Unbalanced BCCM Act 1997

For many years (even before 1997) the Queensland Resident Accommodation Managers Association (QRAMA) (recently changed to ARAMA Queensland) has exercised a disproportionate influence over the content and drafting of the Body Corporate Community Management Act 1997 (BCCM Act). This influence by ARAMA has been possible due to the under representation of unit owners. This disproportionate influence has resulted in the BCCM Act being totally unbalanced, discriminatory (against unit owners) and biased (against unit owners). That is, perverted from its primary objective of “balancing the rights of individuals with the responsibility for self management.” NOT – control and management by minority vested interest groups! During this period where ARAMA had control and influence they have been happy to follow the conciliatory approach:

“All parties have their point of view and for the past 10 years have collectively worked together to seek to establish a more professional approach on all matters impacting within the strata and community title industry, to deal with day to day matters as well as the longer term issues.”

However, as soon as any opposition to their vested interests appears to be gaining traction, there is an abrupt change in attitude:

“In recent weeks there has been a significant rift in the relationships, as many of the old shibboleths and self interests of parties have again been given prominence in the public arena and a very serious “them and us” situation has recurred. A call has been made to ignore the rights of other stakeholders and destroy their investment.” ( This of course refers to the “Say No” campaign elucidated below)

ARAMA continues:
“I am very concerned that a hostile minority within the largest group of stakeholders is potentially threatening the asset viability of their colleagues, by the selfish tunnel vision approach to what is now a national industry, not a cottage industry.”

ARAMA then resorts to their old tactic of misrepresenting the facts:

“Provision of services costs money but destruction of a structure that was in place and agreed to when each owner purchased their lot is a very short-sighted approach that destroys benefits as well.“

The facts are that there is no move to change the “structure” that was in place when the unit owners purchased. The unit owners are simply being alerted to one of their few remaining rights under the BCCM Act.

ARAMA implies that it is treasonable for unit owners not to commit themselves to an extension of a contract that commits the unit owners, and their successors, to future debt while having no escape from the contract; all without benefit to the unit owners.

The ARAMA author is unquestionably an extremely articulate, eloquent and convincing writer, however, to those with an intimate knowledge of the BCCM Act, his arguments are obviously defective and misrepresentation of the facts.

ARAMA represents a small vested interest group of building caretakers and letting agents who are totally reliant on the investment of unit owners, who collectively own the buildings that the caretakers are employed to maintain, and in which they are given the rights to conduct a unit letting business. The unit owners are the only group who contribute financially to the ownership and maintenance of their building, and yet under the BCCM Act they are not permitted to recoup any of their expenses from the sale of the caretaking or letting rights.

ARAMA currently claims to have some 900 members managing 43000 units with a property value in excess of $12 billion. To put these figures into perspective these 43000 units valued at $12 billion are totally owned and funded by the unit owners – not ARAMA. ARAMA further claims that their members generate $330 million in holiday letting and $290 million in long term letting. Again putting these claims into perspective, the unit owners through their investment in unit buildings generate this income. Not ARAMA! This income would be available with or without ARAMA, but it would not be available without the investment of the unit owners. Compared to the 900 members claimed by ARAMA (Australia wide) there are some 380,000 unit owners in Queensland alone. This fact should ring the warning bells for any political party.

The foregoing is but a small example of the misconception of the unit industry proliferated by ARAMA. One other is that their members bring expertise and qualifications to building management. To a limited extent this may be correct. However, many caretaker/letting agents are mum and dad operators who are buying themselves a job and a lifestyle. They have obtained a limited real estate licence, have never previously managed a building, have no hospitality training and no engineering knowledge of the building systems and facilities. For the first 12 months of their employment they are more of a liability than an asset to the unit owners, and after two years they are looking to sell and move into retirement. Compare ARAMA members’ qualifications to those of the Hotel Motel Accommodation Association (HMAA) many of whom hold tertiary qualifications in hospitality, tourism, building management, accounting or engineering. These are professionals who make a life long career in the hospitality, tourism and building management industry.

The perverted influence of ARAMA on the BCCM Act has resulted in caretaker/letting agents becoming a protected species beyond the control of the unit owners. This has made their position in the small business community unique. Unlike normal small business operators whose success or failure depends on their energy and business ability, caretaker/letting agents can totally fail in their positions as caretaker and letting agent, but the unit owners cannot terminate their employment and must continue to pay them even when they fail to perform their duties. This protected status of caretaker/letting agents has resulted in the rights to their business being grossly overvalued by any measure of normal small business worth, and this in turn has led to some adjudicators claiming that to sack them for breach of contract is too severe a penalty given the value of their rights.

ARAMA has further extended its perverted influence by convincing the Government that caretaker/letting agents should not pay a penalty for early termination of contract after two years. Also again, notwithstanding that the Objectives of the BCCM Act in part state:

• “to ensure that bodies corporate for community titles schemes have control of the common property and body corporate assets they are responsible for managing on behalf of owners of lots included in the schemes; “
• “to provide bodies corporate with the flexibility they need in their operations and dealings to accommodate changing circumstances within community titles schemes”

ARAMA “successfully reversed the draft proposal that the (building) office must be on common property”. (ARAMA Newsletter December 2007).

This effectively removes control and flexibility from the Body Corporate and gives control to the caretaker/letting agent. Control of the office is essential to management and control of the building. This action by ARAMA clearly demonstrates ARAMA’s vested interest approach in arguments to Government legislators, its total disregard to the objectives of the BCCM Act and total disregard of the interests of building unit owners.

The unit owners are starting to raise their concerns with the BCCM Act and unjust practices that have been perpetuated by ARAMA for far too long. One example of this is the ‘Say No’ campaign run by the Unit Owners Association of Queensland. This campaign educates unit owners and committees that they can ‘say no’ to caretakers demanding extensions to their contracts. ARAMA is crying foul and publishing information to discredit the unit owners. The extensions to contracts are worth millions of dollars to caretakers, but under the BCCM Act the Body Corporate (unit owners) are not allowed to profit. The injustice is obvious. If the BCCM allowed the Body Corporate to sell the extensions, then there may be some justice in the system. The developers are allowed to sell caretaking and letting agent contracts! Why not the Body Corporate?

Clearly the Queensland Government has allowed itself to be influenced by a vested interest group that has usurped the objectives of the BCCM Act for its own gain and to the detriment of the unit owners of Queensland. Considering the projected growth in unit ownership, there is an urgent need for the Government to consult with informed representatives of unit owners who understand the unit industry, the BCCM Act and the complexities of legislative drafting and standards.

Such a group exists, and is willing to give freely of its time and energy in establishing a level playing field in the ownership and management of residential and accommodation units in Queensland. If the Government acts in the public interest it should consult the major stakeholder by accepting this offer, the writer is prepared to liaise with the members of the group and the Government to formulate a working party to review the BCCM Act and associated Regulations.