Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction) on behalf of the Minister of Housing: I move, That the Unit Titles Bill be now read a third time. I am really pleased to be involved in the final stage of a bill that I think is bringing the whole issue of units and multiple unit blocks into the 21st century. I am delighted to know that this legislation has the support of the whole House. I am pleased that those living and working in unit title developments will finally have up-to-date, contemporary legislation that reflects the best practice in property management and maintenance.

Two or three of the key elements of this bill that I think will make a huge difference are certainly those to do with the voting rights issue. When the unit titles legislation was first put before this House many, many years ago, the average size of a block of units was three or four units. They were just a couple of flats here or a couple of flats there, and things like having to have 100 percent agreement whenever one wanted to make a change to the body corporate made sense. They really did.

But now huge blocks of apartments have been built—in Auckland we can see them on the skyline wherever we look. It can take just one particular tenant to hold up the process of getting a body corporate to make an agreement, because the unanimous agreement of all the tenants is needed. The tenant may not even be doing that deliberately, as he or she might be an absentee tenant living overseas. The requirement for unanimity has been changed in this legislation so that a 75 percent vote of all the tenants can make changes to the body corporate.

From my perspective in the building and construction portfolio, there is one more important part in this bill, and that is the requirement on the big blocks and apartments to have a schedule for long-term maintenance that will be required and a long-term maintenance fund to fund it. One of the things that we are finding in some of the big buildings in Auckland is that they have not had any maintenance done. So 15 or 20 years after they are built, they have serious problems with cracks, leaks, and so on. Those buildings would not be leaky buildings if, right from day one, they had had proper maintenance and had been looked after and cared for. This bill forces the big bodies corporate to publish their schedule, and to maintain those buildings, just as we would with our motorcar. The warranty for our motorcar would be void if we did not keep putting oil into it, looking after it, and so on. Well, it is the same thing now with buildings.

New Zealanders choose two very different lifestyles in this country. A lot of New Zealanders like the quarter-acre section. They like to live in their dream home by themselves. But an increasing number pursue what I think is the more urban lifestyle. They take advantage of the best that our inner-city communities have to offer. Both options are pretty good. I think it is fantastic that this bill makes urban and intensive living an attractive and viable option for those who want to live that lifestyle.

This bill does not just provide choices for people at the fast-paced, urban end of the spectrum. The best thing about this bill is its versatility. It provides a framework for creating new and innovative communities through the layered developments provision, it caters for small, suburban developments through exemptions from some financial management and governance provisions, and it ensures the regulatory framework is scalable to the size of the development. It enables commercial developments, such as office blocks or shopping malls, to make good property choices that lower the cost of doing business. It provides protection for all in unit title developments and, in particular, for those most vulnerable to being taken advantage of, such as people living in small-scale pensioner housing on unit title tenure.

The key benefits that this bill will have for those New Zealanders living and working in unit title developments are the provisions that relate to management, governance, and maintenance. The changes will mean that unit owners and bodies corporate will have the necessary tools to get things done quickly and efficiently. I think that that is the key thing about this bill. They will be tools for the modern era, which will allow things to be done quickly and efficiently for the benefit of the majority of the owners. I know of too many cases already where one owner has caused huge problems for the rest of the tenants just by not being prepared to agree to what I would have thought looked like a very sensible proposal for the body corporate.

These benefits are particularly relevant for those unit owners and bodies corporate in leaky buildings, because the changes clarify their rights and responsibilities. In addition, the passing of this bill means that they will be able to act more quickly and decisively when they need to make decisions about taking claims and getting repair work done.

I am pleased to stand here this afternoon and shepherd through the House this small but, I think, integral part of the solution that this Government is looking to try to get with regard to leaky homes, but it has a far wider range for all of those New Zealanders who live in apartments and unit titles. As the Hon John Key said in his statement to Parliament, this Government is committed to better regulation, and the Unit Titles Bill is certainly an excellent example of better regulation.

