Statutes Amendment (Community and Strata Titles) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 30 October 2025.)

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (22:23): I rise and indicate I am the lead speaker for the opposition. I indicate the opposition supports the bill. I am, I think, still engaged in what has been some productive negotiation about what we might call one of the time limit changes that is one of the three or four broad subject matters of the bill. We might be making progress, otherwise there are, on the face of it, 17 daunting looking amendments in my name that will need to be got to in the committee stage, but they are really broadly in three categories: the first is time, the second is materiality and the third is a quorum for meetings and the capacity to conduct business.

None of those matters is news to the government and what has been going on in relation to the changes that are the subject of the bill appears, from my point of view, to have been an attempt to arrive at some practical changes through compromise. The amendments that I am—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Heysen, sorry to interrupt. I have some bad news for you, sir. According to the record, you actually spoke at 12:54 on 30 October on this very bill and there being subsequent speakers means you do not have a right to continue.

Mr TEAGUE: I didn't have—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am just letting you know what the Clerks have advised me.

Mr TEAGUE: Then I appreciate your guidance, Deputy Speaker, and I will sit down immediately and we can move to the committee stage. I hope that that refresher, while it might not have been particularly necessary, vis-a-vis me and the minister, might just get it refreshed for the purposes of the committee. Otherwise, I appreciate your intervention.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, do you wish to close the second reading debate?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS (Enfield—Minister for Small and Family Business, Minister for Consumer and Business Affairs, Minister for Arts) (22:26): I do, and I am sure during committee the member for Heysen can continue his remarks. I want to thank all members who have spoken on this bill. I want to thank the member for Heysen for his collaborative efforts on reaching some resolutions on some of those amendments. I want to particularly thank Gordon Russell for his advocacy—he has significant experience since the 1980s on this—the ERD Committee for the report that led to many of these changes, everyone who participated in the consultation, and Gillian Schach, who is here very late to assist us tonight. I commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 8 passed.

Clause 9.

Mr TEAGUE: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Teague–1]—

Page 5, line 5—Delete '21 days' and substitute '28 days'

This is in the first of the three categories that I have just now repeated. I do not know if it was picked up, but it was a bit of a Sunday Too Far Away moment. I am reminded of Foley's remarks at the front bar and so I am glad that we are here in committee.

This is one of what are really matters of practicality. Section 39 is the subject of the amendment in clause 9 of the bill, which concerns variation of bylaws. The amendment would extend the time from what is proposed to be an extension from 14 days to 21 to push it out to 28 days and, consistent with other proposals in relation to time measures, this is responsive to feedback. I do not know that there is lot more to be said about it and I might just use it as a means of asking specifically in relation to this section, and more broadly, to the extent that the government is not supportive of the amendment I am proposing, how has it landed in this case on the proposed change to 21 days, and is there something that might be consistently applied in relation to all of these time changes?

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: I thank the member for his question. This particular change is separate from some of the other timeframe changes. This is when corporation bylaws need to be provided to the Registrar-General. Going from 14 which is currently in the act, to 21 days was on the recommendation of the Registrar-General requesting that 21 days, and for that reason we propose to not support your amendment but remain with what the Registrar-General has recommended.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clause 10 passed.

Clause 11.

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [ConsBusAffairs–1]—

Page 5, line 36 [clause 11(1), inserted subsection (8a)]—Delete '5' and substitute '10'

With consultation with the member for Heysen we have reached a resolution, and I appreciate his consultative nature in these discussions. We are proposing to extend the five days to 10 days which provides a slightly longer time for a manager to send owners documents in relation to explanatory pamphlets in terms of management fees and other information that is required. So this is on the basis of what we have previously agreed to as well as feedback from the Strata Community Association, and I would like to thank them for their feedback on this bill.

Mr TEAGUE: I will speak to that and just by way of context indicate that the provision the subject of the bill prior to the minister's amendment is a requirement for those documents to be provided within five business days. The minister's proposed amendment would take that out to 10 days. In a bit of a preview, my amendment would take it out to 28 days. You see what is happening.

With every good intention, and I do not take any issue, but it does not rise quite as high as an agreement on the 10 days, but I am drawn to it. What is going on here is that this is a disclosure prior to meeting of now more fulsome documents by the body corporate manager that effectively, as the result of the combination of the obligation on the body corporate manager prior to the meeting to give certain documents to the secretary and the obligation on the secretary to ensure that the documents are provided with the notice convening the meeting, those two obligations combine, if you then have a look at section 81(2) of the act, to establish a 14-day in advance accompanying notice, therefore 14 days in advance of the meeting provision of the pamphlet, copy of contract and any other prescribed information.

