Street Maryan: Unit Titles Bill — First Reading 
Street Maryan: Unit Titles Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1719] 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to take just a short call on the Unit Titles Bill because there is no need to prolong the House’s time on this measure. We are in agreement on this bill. There is a sublime moment in the life of an incoming Government when it does not have to do any work of its own; it simply has to put through and tidy up by a third reading legislation that has already been prepared by the previous Government. 
I am delighted that Mr Quinn was pleased to say how good this legislation is. I am delighted that he is so much in support of it because it was a Labour Government measure. I am delighted that Mr Auchinvole made reference to the point that the bill is about reducing some compliance measures and taking away red tape because that is the result of a Labour Government measure. 
I will raise a couple of points. The first is that yes Shane Jones did the work on the bill. I also congratulate quite sincerely the Minister Phil Heatley on bringing it through to the House. The Labour Opposition will support the bill of course because it is a sensible measure and the incoming Government has seen that. 
I will refer to a favourite part of the legislation—at the risk of this speech sounding like a Committee stage speech—if members will indulge me for a moment. A favourite part is the bits that relate to voting: clause 83 and the following clauses. I refer to the threshold for voting for bodies corporate which is important. It was one of the most significant changes we could make in modernising the legislation applying to unit titles. Numerous people up and down this country having gone into apartments and units will attest to those occasions when getting to a unanimous decision with the body corporate was just impossible. Individuals hold out on agreement of things that have to move forward whether it is a roof repair new paint job colour scheme or whatever. One or two people hold out on a decision that the majority is in favour of and therefore impede the progress and I presume the comfort in many instances of the people who own the principal units. 
The reduction of the threshold on special resolutions to 75 percent—although general resolutions can be carried by a majority—is still a high threshold. It is not simply a matter of 50 percent plus one who agree with a change the body corporate is considering; it is in fact a very substantial majority. Three-quarters of the body corporate principal unit holders need to agree before a change can be made. That will be really helpful because there have been instances when people have held out and have been very difficult to move when trying to arrive at a resolution about a repair maintenance improvement or service issue for a body corporate. 
But just to be sure in relation to the 25 percent of people who may disagree a dispute resolution process has been put in place. Access to mediation and arbitration around that process is a good measure so that a minority view is not excluded or completely railroaded by the majority but there is room and provision for a process to arrive at the resolution of disputes. That is an improvement. 
Yes the 1972 legislation is now anachronistic. It is unsuitable for the kinds of developments we have seen emerge in the intervening years and this bill will bring it up to date. If there are improvements to be made on this bill then they will be made at the select committee. If there are improvements to be made even after the substantial consultation process that was engaged in prior to the drafting of this bill then those improvements can be made at the select committee. I commend the bill to the House.