Page 1465 - Week 04 - Thursday, 26 March 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
accessible at the moment a person needs to understand them. Whenever we change the law, inevitably, there may be doubts about how a law will operate in practice, and this is an understandable concern. However, it is not a reason for not proceeding to change the law, as we did last year, to improve the position of owners of unit titles. It is a reason to watch practice in this area with some vigilance, to ensure the worst-case scenarios of the doomsayers are not realised and, where appropriate, to finetune and provide guidance and assistance in particular cases.
With that in mind, since the passage of the act the government has released a number of online resources concerning the changes in the new act and explaining the reasons for the change. Recently the government, as I have indicated earlier, released a website providing a central access point to all of these resources and providing detailed fact sheets covering all aspects of the change. As I have also just indicated, the government will shortly announce additional information resources to be delivered to owners and occupiers.
This brings me to the features of this proposed legislation that demonstrate Mrs Dunne’s ignorance of the legislation she is now so recklessly trying to derail. While not immediately obvious, the provisions dealing with implied warranties and the provisions dealing with the information package prepared by owners corporations, the section 75 statement, are linked. In turn, the market has been preparing for both for some time now. The reality is that one set of provisions cannot be amended without the other being adjusted.
In the past, without the statutory warranties, buyers rely on the section 75 statement prepared according to the form prescribed under section 75 of the Unit Titles Act. In anticipation of the 2008 amendments, owners corporations have been preparing section 75 statements in accordance with the new requirements for sales contracts to be issued after 31 March. However, if this bill deferred the statutory warranties, even if these section 75 statements were given continuing effect to prevent a pause in the marketing of units after 31 March, this would have led to a situation where buyers have neither the benefit of the warranties nor access to the old extended section 75 statements.
While I note that the Greens have explored the possibility of reinstating the old extended section 75 statement, there is no effective way of curing this problem without invoking the statutory warranty provisions. The Greens, I note, have sought to withdraw their amendments. I would say to you, Mr Speaker, that that has been an appropriate action, and it is indeed fortunate that the smooth operation of the market is not going to be affected by a last-minute change in an area the market has been preparing for over a significant period of time.
This morning Mrs Dunne gave us notice of a new amendment to defer the section 75 provisions coming into force. This is the rushed last-minute amendment to the rushed last-minute amendment, Mr Speaker. I think we all know that this second last-minute amendment did not come about because of Mrs Dunne’s knowledge of the act or unit titles generally, for if she had understood these issues at all she would not be embarking on this last-minute, irresponsible attempt to interfere with the coming into force of this important legislation.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .