Page 1839 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 8 June 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Charging a proportion of the total usage is not just unfair; it can cause extreme financial hardship for residents who have chosen to conserve water in order to not only minimise the impact on the environment but save money themselves. The current policy limits the ability for people to be financially prudent and to choose to conserve water.
The problem is becoming worse in mixed use situations, where both residential and commercial units have their water usage measured by the same water meter. Residential owners pay huge water bills to cover the water cost of some commercial units, and therefore they believe it is pointless to conserve water. As I mentioned when I presented this bill, there are cases where owners of residential units have had their water bill more than doubled once a restaurant has opened downstairs. Owners in mixed use developments understand that there will be compromises required as part of living close to commercial operations and in mixed use developments. However, they should not have to subsidise other people’s water usage. It is entirely unfair that commercial and residential properties should have their water usage measured by the same meter.
When faced with a situation where one owner or a group of owners is using considerably more water than other owners, the logical thing to do would be to allow for water usage to be measured individually. However, the current unit titles legislation only allows this in certain circumstances. In order for an individual owner to install their own water meter, an unopposed resolution must be passed. This is nearly impossible to achieve, because the owner or owners who are using more water may not agree to such a motion. When I was first looking into this issue, I was contacted by a constituent who spent 10 years—10 years—trying to persuade the other owners in the complex to install individual meters. This is understandably frustrating for owners. In that particular example, there was one person that was suspected of using all the water, and that was the one person who was blocking the motion in every meeting of the body corporate. Of course, it is even less likely that an owner of a commercial unit would agree to have an individual meter installed to actively measure the water that they are using.
My bill sought to reduce the threshold for allowing the installation of an individual water meter or submeter to a simple majority. These provisions will apply in cases where an owner or owners want to install an individual meter for their unit. If the majority of unit owners in a unit complex decide that submeters are a good idea, they will be allowed. Reducing the threshold for a resolution gives owners the power to decide to install submeters, but it still allows the majority of unit owners in a complex to reject such a proposal. If submeters are allowed, owners will have the choice as to whether they install an individual meter for their unit or not. It is quite reasonable.
The bill also includes a provision to allow a special resolution, requiring a two-thirds majority, to require a submeter to be installed for a unit. The provision is particularly aimed at mixed use situations where a commercial unit is using large amounts of water. In such cases, the owners of the residential units could agree by special majority to force the owner of the commercial unit to install a submeter and be correctly charged for the water that they are using. This provision might also be used in residential situations where there may be an owner using significantly more water than others.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video