Sio Su'a William: Unit Titles Bill — In Committee 
Sio Su'a William: Unit Titles Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:661;Page:9863] 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the Unit Titles Bill. I have to agree with our spokesperson on housing Moana Mackey and other Opposition speakers that there is a bit of concern and it has been laid on the table with regard to the last-minute introduction of the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper 112. I appreciate the fact that the Acting Minister of Housing the Hon Maurice Williamson has given Moana the opportunity to meet with his officials and I also appreciate the fact that he has had to take over the portfolio from the previous Minister of Housing recently for reasons that are publicly known. But the fact remains that when we consider the Supplementary Order Paper tabled by the Government today—and I understand that it was ready 9 days ago—we see that it is 13 pages long. 
We have already heard from other speakers that this is a very technical bill. When quickly going through the Supplementary Order Paper I have to wonder whether the people who made submissions to this bill who had genuine concerns about the way we were modernising the Unit Titles Act of 1972 would have had the opportunity to make comments on what is now being amended by the Government. 
I look at the Supplementary Order Paper and I see that the amendment to clause 7B(5) is to omit this subclause and substitute the following subclause: “If the body corporate requests in writing the authority undertaking the public works must at its own expense prepare the new unit plan or amendment to a unit plan as the case may be.” On the face of it I ask myself what it means. I ask whether it refers to local territorial authorities and whether it covers all local territorial authorities. There is the case of Auckland which will be a super-city in the next few months. I ask whether that fact should not be spelt out in that particular clause. Should the local authority pay for public works as it states or should the body corporate pay? Those sorts of questions need to be raised. 
I note that the Minister said the amendments were very technical but it is for that reason that people like me are nervous about the substance of those particular amendments. The changes to wording in the series of amendments on pages 5 and 6 are significant and there are more significant changes later on in the Supplementary Order Paper. The reason I have raised this point is that we must consider that this legislation is the result of a major review that began in 2003 undertaken by the previous Labour Government. After that particular review this legislation was introduced into this House by the Hon Shane Jones in May 2008. We acknowledge that significant work was undertaken and it was done simply because we needed to ensure that we would do things right. 
The representative from Auckland and I have some nervousness about this Supplementary Order Paper because a lot of legislation has been rushed through in recent times particularly with regard to the Auckland super-city. A lot of legislation has been rushed through. It has been our experience in our electorates that whenever Governments rush through things of this nature there are bound to be mistakes. Who ends up paying for those mistakes? It is the public. I have to say that is of concern at this particular time. 
I do not know why it is difficult for members on that side of the Chamber to acknowledge the fact that significant work was undertaken by a Labour Minister and a Labour Government. I want to put that view on the table. It is OK for this Government to take credit for this bill and we are supporting it but it also needs to be acknowledged that significant work was undertaken by some people in Labour. 
I finish off by highlighting again that some other amendments on pages 10 and 12 contain significant changes to wording. The way that the Government has introduced this particular Supplementary Order Paper today at the last minute before the Committee stage does not bode well for the spirit of cooperation. Thank you. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 112 in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to.