax net remain domiciled in Queensland, but are treated almost as though they are absentee foreign landlords. Labor also makes no effort to adjust Land Tax exemption levels. Soon every investment property owner will be caught in the Land Tax trap, even those who only own one investment property (which is most of us).
Local:
Even Labor controlled Local Authorities are doing their bit to punish the property investor. When Jim Soorley controlled the Brisbane City Council, he introduced the tiered rating system, where investors are rated at a different level to home owners. Predictably, this has resulted in Brisbane property investors always being charged higher Council rates, than those paid by owner occupiers.
This proposed legislation, on my understanding, will prove to be be an utter disaster, both for property owners, and for tenants. I know personally of a shared house situation ( involving some of my adult children) where one of the tenants is impossible to live with. He treats the female housemates with rudeness and contempt, he has drug and mental health issues. He sits around the house all day, as he is unemployed. He makes no effort to get a job. However, he always pays his share of the rent on time. So, I assume that, once Labor’s legislation comes into force, it will be impossible for any one ever to evict him.
Under Labor, it seems an inescapable conclusion that only a fool would continue to invest in Queensland residential property. The message seems to be that all private owners had better get rid of their properties as soon as they can.
With the mass exit of the private landlord, it will then be necessary for the Government to take over the Queensland residential market totally. I can’t help wondering: Is this precisely the result the Government intends?
Question – If a tenant alters a property with ‘minor modifications’ without approval or consent of the landlord …how do we know if a licenced trades person completed the alteration ? If say a wall that had been erected by the tenant or by their direction and it collapses and hurts someone or causes damage …is it covered by landlord insurance …who pays ?
What if the modifications a tenant has performed on the property they rent are not performed by a qualified professional and these modifications cause the property to burn down? Is the property still covered by insurance? What if these modifications performed by a unqualified person cause their neighbouring property to burn down as well? Insurance companies won’t want to cover that risk. How are these new Qld laws different to laws in other states? Tenants would probably have to pick the cheapest quote which may not be the best job. I don’t think real estate agents will check to see if tradesperson is qualified. Can real estate agents state that tenants have to use from their list of tradespeople? Can a landlord rent out a property for a short time e.g. 6 months and then move back into their property? I have seen some rental backyards and carpets destroyed by dogs as big as a young pony! Are landlords protected if tenants lie? Are landlords protected if tenants use their rental property as a drug lab, e.g. meth lab?
Interesting to read the comments from tenants. They are tenants because they are living off people like us, that work and save, buy property so they can have a roof over their heads. I wonder how many ot these writers are on the Dole??
In someways I hope these laws are implemented, to see how they cope when there are a shortage of rentals, and the rents increase. The left bogans are killing Australia, and indeed the world.
I own a house in Brisbane with a tenant who has been there over 4 years. They can live there as long they want but if new laws proposed are put into place i will put the house up for sale asap. I feel as a landlard i provide a home for someone can’t afford to buy but i need some safeguards as a landlord.
