Willis NicolaNICOLA WILLIS (Deputy Leader—National): I just want to acknowledge the contribution of the Minister Poto Williams and of member Chlöe Swarbrick in particular for their constructive additions to this debate and to note that I was remiss in not earlier acknowledging Tim Jones the president of the Body Corporate Chairs' Group who has been very helpful in contributing to the further amendments to this bill.I wanted to quickly respond both on the issue of body corporate managers raised by the member Chlöe Swarbrick and on the contribution from Dr Duncan Webb. Look I just want to say it's disappointing that in the context of such a constructive and collaborative process on this bill that Dr Webb has chosen to reduce himself to criticising the highly engaged member Chlöe Swarbrick for her use of and" and "or" in the drafting of her Supplementary Order Paper (SOP). I just ask members opposite to reflect a little on the tenor of this debate and what it is that New Zealanders would wish them to be focused on. I'd put to Dr Webb that Chlöe Swarbrick's engagement with those living in apartments and affected by the misuse of proxy voting is a more substantive contribution to this debate than pernicketing about "ands" and "ors".To the substance of the issues raised by Dr Webb in terms of the undermining of rights look I do wish to draw him to look at SOP 147 which is quite specific in that it does allow unit title holders to cast a proxy. What it also does is ensures that if they specifically direct how they wish their proxy to be cast then it doesn't count towards the limit of proxies. It also ensures that entities can't demean the democratic process by harvesting proxies in a way that allows non-democratic outcomes to occur. So look I stand by that SOP and I acknowledge Chlöe Swarbrick's arguments in favour of it.I just want to deal with the issue of body corporate managers because I know that this is something that has been raised in good faith by a number of people. There had been originally in the bill a proposal for a requirement for body corporate managers to join an industry association and this has been removed from the bill subsequent to the select committee process. The reason for that is somewhat practical in that we heard that there were actually very limited options in terms of any industry body that might actually be able to fulfil that role and therefore the potential for some monopoly effects. We also reflected carefully on the fact that officials advised that the costs associated with joining that industry body would be likely passed quite directly on to unit owners. I acknowledge the balance we need to strike here between ensuring that we have more professionalism in unit title management but also not ensuring it becomes so bureaucratic and costly that it's a problem.I just want to highlight that we have an alternative which is allowing body corporate managers to be subject to code of conduct requirements and that is what the bill provides. It also provides that body corporate managers can be party to disputes brought to the Tenancy Tribunal on matters relating to the Unit Titles Act. So I'm satisfied that those two provisions in the bill will actually provide a lot of the professionalism that we are seeking to see from body corporate managers in that they'll require them to disclose conflicts of interest require them to act in the best interests of the body corporate and require them to have knowledge of and adherence to the Unit Titles Act. So I respectfully submit that National will not be supporting Chlöe Swarbrick's SOP in this regard and can I just acknowledge once again the constructive contributions of many and I hope that that will continue in this debate."