McClay Todd: Unit Titles Bill — Second Reading 
McClay Todd: Unit Titles Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:8939] 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 It gives me pleasure to stand and speak on the Unit Titles Bill. Indeed the Social Services Committee spent some time dealing with it last year. We received extremely interesting submissions from a wide range of submitters who covered a wide range of views. 
I want to touch on a couple of important points that came out of the submission process but I think it is important that we first dispel a couple of myths that came from speakers opposite earlier in the debate. This bill was first proposed by the previous Government and it deals with a very important issue. Unit title developments can be extremely complex and very difficult for people to manage once they are owners and it can be very difficult for people to obtain good information before they purchase such an apartment. However members opposite have said that the bill is their bill. Well I guarantee that when the bill enters into law it will not be their bill any more. They had their opportunity but they did not take the time to have the bill go through in the last Parliament. Therefore it becomes our bill. The draft that was on the table has been significantly improved. 
There are a couple of issues I want to briefly touch on. One issue is the disclosure and provision of information to people when they buy into a unit title development. We heard from submitters who were concerned that when they had bought off the plan before a development had been produced they had not been provided with all of the information that they believed they needed to understand what they were legally entering into. We heard submissions about problems that people had had once they had purchased a unit. One man said to the select committee that had he realised before he purchased that all of the costs for that development in so far as electricity was concerned had been loaded on to his unit he probably would not have purchased it. The committee took a position on that and put in place measures whereby full disclosure to a prospective purchaser is necessary before the act of sale goes through. In the case that the information is not provided to purchasers they have the ability under the law to cancel that sale. I think that is important. 
The committee spoke at great length about and considered the issue of maintenance. There was a view that a mandatory regime for maintenance of the communal areas of a property was necessary. A number of submitters said that they had different arrangements for their properties and that those arrangements were working for them. The committee recommends amending the bill to allow bodies corporate to opt out of establishing long-term maintenance funds but they must retain a requirement for a mandatory long-term maintenance plan. We heard that many bodies corporate have a longer-term view—once the owners are involved—of how they must maintain the communal areas of their properties. 
The issue of time-share developments came up. The bill as originally drafted would have included time-share developments but given the wide range and large 
number of owners of a time-share resort making decisions would have been extremely difficult. I make particular reference to the member of Parliament for Taupo Louise Upston; a number of her constituents who are time-share owners told her that this law may not work for them. Louise made a very strong case to a number of the members of the committee and a very good solution was found for those constituents. 
It is important that this bill enters into force quickly. I fully support the bill and I commend it to the House. Thank you.