The subject of the amendment is then found in the new subsection (8a), which is the obligation on the body corporate manager after the event to go and circulate around the completed—essentially the only document that is going to change in that suite is the contract itself because it will be now executed. The interesting point about that is the to-be-deleted subsection (8) of the act as it currently stands. If you go to section 78B(8) as it currently stands, it is a wholly different arrangement. It provides:

The body corporate manager must ensure that a copy of the contract, and any other prescribed information or document of a kind prescribed by regulation is available for inspection by members of the corporation at least 5 clear days before the date of the meeting at which the corporation is to consider whether or not to enter into the contract.

It is currently silent about the provisions of those things afterwards. So it is certainly beefing up the obligations. It is circulated with a notice now and that is good in the interests of bringing it to the attention of those considering it.

It might be noted, maybe it is just coincidental, but the five clear days bit is there applied as it currently stands to this making available for inspection and then perhaps coincidentally but for no other reason we now see it sort of being the time period that is adopted on the new after-the-event service obligation in the new subsection (8a). That tells me that there is no great big magic to the five days. It is not all that time-critical because it is just something that has been entered into and it is a document that is on notice prior to the meeting anyway. Everybody has already got it, they just do not have a copy of the executed contract in their hand.

It strikes me that, while it is a good idea for it to be amped up in the way it is for everybody to eventually have it in their file, there is no particular urgency to that, so I welcome the extension to 10. If that is where we have got to then I think that is a productive result of engagement on the matter, and I hope that that will assist all relevant participants in terms of the practical administration of these things.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 12.

Mr TEAGUE: I move:

Amendment No 3 [Teague–1]—

Page 7, line 16 [clause 12(2), inserted subsection (4b)(a)(i)]—Delete 'gifts or other' and substitute:

material gifts or other material

Amendment No 4 [Teague–1]—

Page 7, line 21 [clause 12(2), inserted subsection (4b)(a)(i)]—Delete 'gifts or' and substitute:

material gifts or material

Amendment No 5 [Teague–1]—

Page 7, line 23 [clause 12(2), inserted subsection (4b)(a)(ii)]—Delete 'gifts or other' and substitute:

material gifts or other material

Amendment No 6 [Teague–1]—

Page 7, line 25 [clause 12(2), inserted subsection (4b)(a)(ii)]—Delete 'gifts or' and substitute:

material gifts or material

Amendment No 7 [Teague–1]—

Page 7, line 31 [clause 12(2), inserted subsection (4b)(b)]—After 'differ' insert 'materially'

Amendment No 8 [Teague–1]—

Page 7 after line 37 [clause 12(3)]—Before inserted subsection (8) insert:

(7a) The regulations may prescribe a minimum value for the purposes of determining whether a gift or benefit is a material gift or material benefit for the purposes of this section.

Amendments Nos 3 to 8 are all of a common nature, in that amendment No. 8 speaks to the quality of what is meant by 'material', so they all concern the same point on the same clause, which is to establish some materiality to a gift for the purposes of the section, then amendment No. 8 inserts a new subsection (7a) that does not go ahead to prescribe the materiality value but provides that regulations might do so. As such, we are dealing with the practical concept of materiality, so I move these amendments altogether.

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: I indicate that the government does not support these amendments. We understand what the member for Heysen is attempting to do in terms of somewhat relaxing the strict conflict of interest disclosure requirements for body corporate managers that are imposed by this bill.

The present bill as it stands is addressing a number of concerns that were raised during consultation and off the back of a Four Corners investigation into the body corporate management industry and conflicts of interest in that industry, where the bill would require managers at AGMs to declare commissions, gifts and benefits, including from self-interested transactions and related parties received since the last AGM, as well as estimating amounts to be received in the next 12 months.

The manager would then need to disclose as soon as practicable after the AGM if commissions, gifts or benefits actually received differed from expected benefits previously disclosed and any undisclosed benefits as well. I understand the SCA, representing managers, argued that only material gifts should be disclosed. Of course, that does introduce some level of ambiguity in terms of what is material, given the nature of allegations of conflicts of interest in the industry. We think it is cleaner to leave the present bill as it is drafted, and therefore, unfortunately, we are not able to support this amendment.

