Jones Shane: Unit Titles Bill — Second Reading 
Jones Shane: Unit Titles Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:660;Page:8936] 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Kia ora ano tatou. As befits the speakers on this side of the House devoid of any extravagant claims of vanity we say with some modesty that the Unit Titles Bill is the work of both sides of the House. We are debating it at a time when there is a lot of unfinished business in the leaky homes area. Some of the most celebrated pieces of litigation flowing from the leaky homes drama pertain to the occupants who live within property covered by unit title. There have been large bouts of litigation far beyond the High Court. There have been cases where people with corporate management responsibilities have not been either objective or respectful of the rights of minority interests. In addition to that there have been minority interests that have tried to hold to ransom a majority of people as they have sought to correct the building defects that leave them living in aquariums. It is important in this context that we provide that kind of background to this bill. 
This bill seeks to upgrade the legal infrastructure around that type of property right. It is given a larger sense of urgency because of the very cruel developments that have happened to people once they had occupied those properties and found that they have not been professionally made or that the materials that were provided by the manufactures—who have largely got off scot-free—have not stood the test of time. The important thing about this bill is that it actually improves the legal definition of the extent of the property rights that individual owners have within those apartment complexes and the obligations and duties on the corporate managers. Levels of disclosure have been improved. That will assist people who have found it impossible to establish whether the fees that they have paid are being dedicated towards maintaining the key capital components of the complex. Whilst I was the Minister for Building and Construction for a short time I heard no end of tales of woe in that regard. 
Let me focus on Auckland or Tamaki-makau-rau—super-city considerations aside. There is an ongoing challenge as to how we in Auckland enlarge the supply of residential housing stock. There is essentially a statutory ring around Auckland maintained through the planning regime which makes it exceedingly difficult for residential property development to take place. It always seemed to me when we were working on this bill that an improved set of duties obligations and rights and an enhanced infrastructure dealing with those types of apartment complexes may improve the prospects of an enlarged supply of residential units going up—and not necessarily out. In my view that is a major cause of the problem of the affordability of property in our largest city although—and no doubt the current Minister would agree—that is not the primary focus of the bill. As the confidence of investors in and occupants of those properties grows and as people’s confidence to live in those types of apartment complexes grows then capital and developers I am sure will be attracted to providing them as a housing option. The situation in relation to Auckland housing at the moment is essentially unsustainable. We have a geometric level of growth in terms of domestic migration. People are going to Auckland; they are not going to the winterless north or the deep south. A few get lost in the verdant pastures of Waikato and Matamata surrounded by racehorses and other such things. But the deeper problem is for the families of international migrants and domestic migrants and I think we ought not overlook that. 
In respect of transparency and the quality and quantity of information made available this bill empowers owners. It clearly provides a process whereby owners have a complaints avenue and they are able to hold accountable the actual statutory agents who have not only a fiduciary responsibility but also now an actual legal obligation. That level of disclosure was in a sense debated in relation to the bill that has just had its first reading the Financial Service Providers (Pre-Implementation Adjustments) Bill in respect of financial literacy financial stewardship etc. When people feel that their access to information is blocked—which has been the case in many of those apartment complexes—and they do not know where to turn the first thing they do is incur unnecessarily large amounts of legal cost. Lawyers from all across the spectrum did say to us—of course they will never agree but that is the nature of the law; it is an adversarial beast— 
Hon Christopher Finlayson 
: Don’t be so discourteous! 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Well there are a few exceptions. The current Attorney-General is seeking to find common ground but an injudicious answer that he made last week to a very sensible question has begun to cause doubts to sprout in our minds. However we will overlook that small lapse of standards by the Attorney-General. 
I will come back to the quality of information. Where the information disclosure regime contained in this bill is maintained it will enhance confidence. People will not be required to incur unnecessarily large bills and they will be empowered. That is a transition away from the average garden-variety Kiwi experience of those fortunate enough to own a home on something akin to a quarter acre section. Here one has shared space and a shared obligation to maintain the key features of the apartment complex and one trusts the agents who are the corporate managers. Some of them may be associated with the original developers and they may set up an adjunct company to maintain an ongoing managerial role if indeed they have not been able to sell all the units that they have developed. That in itself I was told caused doubt and disquiet because it took them a long time to correct small issues such as lift wells parking or the general deterioration of the complex. Let us not overlook the power and the disinfectant-like quality of disclosure and very good information. 
Unfortunately there will be conflict as I said earlier—lawyers are involved. The jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal is made a lot more lucid. Unfortunately we will see many of those disputes it would appear if the managers continue with their shoddy practices of not being responsive to people. The residents living in those complexes are often in their twilight years and managers should be responsive to their queries and anxieties. Often the apartment is a key asset that residents have after a lifetime of work scrabbling around and maintaining a small nest egg that has not been consumed by Mr Brierley and others. Those legal avenues will be very important. 
The key point I would like to leave members with is that we enjoyed contributing to this bill. It is a prolix and complex area of law and the bill gives a greater level of clarity to duties and rights in law for that type of property. It will expand the opportunities for people to hopefully enlarge the supply of housing in our key metropolitan area of Auckland. I support the bill. Kia ora tatou.