Page 1840 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 8 June 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
It is interesting that Minister Corbell says that this could lead to structural problems with the building if we in effect allow water meters to be installed on common property. Whether you have a 50, 66, 75 or 100 per cent resolution, that does not address the structural issues which may exist when installing a water meter. What is going to affect the structural issues when you install a water meter is whether the installer is operating in accordance with utility regulations, with the building code and with legislation. It has nothing to do with what percentage of people in the building happen to authorise it or not—absolutely nothing to do with that. I think it is a very weird conclusion that Minister Corbell would draw by saying that somehow the resolution is linked to the structural integrity of the building.
Further to this, Minister Corbell said that there could be financial hardships placed by the body corporate on units who are forced to install a water meter. This, he said, would be unfair. Of course, what would also be unfair would be somebody using more than their fair share of water. But it is also worth noting that a body corporate at present can, in effect, put financial hardship on unit owners by driving up the price of the body corporate fees, whether it be for the sinking fund or for the operational expenses. The body corporate already has powers to in effect drive up the cost of living in a complex. However, we know from experience that bodies corporate tend to do absolutely everything they can to keep costs to a minimum.
The bill does not prescribe the type of submeter which has to be installed. It would be up to the owners corporation or unit owners to work this out with Icon Water. The government could, of course, make regulations which could stipulate what sort of water meter is required. They could, for instance, demand that electronic meters that can be read remotely would be required. This is something that the government could have included.
When you have a government that says, “We agree with it in principle; however, there are a few issues with it,” the usual course of action is to work with the proposer of the bill to make amendments and to amend the bill so that the principle which is supported gets enacted. Instead, the government has taken the lazy approach. Hence, we found out today that it would not be supporting this bill. There was no effort whatsoever, in the lead-up to this debate, to work with the opposition to ensure that this important legislation could get up.
The bill allows for water to be charged for through a bill rather than in advance through a budget. Minister Corbell said that this was a problem. In actual fact, this has been a specific request from bodies corporate. Doing it through a budget in effect means that you have to have a reimbursement situation, whereas by doing it through a bill you can do away with a lot of the administrative problems that would occur if you have to budget in advance for water usage. This was a request by numerous bodies corporate on the advice of managers that the easiest way to do this would be to allow for the option that it can be done through a bill rather than in advance. The alternative is to require owners to pay up-front and then potentially overpay; then you get into a more onerous administrative situation.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video