Whaitiri MekaMEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe Mr Chair. I am happy to take another call on Part 2 Unit Titles Act 2010". Just to take us back in terms of what we are discussing in Part 2 of this bill it is an attempt to reduce the unnecessary compliance burdens and clarify a number of provisions. I just thought it might be easy to indicate or go over the provisions that this particular part Part 2 of this bill is trying to do in terms of unit plans body corporate operational rules reassessment of ownership and utility interests registration of easements and covenants leases and licences of common property and extraordinary general meetings.I want to just raise clauses 17 and 18 and specifically refer to the New Zealand Law Society's submission where it indicates that utility interests do not work for many bodies corporate. In its submission it told the Local Government and Environment Committee that it supports the changes in clauses 17 and 18 as an attempt to I guess remove any ambiguity or misunderstanding of what is meant by that—by giving terminology and methodology of creating and explaining what utility interests are. However in its submission to the select committee it also raised that one of the issues with this is that by creating this interest or clarity there is also a risk in terms of making the Act less flexible. So it did indicate that it had an issue with that as well.It definitely recommended that we do a total rethink on the forthcoming review and said by way of the wording that it provided to the select committee in terms of clause 17 the words "unless section 39(2A) applies" should be added to the end of the proposed new section 39(2) and the words "that different utility interest" should be added to the beginning of new section 39(2A)(b). In terms of clause 18 again the attempt is to make it much clearer in terms of what we mean by utility interests. The Law Society's advice was "the words 'as a place of residence or business or otherwise' can be removed: they are both redundant and inconsistent with the proposed new section 7(1) (clause 12)."The officials' response to those suggestions by the New Zealand Law Society particularly in terms of clause 17—they pointed out that they believed that the existing clause was already clear. I note in the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment report to the select committee that in terms of the second point in terms of the words already in the—they have written "chapeau" but I think they mean "chapter". So in terms of the suggestion from the Law Society in relation to clause 17 to make it really clear what we mean by "utility interests" it is interesting and maybe the Minister can shed some light on why they felt that the existing terminology and the words in that clause were adequate to meet the concerns that the Law Society raised.In clause 18 again officials believed that the word is consistent with the other sections of the Unit Titles Act. Therefore there was a recommendation of no changes to the drafting.I am just really interested in the Minister in the chair—whether he could please take a call and explain to the Committee why the suggestions of the New Zealand Law Society to make it really ultra-clear on utility interests have not been taken up and shed some light on that. Thank you."