Body corporate management occupies an unusual position in Queensland property regulation. A professional manager can be engaged to perform important administrative functions for a body corporate, including calling meetings, issuing levy notices, distributing minutes, managing records and, where authorised, dealing with the body corporate’s administrative and sinking funds. Yet there is currently no Queensland occupational licence that a person must obtain before working as a body corporate manager, and no prescribed formal training or qualification that must be completed before entering the profession.
That gap deserves attention because the modern body corporate manager is working in an increasingly specialised environment. Apartment buildings, townhouse developments and mixed-use schemes can involve substantial budgets, insurance arrangements, long-term maintenance programs, complex meeting procedures, contractor engagements, disputes, compliance obligations and records affecting hundreds of individual owners.
Queensland already regulates what body corporate managers must do once they have been engaged. The more difficult policy issue is whether the state should also establish a professional entry standard governing who can provide those services in the first place.
Queensland Body Corporate Managers Are Already Regulated
The absence of occupational licensing should not be confused with an absence of regulation. Most Queensland community titles schemes operate under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 and an applicable regulation module, and body corporate managers engaged under that system have defined legal responsibilities.
Where a scheme has a committee, the body corporate manager is generally engaged to perform functions authorised by the body corporate. Those functions are set out in a written engagement. Managers commonly perform some or all of the functions associated with the secretary and treasurer, including calling meetings, distributing notices and minutes, issuing levy notices, receiving voting papers and managing money where that authority has been delegated.
The manager also becomes a non-voting member of the committee. The existence of the management appointment does not remove the committee’s own authority. Elected committee members continue to exercise their functions within the limits of the legislation, and the manager remains subject to the terms of the engagement and the authority given by the body corporate.
The position can be different where a body corporate is unable to form a committee and appoints a manager under the provisions applying to that situation. A manager appointed on that basis can exercise the functions and powers that would ordinarily be exercised by the committee. That distinction matters when describing how much authority a body corporate manager can hold.
There Is Still No Occupational Entry Gate
The significant gap appears before the engagement begins. Queensland does not currently require a person to hold a body corporate management licence, complete a prescribed qualification or satisfy a formal training requirement before working as a body corporate manager.
This produces an unusual regulatory structure. The law expects a manager to understand the legislation relevant to the functions being performed and requires professional standards of conduct, yet it does not prescribe how that knowledge must be demonstrated before the person starts providing the service commercially.
That is quite different from an occupational licensing system. Licensing can establish minimum competence before entry, identify the people authorised to practise, require continuing professional development, impose suitability requirements and create a direct disciplinary relationship between the practitioner and a regulator.
Queensland instead places considerable importance on the body corporate’s choice of manager, the written management agreement, the statutory code of conduct and the remedies available where an engagement is not being performed properly.
The Existing Code of Conduct Is Significant
Queensland body corporate managers are subject to a statutory code of conduct that forms part of their engagement. It requires a manager to have a good knowledge and understanding of the body corporate legislation and the provisions relevant to the functions being performed.
The code also requires managers to act honestly, fairly and professionally, to act in the body corporate’s best interests where it is lawful to do so, to avoid fraudulent or misleading conduct, to avoid unfairly influencing committee elections or motions and to keep records as required by the legislation.
These are meaningful obligations. They establish that body corporate management is already treated as work requiring legal knowledge, professional behaviour and care in the administration of other people’s property interests.
The regulatory question arises from the way those standards are applied. A code of conduct establishes how a person must behave after entering the industry. A qualification or licensing framework can also establish what that person must know or demonstrate before being permitted to practise independently.
Managing Body Corporate Money Adds Another Level of Responsibility
The financial functions that can be delegated to a manager illustrate why the professional-standard discussion has become increasingly relevant. A body corporate may authorise its manager to administer its administrative and sinking funds, which can place the manager close to levy collection, payments, invoices, banking information and the financial records used by committees and owners.
