Mackey Moana: Unit Titles Bill — In Committee 
Mackey Moana: Unit Titles Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:661;Page:9870] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I want to take a final call to address two areas that I think are important and need to be commented on. One area is the issue of long-term maintenance regimes which the Acting Minister of Housing alluded to in his opening comments. This was an area where we received a large number of submissions and it was probably one of the more contentious parts of the Unit Titles Bill. I think it is incumbent on this Committee to explain to the members of the public why the Social Services Committee went down the route that it did. 
This legislation originally had a mandatory long-term maintenance plan requirement and a mandatory requirement to create a fund to pay for that long-term maintenance plan. We received a large number of submissions that expressed support for the mandatory regime and we received a large number of submissions that opposed it. Although all submitters were supportive of the concept of long-term planning and saving the matter on which we had contention was about whether a body corporate should be forced to do that or left to its own devices to do it. The mischief I guess that led to these clauses being put into the legislation was that in the current situation the body corporate is not required to and often does not plan in advance for the repairs and maintenance of parts of the building. Where there is significant capital development that needs to be done it can mean a one-off charge to residents that is unaffordable and that causes them enormous anxiety. We then have the situation that my colleague Maryan Street referred to the situation when people hold out on their vote. We have changed that voting threshold in relation to the times when someone will say “I know that the roof needs replacing.” or “The outside needs repainting or re-cladding but I simply cannot afford this cost; therefore I am going to vote against it.” One of the things we have tried to do is put in place a requirement to make bodies corporate think longer term and allow a fund to be set up that saves for these developments that will have to happen over time in the life of a building so that unit owners are not confronted with large one-off levies that they refuse to pay cannot pay or struggle to pay. 
We looked at three main options for what we could do. The first option was that we could stick with what we were going to do which was that the long-term maintenance plan and the fund would both be mandatory. The second option was that we would make the long-term maintenance plan mandatory and the fund would also be mandatory but we would include an ability to opt out by special resolution of the body corporate. The third option was that we would make both the maintenance plan and the fund mandatory but both would have that opt-out provision by special resolution of the body corporate. 
I think we went down the middle route by saying that the bodies corporate should be required to have a long-term plan—we are talking about 10 years here. Bodies corporate should be required to plan long term they should be required to have a fund but we would allow bodies corporate to opt out by special resolution of the bodies corporate if they felt that it was ridiculous that they were being required to save large amounts of money. Again that comes back to the entire reason for this legislation which is that the range of developments that are currently covered by unit titles law are so diverse that we need legislation that is flexible. I think that that was a very very good decision by the select committee. We will require maintenance plans to be there and we will require the funds to be there. But in those unit title developments where the owners decide in fact that they do not need to be saving so much for whatever reason or that they could do it in some other way then they will be able to do that. I think we have found a good compromise there. 
The only other issue I will raise in Part 2—and there were a large number of issues in this part but I certainly do not want to delay the passage of this legislation—is an issue about easements that was raised with me. It was raised with me specifically by someone who was sitting there listening to the debate on unit titles and heard no one mention easements. It was an issue of extreme importance to that person. So if the person is still out there listening to this debate on the Unit Titles Bill then I say that I am going to talk about easements. I thank the officials for their advice on this matter. The question that I was asked— 
Chris Tremain 
: They’ll be gripping their seat as we speak. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: —I tell Mr Tremain that he can even get my  
Hansard 
 later and relive this experience—concerns the issue where private owners have an easement over a unit title development and the only way they can get to their properties is through that easement. So they are not part of the unit title development; they do not have any rights on that body corporate but they have an easement and they are not able to get to their property without that easement being there. 
Clauses 48 and 49 of the legislation deal with easements. They make it clear that the deposit of a unit plan has no effect on any easement or covenant to which the base land is subject or on any easement or covenant that is pertinent to the base land. I have spoken to officials about that and they have assured me that where an easement currently exists that right would be upheld. I also asked them what would happen to an easement allowed on land not in a unit title development and the land subsequently went into unit title development. I am assured that even though that situation is not covered by this legislation specifically it is covered by the Land Transfer Act. Again the right of that easement is there and permission would be needed from the people who relied on that easement in order for it to be taken away. I thank the officials for their advice on this matter and with that I will sit down. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 112 in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to Part 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to.