Page 1838 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 8 June 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
These are some of the issues that mean I cannot support this bill today. And I am told that amongst the stakeholders, there is a concern about the way that the bill has been constructed. I do, however, agree with Mr Coe that this issue needs addressing, and I am happy to join with him in his call for action. I understand, and I know this well, that as an opposition or crossbench member it can be challenging to unilaterally propose a legislative solution to an issue, particularly when it is fairly complex, which certainly the Unit Titles Act is. Anyone who has worked on it knows how detailed and how tricky it can be to work through issues in the Unit Titles Act.
Mr Coe may find some consolation in the fact that he has probably renewed the government’s attention on this issue, and I am sure that an appropriate solution will be forthcoming. I understand that the government is currently doing work to resolve this issue, as well as several other issues relating to mixed use unit title developments. It is undertaking a strata reform project with stakeholders and developing solutions to identified problems, including this issue of water bill sharing.
Whilst I am not able to support this bill today, I think that this is an important issue that needs to be addressed in a timely manner, and I will certainly join with Mr Coe in urging for solutions to come forward on this matter and pursuing the issue, making sure that the responsible minister and part of the government are actually producing some proposals in this area so that we can resolve what is a relatively new issue for Canberra, but one that I expect will become a bigger issue as we see more of these styles of development being undertaken in our city.
MR COE (Ginninderra) (3.25), in reply: I rise to close debate on the Unit Titles (Management) Amendment Bill 2016. The bill is simple, but it responds to a genuine issue in the community. Since its introduction in the Assembly, I have been contacted by many people who have been pleased to finally see some action on this issue, which they have been concerned about for some time. In actual fact, I can say that my office has received no negative feedback whatsoever from anybody on this matter, other than today from Mr Rattenbury and Mr Corbell. I would be keen to hear from the government or from Mr Rattenbury as to who these anonymous people are that are critical of it. I do not doubt that they may well exist, but I simply have not had the opportunity to hear those concerns put to me. For the government to claim that there are people who are against this bill but not willing to say who they are is a bit of a worry.
The bill is designed to make billing for water usage fair for everyone, particularly people who live in units. Under the current legislation, many unit owners are charged for a portion of the total water usage for the entire complex. In most cases, the portion that each owner is charged is equal to the total value of the water bill divided by the number of units in the complex. Although it is a simple calculation, it is often very unfair. People who use large amounts of water are charged for less than what they actually use, and people who use proportionately less are in effect subsidising the water usage of others. Not only is this unfair; it acts as a significant disincentive for people to conserve water if in effect there is a lack of accountability regarding individual water usage. Many owners have concluded that there will be no financial advantage in reducing their water usage, so some do not even try.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video