Queensland imposes specific obligations when a manager is authorised to look after those funds. The manager must comply with the applicable fund provisions and prepare reconciliation material for the accounts within the required period following each month.
The existence of those controls is important because it demonstrates that the legislation already recognises the sensitivity of the work. The remaining issue is whether a person undertaking that work professionally should also have to establish a baseline level of competence before being able to offer the service.
The Management Contract Provides Another Layer of Protection
A Queensland body corporate manager cannot simply assume administrative authority over a scheme. In the ordinary committee model, the body corporate must approve the engagement at a general meeting and the arrangement must be documented in writing.
The engagement identifies the duties the manager has authority to perform, its duration and the payment arrangements. The ordinary engagement period cannot extend beyond three years, requiring the body corporate to reconsider the appointment rather than allowing the management arrangement to continue indefinitely without a further decision.
This gives owners an important measure of control. The management agreement can define the service expected, distinguish services covered by the base fee from additional work and establish the practical framework within which the manager operates.
Contractual protection nevertheless depends on owners understanding what they are agreeing to. A management proposal can contain schedules of services, additional fees, meeting charges, insurance arrangements and other commercial provisions that deserve the same attention owners would give any other substantial recurring contract entered into on behalf of the scheme.
Queensland Also Has A Process For Serious Performance Problems
Body corporates are not left without a remedy when a manager fails to perform obligations under the engagement or comply with relevant statutory requirements. Queensland provides a remedial action process that can be used in circumstances covered by the legislation.
A remedial action notice identifies the duty that has not been performed or the alleged breach and gives the manager a period of at least 14 days to address the issue. If the notice is not complied with, the body corporate can potentially proceed through the required process to terminate the engagement.
This mechanism gives the existing system genuine regulatory substance. At the same time, it is principally a remedy operating within the relationship between an individual body corporate and its manager. Occupational licensing would add a different form of accountability because a regulator could potentially consider a practitioner’s conduct across multiple clients rather than each scheme dealing only with its own engagement.
Other States Show There Is More Than One Model
Australia does not have a uniform approach to strata management. The states have developed different combinations of licensing, registration, education, insurance requirements, conduct rules and disclosure obligations.
New South Wales provides the clearest example of occupational licensing. Strata managing agents operate within the state’s property agent licensing system, which includes different levels of authority, prescribed qualification pathways, experience requirements for progression and annual continuing professional development.
Victoria follows a registration model for professional owners corporation managers. Registered managers must maintain professional indemnity insurance and their registration can be checked through a public register. Victorian legislation also regulates aspects of the manager’s appointment, duties and administration of owners corporation affairs.
Western Australia provides another useful comparison because its system is moving towards stronger educational requirements. Reforms introduced in 2025 establish substantially higher qualification expectations for professional strata management roles, with major new qualification requirements scheduled to take effect from 1 November 2027 following transitional periods.
None of these systems provides a perfect template for Queensland. They demonstrate that governments can impose a professional threshold without necessarily adopting identical regulatory structures.
Licensing And Registration Solve Different Problems From Conduct Rules
The distinction between these regulatory tools is important. A code of conduct tells an existing practitioner how they must behave. Contract requirements regulate the relationship with the client. Disclosure rules reveal certain financial interests. Licensing or registration addresses the practitioner’s authority to operate within the profession.
A Queensland licensing model could therefore add protections that are largely absent from the existing entry arrangements. Depending on how it was designed, it could establish a recognised minimum qualification, continuing education requirements, professional indemnity insurance, a public register and defined disciplinary consequences for practitioners who repeatedly or seriously breach professional standards.
Such a system could also distinguish between levels of responsibility. An experienced manager exercising significant delegated authority could be subject to a higher professional requirement than a supervised employee performing routine administrative work. Volunteer owners helping to administer a small self-managed scheme would require different treatment again.
The objective would be to recognise the professional nature of commercial body corporate management without unnecessarily interfering with owners who choose to administer their own schemes.