I thank all of those who were involved in this bill, from the long passage where it started back with the previous Labour Government—and I give absolute credit to Labour members for the genesis of where this legislation came from—to a whole lot of people who contributed through submissions to the Social Services Committee, to the various organisations like the New Zealand Law Society, the New Zealand Institute of Surveyors, the Property Council, the Property Institute of New Zealand, the Real Estate Institute of New Zealand, Crockers Strata Management, the Auckland Regional Council, and the Auckland City Council. The list goes on, and I do not want to spend the rest of the afternoon listing them because I know that members want to get away for Easter, but a lot of people contributed to this legislation. It is great legislation. I commend it to the House.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour) : I am happy to finally be able to take a call in the third reading debate of the Unit Titles Bill. This legislation has been sitting on the Order Paper for a while, and I think we are all very, very pleased to finally see it passing into law. I will not say that we are pleased to finally see the back of it, because that would not be true. It was very interesting. Certainly, when members of the public come into our offices now with unit title questions, members of the Social Services Committee will be more than well equipped to deal with those issues. In fact, if anyone needs any help, I suggest they forward their queries to Katrina Shanks, chair of the Social Services Committee. She is available day and night to help members of the public with their queries on unit title legislation.

I thank the Acting Minister, Maurice Williamson, who has just taken his seat. I thank him for his wonderful 2 weeks as Acting Minister of Housing—

Hon Maurice Williamson: 5 weeks.

MOANA MACKEY: Is it 5 weeks? It went so fast. It went so fast, it went by in a blur. We had a wonderful time facing off against each other for that short period of time, and he will be sadly missed. But he does remain in the portfolio of building and housing, which of course has crossover to this legislation.

I thank the members of the Social Services Committee and the officials, and also all the submitters on this very technical but extremely important legislation. I think everyone in this House recognises that the Unit Titles Act 1972 is highly outdated. It is archaic, and it certainly is not flexible enough or modern enough to deal with the range of unit title developments that exist in New Zealand today.

I will touch on a couple of the important changes that this bill will make. The first is about ownership and utility interests. The ownership interest is the interest that is assigned by a registered valuer to the principal and the accessory units in a unit title development, and the utility interest is also assigned to the principal and accessory units. But in this particular area of interest, the body corporate is able to vote to change the calculation around who pays what, and in what proportions, so they can get a more fair and reasonable apportionment of costs. That is very important. I thank my colleague Chris Hipkins for raising this issue with me. A constituent came to see him about existing unit titles law. His constituent had strong concerns about the inability under existing law to make sure that those apportionments were fair and reasonable. So when we were working on that in the select committee, we went back and made sure that the concerns raised by Mr Chris Hipkins’ constituent were addressed. I am very, very pleased to say that they are addressed, under this legislation.

Under this legislation, bodies corporate will be able to apportion those costs far more flexibly and fairly. That is not to say that there was unanimous agreement amongst submitters. Under the legislation that is about to be passed into law, both those interests—the ownership interest and the utility interest—will be able to be reassessed at any time, as long as 3 years have passed since the last assessment. Some submitters thought that that was too long; some submitters thought that that was too short. I think that it provides a very good balance between not putting too much of a burden on the body corporate to be constantly reassessing those interests, but also making sure they are kept up to date. This comes down to issues as simple as the question of who should pay for a lift in a multi-storey development. Should the people on the ground floor, who get no benefit from a lift, have to pay the same amount for maintenance as the people who use it regularly? It sounds like a simple issue, but that is the kind of thing that can bog bodies corporate down, and it is important that the law is clear that it is up to the bodies corporate to be able to apportion those interests fairly.

One of the other things I will mention is what this bill does about the establishment and constitution of bodies corporate. Under this legislation, a body corporate is automatically created once a unit plan is deposited. From that point, the body corporate is responsible for the range of maintenance functions for the upkeep of the property and of the whole development. Some submitters came along and quite fairly said that they were in a really tiny development. They asked why they should go through all the rigmarole of one of the big body corporate developments when they were talking of only a few units. We as a select committee considered that, and decided that given that people know when they go into purchasing one of those units that it will be a unit title development under unit title law, and that it will require the formation of a body corporate, that that was probably fair enough. It is also important to say that at a later point, a body corporate can decide to cancel its unit plan, to subdivide its land or buildings, and to take up some other alternative structure, if that is the will of the body corporate. But it is important to point out that the most important thing about this law change is that it will reduce the costs on bodies corporate. So the concerns that small bodies corporate have about having to shoulder all those costs will be much reduced under this legislation. Not only that, the bill allows that developments of nine or fewer units will not be required to form a committee if they do not wish to do so, and they may opt out of auditing requirements. So we have recognised that the situation for smaller developments is different compared with bigger ones, and we have given some relief in that respect.