Mr TEAGUE: I just note I appreciate the minister's engagement with the amendment and appreciate that contribution on the record. In terms of that question of vagueness, I highlight that that is the work the regulations would do. There is no impediment to the regulations being really quite specific about that. The minister has indicated that it is cleaner not to go down the path of a materiality threshold at all. I understand the merits of that.

This is a means by which materiality might be established. If it is not done now the subject of the bill, then it will need to be legislated in some subsequent amendment. Of course, if it was adopted as a regime now, then the regulations might be made in establishing a materiality threshold of some nominal or, to use the fashionable description in recent weeks, some sort of peppercorn level. But I understand the government's preferred course is not to do that, and I understand where the state of the house is. Again, I appreciate the minister engaging to that extent for the purposes of the committee.

Amendments negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 13 and 14 passed.

Clause 15.

Mr TEAGUE: I move:

Amendment No 9 [Teague–1]—

Page 8, line 27 to page 9, line 9 [clause 15, inserted subsection (6)]—Delete inserted subsection (6) and substitute:

(6) If a quorum is not present after 30 minutes has elapsed from the time appointed for a general meeting of the corporation, the meeting may proceed to business and the persons present who are entitled to vote constitute a quorum provided that only matters that were listed in the meeting agenda distributed prior to the meeting may be voted on at the meeting.

This is the third of the three categories that—

The CHAIR: A trilogy.

Mr TEAGUE: It is a category. I am doing that so as not to cause a sort of general befuddlement over the number of amendments overall. I am doing my best to avoid confusion myself, but it really is boiling down to these three categories, the third of which is this question of quorum. Again, it is a practical measure. We have notice provisions that are pretty thoroughgoing, including these provisions with respect to the actual circulation with the notice of documents relevant for particular meetings.

The amendment would have the effect of providing that business could be conducted but be limited to business the subject of the meeting notice. That would provide for a means by which the world could move on, albeit in those somewhat confined ways. That is the method. It will come up again for a similar purpose at a subsequent amendment, so I give that thoroughgoing treatment of it now and we might be able to deal promptly with the subsequent amendment. I commend it to the committee.

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: I would like to indicate that the government again unfortunately does not support this amendment. It is quite limited to dealing with unanimous resolutions and giving people the opportunity to go back to another meeting for those very limited resolutions. A few examples include voting to change the voting rights, which is attached to a lot that requires a unanimous resolution, and amending the scheme description of a strata plan for development which requires a unanimous resolution. Very few other resolutions are unanimous and therefore the amendment is very limited in its scope. We think that on those very significant decisions an opportunity should be given to lot owners to come back for a meeting if a quorum is not achieved.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 16 to 29 passed.

Clause 30.

The Hon. A. MICHAELS: This replicates the earlier amendments. We have certain amendments that are for the Community Titles Act and they are replicated in the Strata Titles Act. This one is going from five days to 10 days, off the back of feedback from the Strata Community Association and discussions with the member for Heysen. Again, I move this amendment in my name for the reasons we discussed earlier:

Amendment No 2 [ConsBusAffairs–1]—

Page 13, line 35 [clause 30(1), inserted subsection (8a)]—Delete '5' and substitute '10'

Mr TEAGUE: I will reconsider my amendment, which would have extended that time to 28 days. I appreciate the minister's contribution just now, in characterising it as lining up with the previous move from five out to 10. I am glad that there is some movement in that regard, and so I will not move my amendment.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 31.

The CHAIR: I think the amendments were all consequential.

Mr TEAGUE: They are not necessarily completely consequential, but they are more or less consequential in that they are same thing, replicated in the other legislation. Noting the minister's contribution the last time round, I will not move the amendments standing in my name, amendment Nos 11 through to 16 inclusive.

Clause passed.

Clause 32 passed.

Clause 33.

Mr TEAGUE: I think for the same reason, noting the minister's contribution on the last occasion and given that we have the advantage of having proceeded by the use of these three categories, I will just indicate that this is the quorum provision. I note the minister has given the government's attitude to the matter when it was previously raised. In the circumstances, I will not move amendment No. 17 standing in my name.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (34 to 40), schedules 1 and 2 and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. A. MICHAELS (Enfield—Minister for Small and Family Business, Minister for Consumer and Business Affairs, Minister for Arts) (22:55): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.