Conflicts Of Interest Need Separate Attention
Professional qualifications would address competence, although competence is only one part of the regulatory discussion. Financial relationships between managers and businesses supplying services to body corporates raise a different issue.
Queensland already requires relevant disclosures from body corporate managers and caretaking service contractors in their capacity as non-voting committee members. Where a manager is entitled to receive a commission, payment or other benefit connected with a proposed body corporate contract, the legislation can require written disclosure before the body corporate makes its decision. Relevant associations with suppliers can also trigger disclosure requirements.
These provisions are designed to give owners information before the body corporate commits itself commercially. They are particularly relevant in areas such as insurance and other recurring services where payments or commercial relationships outside the direct management fee may exist.
Disclosure provides transparency, although it does not eliminate the underlying financial interest. Owners still have to understand what has been disclosed, determine whether it affects the recommendation and decide whether another commercial arrangement would be preferable.
New South Wales Shows Why Licensing Alone Is Not Enough
New South Wales provides an important lesson because it already licenses strata managing agents while continuing to reform the rules governing financial relationships and disclosure.
Changes introduced from 2025 strengthened obligations relating to commissions, connected suppliers and other interests. Insurance quotations supplied through strata managers must now provide clearer itemisation of premiums, commissions and broker fees, and a manager cannot receive an insurance commission in circumstances where the owners corporation independently obtained the quotation and arranged payment without the manager’s involvement.
The NSW Productivity and Equality Commission subsequently examined the wider question of commission-based remuneration. Its report, released in March 2026, considered options ranging from phasing out insurance commissions to broader prohibitions on commissions and restrictions on percentage-based remuneration.
The review estimated that moving the sector towards a fee-for-service structure could produce substantial net benefits over 15 years. Those findings add weight to the wider debate about transparent remuneration, although the review should be understood as policy analysis and recommendations rather than evidence that occupational licensing by itself resolves conflicts of interest.
The NSW experience therefore points towards a broader conclusion. Professional standards, remuneration structures, disclosure and regulatory enforcement perform different functions and may need to work together.
A Licence Would Need To Mean Something
Creating a licensing requirement would achieve little if obtaining and keeping the licence became a simple administrative exercise. The value would come from the standards attached to it.
A useful professional framework could establish recognised education in body corporate legislation, financial administration, meeting procedure, record keeping, conflicts of interest and the boundaries of the manager’s authority. Continuing education could then keep managers informed as legislation and professional obligations change.
Professional indemnity insurance could provide another baseline protection for commercial operators. A public register could allow committees and owners to confirm that a manager or management business is authorised to operate and whether conditions or disciplinary restrictions apply.
Regulation could also make professional responsibility clearer inside larger management businesses. Owners frequently contract with a company but deal day to day with an individual portfolio manager or support team. A structured professional system could establish which work can be undertaken independently and which functions require supervision by a more experienced practitioner.
Enforcement Is As Important As Entry Requirements
Any serious professionalisation proposal would also need a proportionate enforcement system. A licensing regime that concentrated entirely on entry qualifications would address only part of the problem.
Professional regulation usually works best when the response can reflect the seriousness of the conduct. Administrative mistakes may justify correction, additional education or changes to business procedures. Persistent or more serious failures may justify conditions on a licence, audits, financial penalties, suspension or eventual disqualification where the statutory threshold is met.
A system of that kind can also identify repeated behaviour across different schemes. That is one of the potential advantages of occupational regulation over a system relying heavily on individual management contracts. A single body corporate generally sees only its own experience, while a regulator is capable of identifying a wider pattern where complaints or compliance problems arise across several clients.
Effective regulation would still need to distinguish poor professional conduct from an unpopular outcome. Body corporate management involves difficult decisions, procedural disagreements and competing owner interests. A manager should not face professional discipline merely because an owner dislikes a levy, a committee decision or the outcome of a properly conducted meeting.