I will move on to an important part, which is about the rights and responsibilities of unit holders. This is an area where we have seen quite a lot of litigation over the years, particularly about leaky buildings. It was important that we got this absolutely right. We needed to be clear about exactly when a body corporate was responsible, and when an individual unit holder was responsible. This legislation says that, in general, where that property is common property, then it is the responsibility of the body corporate to recover the money expended for repairs, except in a situation where a unit holder has caused the damage to the property by his or her actions. In that case, the unit holder will be held responsible.

That is not clear in the existing law that is about to be replaced. I want to make it very clear, because it is an area where there has been significant litigation about leaky homes. This bill, under clause 122(2), will impose an obligation on bodies corporate to “maintain, repair, or renew all building elements and all infrastructure that relate to or serve more than 1 unit.” This is a common-sense resolution of the matter, which has been subject to considerable litigation, as members will be aware. When there is a leaky building issue with the exterior of an apartment complex, this may manifest in a manner that affects only one or two apartments, and it may be tempting to say that only those people are responsible for the repairs. However, we know that the reality is that unless this is remedied, it will invariably affect the entire complex and the entire unit title development. Much of the litigation that has occurred in this area has focused on whether the body corporate should be allowed to contribute to the costs of rectifying these issues. There is competing precedent in this area, because the High Court has taken two different views in the cases of Young and Sunset Terraces as to whether bodies corporate are able to do that.

I think it is important that this House makes it quite clear that in this legislation we have taken the approach of Young, in the Young High Court case, and this will shift the focus on to rectifying the problem as quickly as possible. I think it is very important to point out that where there is conflicting precedent, the High Court may look to this House to clarify whether the intention of Parliament was to follow the decision in the Young case in the High Court, and that was the way the select committee went.

The Minister has already mentioned long-term maintenance plans. This is a significant change in the law, and it is important. In the past there have been cases where there has been a significant need for capital development in a unit title development, but it has been blocked. Unit title holders can be hit with a very, very large one-off cost, and the fact that under the existing law any one person could object has resulted in work being blocked. Any one person could object when he or she found it difficult to pay that significant one-off cost, and could vote against it and block that work being carried out—not because the work did not need to be carried out, but because that person simply could not afford to pay the cost.

When this legislation was introduced it contained a requirement for a long-term maintenance plan to be developed, and a requirement for a fund to be put in place to pay for the long-term maintenance plan. Submitters to the select committee said that they did not feel it was necessary to legislate that in law. We looked at three options: one was the status quo in the Unit Titles Bill; the second was that a long-term maintenance plan had to be mandatory, but the fund could be opted out of by a special resolution of the body corporate; and the third was to say that both the plan and the fund were mandatory, but both could be opted out of by special resolution of the body corporate.

The select committee weighed up the options and felt we should go down the path of saying that the long-term maintenance plan is mandatory and cannot be opted out of, but the way in which it is paid for can be flexible. So under the legislation the fund is mandatory, but by special resolution of the body corporate it can be opted out of. I think that provides the flexibility that is needed under this bill.

There have been a number of changes regarding disputes resolution. The Tenancy Tribunal has been opened up to the unit title holders, and the District Court has been made the court of first appeal instead of the High Court. All these things will make it cheaper and simpler for unit title holders. I commend the bill to the House.

HEKIA PARATA (National) : Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker Barker. I rise to take a short call on the Unit Titles Bill. National went into the election on a platform of streamlining and simplifying regulations, and this bill offers another opportunity to achieve that goal. The bill addresses a range of problems that have been identified, such as issues with joint decision-making, building maintenance, financial management, governance, information disclosure, consumer protection, and dispute resolution.

The bill has attracted very positive feedback from the industry, and I have been delighted to participate in the development of this legislation. In particular, I commend Moana Mackey, who has just resumed her seat. She has been a very comprehensive and hard worker on the Social Services Committee, as the 10-minute speech she delivered before my speech demonstrated. I thank her, and applaud her interest and the detailed consideration she gave to the bill. I also acknowledge the chair of the select committee, Katrina Shanks, who is in the House at the moment. She and her family should be proud of the work she has done in bringing the bill to the House.