The proposed reforms are very problematic for landlords on many fronts. Ideologically government would like to be able to shape the private market to reduce the number of people seeking social housing assistance and dependence on welfare. While this may be commendable, their intrusion into peoples financial decisions and investments is tantamount to yet another form of social engineering that has far reaching unintended consequences. Mum & Dad investors would be the first to feel the pinch. The reforms do not take into account the current climate of low interest rates, low wage growth, low rentals and increasing property prices. These factors are the “primary consideration” for investors that have to be balanced against the “day-to-day” aspects of tenancy and property management as well as holding costs associated with the property. The addition of a raft of new tenancy reforms that reduce the landlords ability to “adjust” their investment decisions could severely effect future and existing investment decisions should any of the “primary considerations” change. For example, should interest rates and wage rises continue to fall it will be harder to achieve rental returns that are able to sustain the additional costs levied via direct property taxes, utilities, insurance (increasing council rates, water rates, insurance etc..). Now add new reforms … the consequences are that landlord may want to “up the rent” but may not be able to do so as wages have not risen. This may result in “selling”. Now if enough landlords do this there could be a flood of properties on the market that could precipitate a crash. Tax revenues will decrease (less CGT), more people seeking rental properties that are not there, more builders out of work etc… It sounds alarmist … But let me tell you this I lived overseas and had investment properties that I “boarded up” and kept empty rather than hand over my rights to “tenants”. In the end I sold them all made a small loss. Far more preferable than what happened to some of my friends who held on to their … rents barely cover expenses and they are lucky to get any tenant out…
In case anyone’s interested I have just discovered that the government housing scheme are RENTING PUBLIC HOUSES through private real estate agents at the average prices for that area and tenants are paying full rent and must pay full bond. At first I didn’t believe it and spent about 3 months investigating this only to find it is true. Minister de Brenni and the Premier are well aware and their excuse was “Asset Management Strategy decided some properties are better off being sourced out to private real estate agents”. How appalling when we have families desperate for a roof over their heads only to be told “sorry there are no public houses available”. What a disgusting practice by the government. A sleep out was organised so the public could sleep out and experience what homelessness is like. What a joke that turned out to be. This information is 100% correct and I’m getting the media involved so the people who are in dire straits can see what the government really think of them when they put money before desperate people in need of a home.
Why should renting a house be any different to renting a car or a motel room. In each case you can’t modify the asset and at the end of the period you return/vacate the asset. Landlord’s need to get organised and stop being walked over. A rental property is a business and should be treated the same way as any other business. If the government wants to help tenants then build social housing and leave the private rental market alone. It’s already grossly over-regulated.
This reform/new law is totally a joke!
Does anyone know if these are actually coming into effect this year? I have seen that VIC comes into effect soon but cannot find a single thing that confirms the QLD changes are also.
Hi Ally. We understand the Qld Government are still finalising the bill to put before parliament. So there’s no confirmed start date as yet – and hopefully still time for changes!
There is no need for the heavy hand of government here. Landlords will do much to keep a good tenant – it’s in their interest to do so. This is really about removing private property rights and transferring those rights to the govt because “govt know best”. The socialists amongst us may hate it but private property rights are fundamental to personal freedom. If I cannot rent my property to a willing renter in the manner I see fit, then I don’t have rights over the product of my hard work. Those rights now increasingly belong to others. Why would I work hard only to have the government increasingly turn the product of my work over to benefit of others? Thats the opposite of freedom – that’s slavery.
What garbage. I am a landlord, my wife and I have worked very hard to purchase our second property that is tenanted. We have a very large mortgage on the second property which we have decided to take on hoping in our retirement it pays off. I am lost for words reading this article. It’s a loss of our civil rights as landlords. Can’t wait to see the huge increase in rents driven by a massive shortage. I can’t see us staying on as landlords. What will the government do after they create this huge shortage of affordable housing.
With governments changes that the owner of the property has no say in anything to do with my property I will wait till the contract runs out then I will lock house and the government will be the ones who will create a shortage .The damage that’s been done to property with something to say before and having nothing to say now I can only shudder.
Are we in a democratic country or are we in China?How can the government or the tenant dictate terms on a property that they don’t own? Next thing they will say if the tenant had been renting the property for more than a certain time they can’t be evicted or have the right to buy it for a lower price. Our hard earned investment being robbed from us by the socialist government.
We have been renting this property for six years, we have never been late with rent and have kept the the property in good order but sadly the landlord has not always attended to repairs. It is an older home so things are starting to go wrong, regularly. So we have decided to move and are looking for a house that will take our two little dogs. We paid well over $600 per week in this property and are willing to pay up to $750 a week in our next place, we have found a few places but pets aren’t allowed. I have my elderly mother and disabled sister as part of my family and our dogs mean a lot to them and our family. By not allowing pets, landlords are discriminating against people. Your house rental is a business and if you don’t want people to use the house as their own home for a happy life, don’t rent it out.
Hell will freeze over before I or any of my family or close friends vote labour again. That’s a certainty.
