Andersen GinnyGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. It's a privilege to be able to speak on the Unit Titles (Strengthening Body Corporate Governance and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I acknowledge the bill brought to the House in the name of Nicola Willis. The important thing to mention—and I think this issue comes up quite a lot because we're seeing an increasing number of homes being built that are utilised in the form of unit title—is that the member's bill proposes to introduce proportionate utility costs and a code of conduct to body corporate committees to enable that enactments can require long-term maintenance plans and a yearly audit of those plans for those complexes that are larger than 10 units.We know that right here in Wellington and particularly in urban centres such as Auckland there are multiple instances where people are paying quite hefty body corporate fees. We've also seen this particularly occur as there have been requirements for earthquake strengthening sometimes with those holders of unit titles being faced with some bills that are close to the value of the property in order to enable that earthquake strengthening work to take place. So it requires sellers to disclose information about a unit to potential buyers and prevent bodies corporate from entering service agreements for longer than 24 months.So in general Labour will be supporting this bill to select committee because it's important that we do hear from submitters. As part of the previous Governance and Administration Committee we did hear petitions and submissions from those people who were under unit titles. So I think that it's important to be able to continue the ability for people to have their say and to come to Parliament and I look forward to the select committee process being able to do that. Labour supports the reform of the Unit Titles Act. The member's bill makes some of the changes that we would like to see. However there are some details that need to be addressed in the select committee stage—and that is exactly what that part of the legislative process is for: to identify those issues and look for areas that can be strengthened.Look there has been a lot of development in this space when you think of the old quarter acre section and how New Zealand used to look and how much that has changed over time. There is no doubt that there is a requirement for the legislation to change in order to accommodate how we make sure that those people who are owners of those properties are still looked after in terms of a modern context. We know that buyers do need to be protected and the Act needs more transparency in the planning and the fundamental maintenance of projects. So improving that disclosure regime to prospective buyers will also be key in supporting and incentivising buyers of unit titles. In essence there is a clear view that owners should pay for what they use with better proportionality when it comes to imposing those service costs. It's quite often that there are hidden costs that are not made clear to those owners when purchasing an apartment in a building.So why do we support this bill? In essence Labour supports the reform of the Unit Titles Act because of the changes that we think do need to be made in this space. We acknowledge the fact that owners should pay for what they use. Also some additional areas that the member's bill could still do some work on—I think it's important to flag now because those are areas that submitters can also bring to the select committee. It would be good to also specify whether this would be a blanket approach or subject to agreement by body corporate committees. In addition to this it would also be good to elaborate on how proportionality might be forecast when disclosed to buyers; how is that communicated in those types of sale-and-purchase arrangements? It would be important to discuss how proportionate utility costs might affect decision-making processes such as how owners contribute to the body corporate decisions in the services that they have little or maybe even no interest in. And finally it is important to acknowledge the likelihood of disputes over proportional service costs or how these disputes will be dealt with. So they are the sorts of details that members on this side of the House look forward to the select committee process nutting out over time. I commend this bill to the House.