I commend the bill. Kia ora.

Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) : I rise to speak in the third reading of the Unit Titles Bill. I will make a couple of points that have been made before but bear repeating. I appreciate the words of the previous speaker, Hekia Parata. I remember interviewing her at one point for the position of chief executive of Housing New Zealand Corporation. I regret that she was not appointed to that position at that time, because she would have been a very able chief executive of Housing New Zealand Corporation had she been appointed. However, the proximity of that appointment to her standing in the election made it a little bit difficult in terms of the kind of impartiality that was needed. But I recognise that member’s commitment to housing, and that is really the basis for what I want to say about the Unit Titles Bill.

This bill does some good things—there is no doubt that it does; we would not be supporting it otherwise. It came from the previous Labour Government. It was introduced by Labour on 29 May 2008. It was referred to the Social Services Committee after its first reading on 5 March 2009. The select committee report came to the House on 2 September 2009, and the second reading was held on 16 February 2010. The Committee stage took place at the end of March 2010, and here we are in urgency, with the calendar on the wall in the Chamber showing “March 30”, but we all know that outside it is April Fool’s Day.

The point of rehearsing that history is that this bill is one of the few things that this Government had done on housing since its tenure began at the end of 2008. Although we are supportive of this bill—as I said, why would we not be, as it originated with us—the fact that it has taken as long as this and we are sitting during this fabricated urgency in order to see off the third reading is an indictment on this Government, quite frankly. It is in fact the only thing that has been done on housing since this Government took over.

I applaud the fact that the bill gives greater flexibility to unit title holders and those who participate in bodies corporate. The bill was designed in its initial stages to address the 38-year difference between the original unit titles legislation and the kind of situation we have now, where blocks of flats and high-rise apartment buildings have been proliferating in recent times.

I applaud the inclusion of maintenance plans, and I applaud the fact that there will be some orderly progression of expenditure in maintaining and developing any buildings that are owned or managed by bodies corporate with unit titles. That will help individual unit title owners to manage the costs of maintenance and ongoing improvement.

But is that all there is from this Government on housing? Housing is one of the most pressing issues that we have in front of us at the moment. There has been no improvement in housing affordability under this Government. Although I am very pleased that the Unit Titles Bill will bring unit titles into the modern era, there has been no progress on housing affordability nor any imagination applied to creating affordable housing since this Government took office. Despite the Government’s slogans during the election campaign, that is one area where it has been palpably lacking in ambition. There is no such thing as being “ambitious for New Zealand” when it comes to this Government housing the poor or allowing people on modest incomes to get into the housing market for the first time.

Although the Unit Titles Bill may help people who have been able to buy a unit in a block of flats or an apartment in a high-rise building, and they will be grateful for the modernisation of the legislation, there has been no measure taken, no imagination applied, and no announcements made that would give anybody the impression that this Government cares a jot about whether people can afford to buy their own houses and to live with the security that owning one’s own house provides. We have seen no affordable housing being created by this Government. In fact, we have seen quite the opposite. We have seen the abolition of affordable housing by this Government. There were to be 3,000 houses built at Hobsonville—1,000 of them were to be affordable houses and 500 of them were to be State houses—but that project has been axed. At the very least the affordable housing and the State housing components of that project have been axed by this Government. So forgive me for showing a little irritation and impatience over this bill, but it is the only thing in the housing portfolio that the Government has to show for 15 months in office. There is one disgraced Minister and one bill that the Government did not even think of.

I am pleased to support the bill, but I do not want it to go by completely unnoticed that it is the only thing the Government has done in housing. Now the Government is rehabilitating the former Minister of Housing at breakneck speed, but for what purpose? Is it so that we can have another 15 months of inaction, of no announcements about the Government’s fabled Gateway Housing programme? There has been nothing about urban renewal to provide affordable housing. The only thing that relates to urban renewal is this little bill, which was not even the National Government’s in origin. That is a pathetic performance. For Government members to sit there and pretend that it needed to be passed under urgency when it should have been passed a year ago is shabby and inadequate, and speaks of gross incompetence.

