Strong, clear body corporate laws are necessary because in some buildings, relations between owners, the Body Corporate Committee and Body Corporate Manager are at loggerheads. Ill will, legal action, money making schemes, and a lack of transparency in the operation of sinking funds (in many cases holding millions of dollars) are reasons for this. Laws and regulations need to be built on the principles of fostering transparency, accountability and ethical behaviour. State governments will have to shoulder the blame of body corporates being in turmoil if they don’t give owners the tools to ensure they operate beyond reproach.

Here are issues that warrant attention:

1. As things stand, anyone can set themselves up as a Body Corporate Manager. They should be required to be members of a reputable, accredited Body Corporate manager’s organisation that has an enforceable code of conduct and that sets minimum relevant qualifications and experience.
   
2. Owners shouldn’t need to fight to access body corporate financial records, the owners’ roll, committee minutes and other documents. The documents can be available to owners through their individual login credentials to a website or community portal. Virtually all documents are now created electronically and are easily uploaded. Some matters might need to be temporarily embargoed on commercial-in-confidence or other special defined grounds.
   
3. Owners should not be charged for a document that can be available through the Body Corporate website or community portal for free. Legislation currently allows our Body Corporate Manager to charge owners more than $1000 for just the owners’ roll, which already exists in digital form, and which could be provided in seconds at the touch of a button. Owners have an unarguable right to see exactly what records exist. They are the owners’ records and should never be inaccessible or secret. There is no need for an owner to have to pay anything to simply download anything to their own computer or mobile.
   
4. Where access to documents is refused, the Body Corporate Commissioner’s office should be empowered to instruct the manager to make those documents available straight away. Owners should not have to launch lengthy proceedings before a tribunal to get them. This not only inconveniences owners, it also can cause months of delay and clog the system with lengthy hearings on trivial matters, resulting in inefficiency and an unnecessary cost to taxpayers.
   
5. The tribunal process in Queensland needs to be overhauled so that cases are not delayed for lengthy periods. The same applies to appeals. For example, in one case, a legal firm was able to delay a pending appeal for two years, an action that has frustrated residents who won the original adjudicator case and who are then denied implementation by a legal appeal with multiple extensions of preparation time. Extensions can be granted with little justification. Residents can run out of time and funds defending a tribunal decision already made in their favour. That is unjust.
   
6. We also hold concern about the enforcement of an adjudicator’s orders. As things stand, a successful appellant has to privately take a matter to the Magistrate’s Court to have an adjudication enforced. Clearly this can be beyond the financial capacity of the average owner, where an adjudicator determines in their favour. Maybe an order should be referred directly to a court if not complied with within a certain time?
   
7. Body corporate committees should be required to publish at least monthly updates on ongoing works and timetables for necessary major works. This is especially essential when residents’ safety is at stake.
   
8. It should be compulsory for body corporates to use electronic voting for body corporate elections. This will help reduce the incidence of vote rorting, such as the distribution of already filled-in ballot papers to some unit holders. It will also aid interstate and overseas owners who have a right to be active in body corporate affairs.
   
9. Any advice to the body corporate on loans and investments should canvas a wide variety of investment options and any recommendations should weigh up those options. Financial advice obtained by a body corporate should be available to owners in full before any financial decision is voted on, to prevent owners being misled.
   

Owners need these tools to gain access to documents and information to ensure the millions in sinking fund accounts are spent ethically and that these funds do not become a honeypot that attracts unscrupulous operators, who also risk giving body corporates a bad name among potential investors. Clear and strong laws and regulations also will allow disputes about access to documents and other less complex matters to be settled on the spot, rather than be the subject of applications to the Body Corporate Commissioner’s office, resulting in hearings and deliberations which tie-up the office’s scarce resources and waste taxpayers’ money.