Borrows Chester: Unit Titles Bill — Second Reading 
Borrows Chester: Unit Titles Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:8935] 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker for interrupting the previous speaker Moana Mackey. 
I must admit that it is refreshing to have the opportunity to partake in a debate on a bill that has bipartisan support and at the end of a process that has been very bipartisan in nature. The members of the Social Services Committee enjoyed interacting with the submitters who educated us who debated with us and who had a full discussion with us all in respect of the Unit Titles Bill. 
The purpose of the bill is to clarify the title and survey processes; improve the governance structures for unit title developments including the rights and responsibilities of unit owners and the powers and duties of bodies corporate; establish a flexible and responsive management and maintenance regime for unit title developments; improve the information disclosure regime for prospective and actual unit owners; and establish a dispute resolution mechanism within existing set-ups. 
The point made by the previous speaker that no one can disagree with is that when empowering legislation for unit title type of premises first came about their popularity was never envisaged and the scale at which they would take off was never envisaged. The legislation was made for small numbers of units maybe fewer than 10 on a single title of land and how they might operate. As huge apartment blocks and other great big developments came about the owners were frequently at the whim of the developers then later on at the whim of the people who were running—or in some cases manipulating—the bodies corporate. Money was not set aside for routine maintenance for instance so every now and then a big lump sum was required. Some of the elderly owners’ savings had dribbled away so they were not able to contribute in the way that they needed to. It put them under pressure; it put all the owners under pressure. 
A number of these issues were raised with the committee which responded to them. There were issues about long-term maintenance regimes. The cost of having to provide a fund rather than just a plan for long-term maintenance was raised. The committee recommended an amendment that allows bodies corporate to opt out of establishing a long-term maintenance fund and to retain the requirement for a mandatory long-term maintenance plan. There were problems with the auditing and monitoring of body corporate funds and changes were made in respect of them. Various changes raised by the submitters were addressed by the committee. We recommended that changes be made to the bill to make it more palatable to owners who live in these circumstances and to give owners especially those who come in early to a large-scale development or a staged development some certainty about where the development would go and some certainty that their interests would be protected into the future. 
As I said it was good to be part of the process. The work was initially kicked off by the Labour Government it was completed under the National Government and it was debated well by all the members of the committee. The committee appreciated the well-thought-out and well-prepared submissions from those who engaged with the committee. I am sure that the legislation we have now will be enduring. I thank the members of the committee for their interaction for the engagement we had with one another and for the legislation that we ended up with. I commend the bill to the House.