As a tenant, I feel that we are class a cash cow for your lifestyle. I should not have to live is a run-down house with old broken light fixers the place need to be whole new electoral and plumbing job. and you demand that I pay 350 for a 2 bedroom house with a leaking roof. broken up titles mould grows every 6 months and I have to wash the ceiling down to stop mould returning. no security screen which is so much fun cooking dinner and been attack by moths . while you are complaining about making money the fact is you want people to rent in your place than you make sure it is fit for what you would live in if you are renting it. i would never paint the walls of someone house. but if you have it look like a dump than you are going to get people that will treat it as a dump. it an investment that takes pride in the place upkeep is not hard if you can’t afford it than investment in property is not for you. maybe invest in better real estate that going to have pride in looking after your house than lied to you. yes, I know they don’t give a hoot who they put in just as you get money. I watch an adult with three boys trash a house in three weeks since they move in. but outside they mow so you don’t know their holes in the wall as trade people come every week to fix the damage. the landlord should take part in the inspection so they can see what going on. my mother rents she keeps her place as neat a tiny but another tenant could give a hoot they dump rubbish everywhere the past landlord made the units so neat and tidy until the real estate put in the worst tenants one had three cats and dog trash the hell out of the yard took three years to make it nice. in my case. now it looks like a dump .but you don’t thank the tenant that doing the right thing pays their rent on time look after the place you just push the rent up to make it that hard to pay so the tenant moves out than 6 month no tenant moves you have to sell up due to your investment is so out of date and the new one is coming on the market and tenant like new places not run down death traps. if you are lazy to upkeep your place then you should get burn. plus i be happy if the state government introduce build inspection every year and you must fix the issue or your house is not worth renting out. that way it saves you for going to court .
I’m bewildered by what I’ve read here, the article and the comments.
I’m a landlord in another country, maintain my house to preserve its value and treat my tenants with respect. In 12 years of rental I have had 3 months of vacancy period. Never had a missed payment. When I came to Queensland I was on a temporary visa and had to rent. Although I was paying too dollar, it was a horrendous experience – poor or no maintenance, significant problems (dangerous wiring), screens not maintained. My husband had to do constant repairs (fix doors etc) to keep us safe. Thankfully we now own a house here but I’d had a gut full of lazy entitled landlords trying to make a quick buck without responsibility. Interstate landlords were the worse – buying and renting properties unseen and treating us as their cash cows. Inspections every 12 weeks eating up your annual leave allocation! If these changes force unscrupulous landlords out of business, then bring it on. We are talking about people’s homes – it’s not all about your pension – and if they are responsible pet owners then manage the risk. As for all of you threatening to dump properties – bring it on, there are loads of buyers waiting to snap them up. There will always be a place for responsible landlords and hopefully these changes will get rid of a lot of cowboys.
What happened to the laws in the end? Were they modified, passed as is, or did Covid come through and delay everything before they were enacted into law?
COVID saw them put on ice in 2020 Philip, but we do expect they’ll be resurrected shortly. The government appointed a new Housing Minister so we are hopeful there’ll be a more realistic approach this time around. As always, it’ll be important for landlords to speak up so their voices are heard.
Good.
Real estate hoarding has destroyed the opportunity for many to buy a home by inflating house prices to obscene levels, and now as we’ve seen, inflating rental costs to accommodate.
So if people want to continue buying houses to make money on instead of living in, then sure, they can do this.
But people still need homes to live in permanently, with all of life joys such as pets. Pets should not be a commodity enjoyed only by those rich enough to afford a home in the absurd market we currently have.
There is zero reason for a house to go from 100k value to 1mil value over 10 years just because people want to treat them as investments instead of a necessity for life.
Maybe by making being a landlord less appealing this will help people buy their first home – to actually live in, instead of to treat as a money making scheme.
And landlords can invest in things not necessary for life, such as stock, like everyone else.
Heres to hoping they also introduce the limits on rental pricing increases. Parasites.