Page 1836 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 8 June 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The bill includes access provisions to install a meter that may unjustifiably limit the right to privacy under the Human Rights Act. Let me give an example: if an owner is compelled to install a water meter for their unit and fails to do so within 12 months, the bill purports to allow an installer to enter the unit on one week’s written notice to the owner or occupier. The bill and its explanatory statement do not appear to contemplate this provision’s effect on a person’s right to privacy, including the effect on any possible tenants. The duration of this right of entry is also unclear, and the right of entry clearly may be for substantial works over a prolonged period. In the territory it is not normal to give people the untrammelled right to enter other people’s homes without significant justification.
The bill may also expose unit owners to prohibitive financial cost without their consent by allowing an owners corporation to require installation of a water meter within 12 months. The bill also allows an owners corporation to determine, by majority resolution, administration costs relating to the operation of a unit’s individual water meter which would then be levied on the owner.
Though the bill cites the cost of reading a meter or invoicing the owner as examples, the operative provision is actually very broadly drafted. Its operation would potentially allow the majority of an owners corporation to arbitrarily impose significant costs on particular unit owners without adverting to any potential hardship the owner may sustain as a result.
Allowing an owners corporation to require installation of a water meter may also unduly expose unit owners to the risk of civil liability without their consent. The act allows an owners corporation to oblige a unit owner to cover rectification costs and losses resulting from damage to other units or common property. Even if the installation is arranged by an owners corporation, the unit owner will be the one who still bears ultimate legal liability for any damage caused by the installer, albeit without any of the normal remedies. An affected unit owner will not have direct recourse for faulty workmanship as they will not be a party to the original contract, nor will any damage to an owner’s unit be covered by the owners corporation’s building insurance.
While this bill seeks to make a discrete policy change, as I have highlighted, the proposed amendments create extensive consequences that cannot be overcome by a package of government amendments. They include legislative, practical, financial, legal and human rights implications. While I acknowledge the community’s concerns about water usage in mixed use developments, amendments should be made that ensure a fair share of liability that must be viable, considered and sensitive to the broader context of the Unit Titles (Management) Act.
I know that Mr Coe asserts that the bill reflects the views of constituents and stakeholders but, despite this, the amendments proposed in this bill do not appropriately balance the rights of unit owners and tenants and do not reflect meaningful community consultation or engagement. This is evidenced by the fact that officers from my directorate have met with key unit title stakeholders who have indicated that they do not support the bill in its current form.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video