Moana Mackey: Where is the residential tenancies bill?

Hon MARYAN STREET: Where, indeed, is the residential tenancies legislation?

We do not even have any advertising of the previous Labour Government’s shared equity scheme. It has not been shelved, to my knowledge, but it certainly has not been advertised. So in respect of the creative solutions that the Labour Government came up with, particularly towards the end of our tenure in office when the problem of housing affordability exploded on to the scene, the fact that this Government has not addressed those solutions, and all we have is the Unit Titles Bill’s third reading being debated under urgency when it could have been managed more competently in ordinary hours, is an indictment on this Government.

The Minister who is now responsible—Phil Heatley’s name was on this bill, but now I see that it has Maurice Williamson’s name—may go off into his Easter break feeling proud of himself. Well, I ask him to reflect on this issue. Firstly, it was not his idea; secondly, it has taken him ages; and, thirdly, he had a disgraced colleague who could not bring it to fruition himself. This bill is all the National Government has to show in respect of housing. It is not good enough.

Labour will vote for the bill; of course we will, because it had things in it that we designed in the first place. And it is good that it is finally here. But the process and the things that are missing from this Government in terms of housing are glaringly wrong.

TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) : What a grubby, churlish, and confused contribution that was from the former Minister of Housing, the Hon Maryan Street. It is worth pointing out to the House and to anybody listening that that former Minister has not been a part of the Social Services Committee since the change of Government. She has not been working with our committee as we have done considerable work in a very constructive manner.

As my colleague Hekia Parata did, I thank a previous Labour speaker, Moana Mackey. I too acknowledge that she has a genuine and detailed knowledge of these issues and has made a very constructive contribution.

It is very disappointing that in the third reading of the Unit Titles Bill, we had to listen to an attack on members of this House and comments—

Hon Maryan Street: Well, someone has to call it the way they see it, Tim.

TIM MACINDOE: —she continues to interrupt now—that wander far away from the point of this bill. Sadly, I have to move on in a minute or so to a select committee and I cannot do justice to those comments.

The Social Services Committee heard considerable contributions from a large number of submitters. They were heard very, very comprehensively, and their points have been taken on board. There have been two Ministers of Housing during the passage of this legislation through the House, and both have given it considerable attention. I commend them for the work they have done. There is no doubt that this is very significant legislation. I acknowledge the work that was done by the previous Government, but I certainly dispute the suggestion that we have been sitting on our hands in terms of bringing it back to the House. This legislation required the work it has received.

New Zealanders have heard a lot of talk about simplifying regulations in recent times. This Government has brought this legislation to a conclusion. I am very proud to commend it to the House and I am delighted that it will soon become the law of New Zealand.

GARETH HUGHES (Green) : Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker Barker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. In the spirit of urgency I will take a short call on the Unit Titles Bill. It is certainly high time for this legislation, as the original Unit Titles Act, which came into force in 1972, is 38 years old. The Greens will be supporting the bill in the third reading.

The old and outdated legislation could not have anticipated new developments such as body corporate agreements and the new ways that people are living. Intensification of urban living is the trend of the last decade and good environmental and urban design practice. The New Zealand dream of the quarter-acre block, although still appealing to many, is not how the majority of Kiwis live any more. This is particularly true in Auckland. The Auckland Regional Council estimates that 700,000 dwellings will be required to house a population of 2 million people, so 300,000 extra homes will be needed in Auckland by 2041. We have a choice to grow upwards or to grow outwards.

Updating the law governing multi-unit building developments such as apartment blocks, townhouses, and office towers is necessary. This bill clarifies the duties and powers of unit owners, the body corporate, body corporate managers, and developers. Decision making is made easier and more transparent. That issue was picked up in the earlier stages of the debate, as well as the important issue of weathertightness.

I was not involved in the previous stages of this debate but I acknowledge Labour’s role in the original drafting and the many years of consultation by the various stakeholders that has fed into this bill today.

