SpeechHon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for Building and Construction): Firstly can I say to the member congratulations for getting the bill to this stage. It's often said that members' bills are the children of many parents and this is no exception to that and in that regard I do want to acknowledge the Hon Nikki Kaye and her work in initially kicking this off. I think this is a great outcome. We've been able to work together across the House and come to some solutions because as the member Chlöe Swarbrick says it is actually about getting this across the line.I'm sure many of us would have liked to have crafted the perfect bill but I think we've got this to a place where we can all agree and have significantly advanced this particular issue. I'm really happy that we've been able to do it in such a way that we've got broad support across this House.Can I thank officials for the work they have done on this. It has been complex and difficult and not an area I particularly want to go back and traverse again because I can tell you there were some technical details within this bill that did keep me awake at night and then sometimes made me sleep. So thank you very much for your work.To the select committee thank you for your examination. It hasn't been easy. I know that for many of you it touches directly to the heart of your constituencies and I'm so pleased that we are in the process of progressing this particular bill. It's great for us as the Government to have the opportunity to submit our Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 144. The SOP proposes several things: firstly to pay all costs for legal costs for unit titles disputes at the Tenancy Tribunal. Tribunals are intended to be an efficient and low-cost means for dispute resolution. The current provisions in the Act may encourage legal costs to be incurred for levy recovery cases where these costs might not be needed. The SOP proposes that a cost scale may be set in regulations similar to those used in the District Court and the High Court. This would apply to any unit title dispute at the tribunal. Clause 21B of the SOP proposes to insert section 176AAA which allows regulations to be set a scale for legal costs for unit titles disputes at the Tenancy Tribunal. Clause 16AAA and clause 21AA propose to require the tribunal to use the scale cost regime once regulations are made. The SOP does not set out the scale itself. The scale will be developed in consultation with the sector and provided for in regulations.The SOP proposes to extend the current protections for service contracts in the Act to signage agreements. Signage agreements set out the terms for a third party to display advertising on a building. The Act requires developers to ensure that service contracts balance the interests of the contractor and the body corporate. Developers may also ensure the contract terms are appropriate for the development. If a developer has not met these requirements service contracts can be terminated or compensation can be ordered by the tribunal or courts. Some developers enter into long-term signage agreements that benefit the developer. These arrangements can prevent unit owners from receiving the market value of advertising on the building. The SOP proposes amendments to clause 17 and inserts clause 17AAA which amends sections 139 and 140. These amendments mean the unit owners can apply for compensation for unfair signage agreements or to terminate a harsh or unconscionable signage agreement.The SOP also proposes to amend Schedule 1 which sets out the transitional provisions for this change. The tribunal or courts will not be able to order compensation for signage agreements entered into before these provisions commence but the tribunal or courts will be able to terminate the signage agreement if it is harsh or unconscionable.The SOP proposes clause 11A to amend section 108. This proposed amendment would prevent matters which require a special resolution under the Act from being delegated to a body corporate committee. Most decisions made by bodies corporate can be made by simple majority. However the Act requires that some decisions be made by special resolution which requires a 75 percent majority. Currently a body corporate can delegate a matter requiring special resolution to a body corporate committee. A body corporate committee only requires a 50 percent majority. If a matter needs to meet the 75 percent threshold it should not be delegated to a subset of owners who decide matters on a 50 percent basis.The Act allows a body corporate to meter the use of a service to the owner of a principal unit. This allows an owner to pay for the unit's electricity or water usage but the provision does not allow the body corporate to charge owners for services provided to accessory units—for example to garages carparks or storage units. A particular issue is that bodies corporate cannot meter electricity used to charge electric cars in carparks or garages. The SOP proposes clause 16AAB to amend section 125 to remove this legal barrier. The Government supports the uptake of electric vehicles as a low-emissions form of transport and this amendment will support that goal.The SOP proposes in clause 21 to amend section 171 to confirm that the Tenancy Tribunal jurisdiction for unit titles disputes is subject to the Limitation Act 2010. This amendment is addressing an apparent gap in the Act. Limitations apply to unit titles disputes heard in the District Court and the High Court. Limitations also apply to other matters heard in the Tenancy Tribunal. The SOP tidies up this issue for unit titles disputes in the Tenancy Tribunal for the avoidance of doubt.The SOP proposes a number of technical amendments to improve the bill. The most significant change is the redrafting of clauses 18B and 19 which set out where buyer can cancel the contract or delay settlement because disclosure has not met the Act's requirement. I understand there was concern from some conveyancing professionals that the provisions were confusing. The proposed drafting separates the clauses out into separate provisions—sections 149 149A 151 and 151A. This makes it much clearer where provisions relate to pre-contract disclosure and which provisions relate to pre-settlement disclosure. The new drafting also includes simpler language. The SOP proposes some technical amendments to clarify minor points of policy or align drafting with the Act and some transitional provisions. I do just want to reiterate my thanks to all concerned particularly the member Nicola Willis for her willingness to work with us on this and allow us to hopefully contribute positively to this bill. I thank all those involved and I commend this to the committee.