There Are Legitimate Arguments Against A Heavy Licensing System
Higher regulatory standards carry costs. Qualifications take time to complete, professional indemnity insurance has a price, continuing education requires resources and regulatory administration has to be funded. Those costs eventually form part of the economics of providing body corporate management services.
A poorly designed system could make it harder for smaller operators to compete without producing a corresponding improvement for owners. It could also encourage consolidation among large management businesses if compliance costs become disproportionately difficult for smaller firms.
There is also no reason to assume that every body corporate problem can be fixed through the manager’s professional status. Committees make decisions, owners vote, buildings age, construction defects emerge, insurance markets change, contractors disappoint and disagreements develop between residents. Good managers regularly have to administer difficult circumstances they did not create.
Qualifications cannot guarantee judgment, communication skills or integrity either. The justification for a professional standard is therefore based on establishing minimum expectations and enforceable accountability rather than promising that every licensed practitioner will provide identical service quality.
Owners Can Apply Their Own Professional Standard Now
Until Queensland changes its regulatory model, bodies corporate remain able to apply much of this scrutiny themselves when appointing or renewing a professional manager.
The advertised management fee provides only one part of that assessment. Committees can examine the qualifications and experience of the people who will actually manage the scheme, the professional indemnity insurance carried by the business, the services included in the management agreement, additional charges, arrangements for body corporate funds, insurance remuneration, supplier relationships, record keeping systems and the procedure for transferring records if the appointment ends.
It is also useful to understand how the proposed manager approaches the boundary between administration and decision-making. A capable manager should be able to explain the options available to the committee and body corporate while remaining clear about which decisions belong to owners and their elected representatives.
Management agreements deserve careful review before appointment rather than only when dissatisfaction develops later. Clear expectations about reporting, meeting preparation, contractor administration, communication, financial services and additional fees make it easier for both the body corporate and the manager to understand what the engagement is expected to deliver.
The Professional Standard Question Is Becoming Harder To Avoid
Queensland’s current framework contains more protection than the absence of a licence might initially suggest. Body corporate managers operate under legislation, a statutory code of conduct, written engagements, disclosure obligations and processes that can be used when contractual or statutory duties are not performed.
The unusual feature is that these substantial responsibilities can still be undertaken professionally without a prescribed occupational qualification or licence. The state effectively regulates the work while leaving the initial professional entry standard largely to employers, industry bodies, individual managers and the body corporates that appoint them.
That arrangement becomes more difficult to justify as community titles schemes become larger and their administration becomes more specialised. The manager may be dealing with significant funds, insurance, maintenance programs, statutory procedures, extensive records and decisions affecting a large group of property owners. Requiring a demonstrable professional foundation for commercial practitioners is increasingly consistent with the nature of the work.
Queensland does not necessarily need to copy the New South Wales licensing structure, Victoria’s registration model or Western Australia’s developing education framework. Those jurisdictions show that several approaches are available.
The more useful direction would be a Queensland model designed around the responsibilities body corporate managers actually perform. Minimum education, professional insurance, continuing development, transparent remuneration, effective conflict disclosure, public professional status and meaningful disciplinary powers could form part of that framework while preserving the ability of owners to self-manage appropriate schemes.
Body corporate management has developed well beyond basic secretarial administration. The regulatory framework already acknowledges that through the duties imposed on managers once they are engaged. Establishing an appropriate professional entry standard would extend that recognition to the point at which responsibility begins.
This article provides general information about body corporate management and regulatory models. It is not legal advice. Body corporate legislation and individual management arrangements should be considered in relation to the particular scheme and circumstances involved.
You might also like
Disclaimer: Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information provided, but we make no guarantees regarding its completeness or reliability. The data is presented for general informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or legal advice. We are not liable for any errors, omissions, or consequences arising from its use. Users should verify details with relevant sources and seek professional advice where appropriate for the most accurate and up-to-date guidance.