This bill will assist housing intensification. Our cities need to grow upwards, not outwards. Urban sprawl has contributed to high transport costs for motorists, taxpayers, and ratepayers. In Auckland, 16 percent of the city’s wealth is spent on transport costs. In comparison, in more urban-intensive Europe, which has better public transport and active transport modes, the amount spent on transport is only 6 percent. The Auckland Regional Council lists some of the reasons why intensification is good: cost savings in land, infrastructure, and energy; reduction in housing, lifestyle, and transport costs; and greater physical activity and consequent health benefits. To quote a famous ACT on Campus spokesperson: “I think my argument is so powerful that it’s not necessary to talk about it.” The Greens will be supporting this bill. Kia ora.

RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) : The purpose of the Unit Titles Bill is principally to update the law in order to provide for the range, complexity, and size of today’s developments, including large-scale projects.

Unlike some of the other legislation that has come through under urgency today, this is a bill that had a long and thorough public consultation process, attracting over 100 submissions from the public and interested groups. During the process of consultation some very positive developments emerged, including the introduction of new clause 7A, which specifies that the bill does not restrict Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993.

However, I would not want to give the impression that there are no outstanding issues remaining with this bill. The bill updates the law regarding subdivision, development, and management through bodies corporate. We have some difficulties in that the bill provides for corporate housing development, but does not address the issue of facilitating Māori housing development. At present under the law there is no capacity to enable the owners of Māori customary or freehold land in a particular area or papakāinga to join with one another to collectively manage their lands and do things like restrict the sale of land in order to maintain the integrity of the papakāinga. The question we would like the Minister of Housing to consider further is whether a new bill can be developed to take into account special Māori needs to protect their papakāinga.

Another issue we have been considering is the relationship of Māori land to the joint ownership and management of land for the particular whānau, hapū, or iwi belonging to that land. There are currently serious problems with the subdivision of Māori land, particularly where the Māori Land Court will not agree to the partitioning of Māori land. Getting through an application for an individual partition of land is inevitably difficult, because of the thresholds of agreement needed. We need to find another way in which to protect lands from misuse and/or sale, while also allowing whānau and hapū to develop papakāinga housing projects if there is a reasonable level of consent. One way might be to identify land suitable for a Māori housing scheme and to lower the thresholds for partitioning those lands, while also placing restrictions on the sale of the partitioned lands.

I raise those issues in the context of this bill because I have confidence that the newly reinstated Minister of Housing has already established credibility in terms of his commitment to support papakāinga housing. The Māori Party has been really proud of the work we have done with him in the Kāinga Whenua project. In effect, Māori who want to build on their ancestral land will now be able to, through the unique partnership of Housing New Zealand Corporation and Kiwibank. Kāinga Whenua establishes an opportunity for Māori to build, purchase, or relocate a house on multiple-owned Māori land. The Crown supports the application, Kiwibank lends the finance, and the whānau, as long as they can demonstrate their whakapapa rights to occupy the land, can borrow up to $200,000 towards the house building costs or the purchase price of the house. This is such a fabulous initiative that we have every confidence that once this bill, which responds to the needs of bodies corporate, has been dispensed with today, the Minister can turn his attention to whānau, hapū, and iwi.

This bill is quite specific about its purpose to provide a new legal framework for understanding unit titles. That is when land is subdivided for development. As I said earlier, the main beneficiaries of this bill will be bodies corporate, and at this point I have very little information about how well Māori will be represented in this elite group. I suspect that for most Māori the large-scale projects being responded to in the context of this bill are relevant to them by virtue of their experience as tenants. While other New Zealanders have been hit hard by the challenge of property prices and rents that are seemingly out of reach, for Māori it has been compounded by issues such as low incomes, high debt levels, poor access to finance, an inability to raise house finance against multiple-owned land, and a lack of information about housing ownership options. So we know that Māori are disproportionately overrepresented as tenants. This is a movement that has increased dramatically over the last two decades. The proportion of Māori relying on rental tenure has increased from 38.6 percent in 1991 to 54.8 percent in 2006.

The Unit Titles Bill is a positive piece of legislation because it provides a socially and economically sustainable basis for the communities of individual owners. It is not, by any means, the panacea to all our problems, but we are supportive of this bill. We look forward to an ongoing and productive discussion with the Minister of Housing about Māori housing.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) : I want to take a brief call on the Unit Titles Bill. I acknowledge the work that Moana Mackey has done with such diligence in the Social Services Committee. The whole select committee worked well, and I believe it was well chaired by Katrina Shanks. I think the House ought to acknowledge that.

