Page 3688 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 26 August 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
government coffers. It also has to be said that you need a decoding device for this tricky legislation. That is why we should have stopped this process tonight and gone back and done the consultation, which was never done properly in the beginning, to get this right. Why are we rushing it through? Why is there this big urge to get this faulty, flawed legislation through? It is a ridiculous move by the government. Most people who will be affected will no doubt be none the wiser until it is too late. Of course, this Labor Stanhope government is a past master of tying up processes in unnecessary bureaucracy and red tape, which has the effect of stifling enterprise and adding to costs, and the Unit Titles Amendment Bill is no different.
Another real inequity in this bill concerns the needs of developers to have all service agreements approved by the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal. This is likely to add significant delays to getting housing into the marketplace, and delays mean more costs and housing will become less affordable. This bill is yet another example of the Stanhope government’s failure to consult, and the higher costs that will result to unit and apartment owners as well as the loss of interest moneys is no small outcome. The bill also provides that developers will have to accurately forecast the operating costs of their unit or apartment complexes two years into the future. This is rich coming from a government which year after year fails to accurately predict its own budget bottom line. It found, recently, that—surprise, surprise—it had an extra $100 million in the kitty. But the developers will be punished for not being able to predict what costs will be in two years time, even though much of this may hang on costs that are totally beyond their control. This will have serious consequences.
What this means in practice is that under section 31A (3), the buyer of the unit may, by written notice given to the developer, cancel a contract of sale before the contract is completed if the developer’s disclosure under section 31A (2) is incomplete or inaccurate and the buyer is significantly prejudiced because the disclosure is incomplete or inaccurate. The Property Council believes that this provision will be detrimental to a development proceeding because it is common for the financial lender to require that all contracts for sale be unconditional. A developer would then be able to warrant the requirement to their lender and make it difficult to secure finance. It is a remedy that is far more than required to adequately protect a buyer. It would also seem to give the buyer the ability to cancel a contract because they have changed their minds.
The additional layer of bureaucracy provided in this bill means that the new ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal, or ACAT, will become the arbiter of just about everything. Owners will have to go through ACAT to get approval to do anything to their properties, even the most minor thing, such as installing air conditioning or building a pergola. You can imagine the bureaucratic minefield being created here. It means, too, that all disputes go to ACAT instead of through the currently very workable mediation and Magistrates Court processes.
The normal process is for the owners corporation to enter into contracts for the maintenance and management of the units plan immediately after registration of the units plan. This bill provides that such contracts have to be approved by ACAT. The consequence is that the owners corporation will not be in a position to effectively and efficiently manage the units plan. The involvement of ACAT will also mean that there
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .