Page 4787 - Week 11 - Thursday, 20 October 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
sections of the bill that appear in other parts of the bill, it seems counterproductive to restate those provisions inside the bill. It may confuse matters more to have too many cross-references back and forth throughout the act. A fresh document that clarifies in plain language the areas of particular confusion seems like the most practical and effective response.
I would like to give one brief example which relates to approving pets. The institute suggest that the executive committee should be empowered to approve the keeping of pets rather than requiring it go to a full meeting of hundreds of owners. The government agrees that this is appropriate but points out that the act already allows for this process to take place. So the clarification that is needed is a fact sheet that sets out the pets issue very clearly rather than more legislative wording which could be counterproductive and simply add to the confusion.
The fact that the directorate staff have been able to produce a bill on the complex area of unit titles and we have got the discussion down to the point where we are looking into the need for fact sheets demonstrates that good work has occurred. We are beyond the point where we are having large-scale policy discussions. We seem to have got to the point where we are having discussions about where the best place is to describe that policy—whether that is in the law or in a fact sheet.
I would like to briefly mention the issue of sustainability measures in unit titles. The Greens made a submission to the review that highlighted a number of barriers that exist in the current legislation which prevent or deter owners from implementing sustainability measures around their homes. I am pleased to see the bill largely takes up our suggestions in one form or another and has removed those barriers wherever possible.
There were five barriers which we brought to attention during the submission process. The first is that the law as it stood prevented owners from entering a contract for things like the solar feed-in tariff during the developer control period. The Greens understood the intent of the ban was to protect future owners from being unfairly bound, but we were sure there was a better way to allow measures like solar panels to go ahead. The government have clarified this and given greater certainty to the process that owners will have to go through to enter a contract during the developer control period.
Secondly, there was confusion about granting access to roof space for the very practical task of installing sustainability infrastructure like solar panels. Amendments have been made to specifically clear this up and clarify that the owners can grant access to common property for installation of equipment.
The third issue is that the old act placed a prohibition on an owners corporation running a business. This had caused confusion as to whether collecting the solar feed-in tariff constituted running a business. The Greens thought there were policy grounds for the ban but that it was unfortunate that collecting a feed-in tariff had been caught up in the ban because this was an unintended consequence of the law. Again, specific wording has been inserted to clarify that the earning of an income from sustainability infrastructure does not constitute carrying on a business, so long as funds are reinvested back into running costs of the infrastructure. This is a sensible outcome.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video