The Unit Titles Bill will not cover a lot of the problems in my electorate of South Auckland as far as housing goes. Housing New Zealand Corporation has admitted that people are doubling up in their houses—well, it is worse than that. Sometimes there are three families in a State house—unit titles by the people. I think that that is shocking. I want that put in the Hansard record, which is why I said it. People are now on the waiting list for garages. I do not think that is very satisfactory either. But this bill is a good bill, and it was originally started by Labour. I must acknowledge Maurice Williamson for being in the House this afternoon. He has got the bill through so quickly.

TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) : It gives me pleasure to speak to the third reading of the Unit Titles Bill, and we have done some very important work here today. The Social Services Committee worked diligently on this bill, and I want to thank staff members on the committee and the officials who came from the ministry to brief us. I also thank all members of the committee on both sides of the House who, I think for the first time in the short time I have been in Parliament, were able to reach agreement fairly quickly on some of the important areas where we needed to make changes. In other readings of this bill I have addressed those areas at some length, and I propose not to do so again today, but I want to congratulate the Minister for Building and Construction, the Hon Maurice Williamson—because he just asked me to.

One point that is very important to address here is that we were informed that over the next 50 years 500,000 people may live in a unit title development or unit in New Zealand. Therefore, should this Parliament not have moved this bill forward today with some urgency, we would have been doing a great injustice to them. I say to the Minister that it is important, as members opposite have recognised, that we pass this bill into law today, so soon before Easter.

One of the issues raised with us in the committee was that some unit title owners were concerned that some of their rights over common property areas, and some of the gardens and developments in their unit’s grounds, may be taken away from them. The children who live in these developments and apartments with their parents can sleep soundly this weekend before they search the common areas and the grounds for Easter eggs. The delivery of this bill means that those common areas, their trees, and so on, will be protected for them for many years to come. I commend this bill to the House, and I am happy to support it. Thank you.

DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) : It is with pleasure that I take a quick call on the Unit Titles Bill. As an Auckland MP, this bill has real relevance to me. There are likely to be 500,000 people living in the type of accommodation that this bill addresses. It will be extremely relevant in the years to come. I too commend those who have been working on it, such as my colleague Moana Mackey, the longstanding Minister of Housing, and those others who have worked so assiduously in the Social Services Committee.

As many others have spoken on this bill and have pointed out its good points, I will touch on just a couple. One, as we know, is that the body corporate is capable of owning common property. That will enable the body corporate to take a collective view on repairs to things like the roof or the lift of the building, which may otherwise have fallen to one unit holder.

Another good feature of this bill is that the decisions do not need to be unanimous, as was the case. Only 75 percent of people have to agree, which means that some of those who held out and who held up what otherwise would have been a good decision no longer have that ability. However, they do have the opportunity for redress in the Tenancy Tribunal, which is the place that has been set aside for any grievances, should anything like that happen.

I acknowledge that I am possibly the last speaker standing between us and the Easter weekend. Therefore, I will not speak any longer on this bill. I could be the most popular member of this House at this time! I would like to wish everybody a happy Easter. Thank you.

KATRINA SHANKS (National) : I hate to disappoint members over there, but unfortunately there is still one more speaker. I will be very brief, because I am aware that Easter is literally minutes away for many of us in the House today.

I acknowledge all the hard work that the Social Services Committee put into the Unit Titles Bill. We spent many months on it. It was a long time coming. Labour started the review in 2004. As chair of the select committee, I am very proud to stand here in the third reading of the bill and see it passed into law.

I thank the officials, who did a lot of additional work. It took a while for us to get up to speed on the bill as there were some quite complex issues in it. I thank the officials for their patience. I would also like to thank the submitters who came forward with their suggestions, many of which we took on board. The bill was changed because of their submissions. This is a very brief call.

Hon Maurice Williamson: And acknowledge the excellent Minister!

KATRINA SHANKS: I would also like to acknowledge the Ministers who were involved in this bill, especially the Hon Maurice Williamson. He added significant value to this bill in its third reading stage. I thank members for letting me take this call this afternoon.

• Bill read a third time.