Twyford Phil: Unit Titles Bill — In Committee 
Twyford Phil: Unit Titles Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:661;Page:9868] 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 I rise along with my colleagues to support the Unit Titles Bill and will address my comments specifically to clause 122 but let me join my colleagues in making some general statements. 
This bill is a long-overdue modernisation of the law in relation to unit titles. As David Shearer said it is particularly so in Auckland where we are seeing huge growth in the number of people living not in the half-gallon quarter-acre pavlova paradise but in multi-unit dwellings townhouses and apartment buildings. This is a long-overdue change to the rules that will make it much easier for people to own property and live together in apartment blocks. It is not just about the convenience for people who are living in these dwellings but we must make it easier and more desirable to live in multi-unit dwellings; we can develop our cities in medium-density and high-density ways. 
I will comment particularly on the issue of leaky homes which is something that has bedevilled this country for almost a decade. During the time of the previous Labour Government members on the opposite side of the House had a great deal of sport. They campaigned up and down the country raising expectations about how easy it would be to solve the problem of leaky homes. They generated very unrealistic expectations amongst owners of leaky homes and the New Zealand public generally that a National Government would solve the problem. A National Government would come and fix it would remedy the problem and would do it at the stroke of a pen. Well I think the Acting Minister of Housing is finding that the problem is a lot more difficult and intractable than I imagine colleagues like Nick Smith thought when they were campaigning on this issue in Opposition. PricewaterhouseCoopers has estimated that the national cost of the leaky homes problem is in the region of $11.5 billion. Some estimates go as high as $20 billion and up to two-thirds of that burden rests in Greater Auckland. 
I will move now to make some direct comments about clause 122. Members will see that clause 122 is particularly relevant to the leaky homes problem. The deficiencies in the legislation governing multi-unit dwellings have created a judicial and bureaucratic nightmare for the owners of leaky homes. It has been enormously difficult for people to get a resolution of the problems of leaky homes because of the current rules which are a nightmare. I am sure there would be very few members in this Parliament who have not been approached by members of the public in their electorates and elsewhere with heart-rending tales. Often they are people who live in multi-unit dwellings who have been unable to get their apartments or townhouses repaired because of disputes with other members of the body corporate. 
If we put politics aside I think we would all agree that we need to move beyond litigation with the leaky homes problem. We have to find solutions that are about fixing and repairing dwellings and helping people solve the problems. It is very clear that the courts have not been able to deliver timely and cost-effective results for New Zealanders affected by this problem. There will always be arguments about fairness because of the difficulty of apportioning liability amongst the different players but we must get to the point of repairing the houses. 
Clause 122 is I think an unambiguously good and constructive contribution to solving this problem. It takes a common-sense and pragmatic approach. The clause imposes an obligation on body corporates to maintain repair or renew all building elements and infrastructure in a building that relate to or serve more than one unit. It defines very broadly what a building element is and that it can include external and internal components or any parts of a building and land that are necessary to the structural integrity of the building. Obviously this can include roofs balconies decks cladding and other things but it certainly includes the exterior of buildings. I think this is a common-sense resolution of an issue that has been at the crux of a heck of a lot of litigation in recent years. When there is a leaky building problem or a weathertight problem that affects say the roof or the exterior wall but immediately affects only the unit title immediately adjacent to the leak no longer will that person be solely responsible for fixing the problem because it should be the responsibility of the body corporate. 
There has been litigation in this area. In  
Young v Body Corporate 12006 
 the High Court took a pretty common-sense approach ruling that the body corporate would and should be allowed to contribute to costs. But in the Sunset Terraces case the High Court found the opposite and took a very literal and hard-line approach. The judge said that there was a clear distinction between individual responsibility for individual units and the body corporate being solely responsible for common property. So clause 122 really follows the approach that the High Court took in the Young case. I think this is a practical fair and pragmatic contribution to solving the problem of leaky homes. It is very worthwhile. 
I will finish with a question that I would like to pose to the Acting Minister of Housing and hopefully he will be able to take a call when he is back in the chair and answer it. The Home Owners and Buyers Association of New Zealand which members will know is one of the most active advocates for the owners of leaky homes posed the question that my colleague Maryan Street made some comments about and that is to ask what amounts to a fair voting threshold. In the bill we see that special resolutions can be passed by a 75 percent majority of those in attendance but for those in attendance the quorum can be as low as 25 percent of the unit title owners. By my calculation that means that a special resolution could be passed by as little as 19 percent of the unit title owners. I know that the bill needs to solve the problem of hold-outs and I think that Maryan Street made the case for that very well but my question is why 75 percent of 25 percent. What is the basis for that calculation? I would be interested to know whether the Minister has a view about whether 19 percent of the unit title owners is a sufficient number for the passing of a special resolution. Thank you very much.