I can sympathise with the intent of the 5% limit but at the same time I would have occasionally be one of those caught by it if it applied to us (in the ACT), and I don’t think I was doing anything inappropriate! I have sometimes had proxies from various neighbours who I like to think exhibited good reason and sound judgement when they entrusted me with their proxy votes at meetings considering some important issues. Then, at the meeting, I would find out that a few more had nominated me when sending in their proxy forms to the managing agent. I had not ’rounded up’ all of those but having advocating on a few major issues in recent years, I was gratified to learn that quite a few owners trusted my judgement.
In the ACT it is possible to do an ‘absentee vote’ by sending in a form that indicates how you wish to vote on each notified motion without nominating a proxy. Alternatively, you can appoint a proxy and direct the proxy to vote a particular way on some or all motions, or you can appoint a proxy to vote as he or she sees fit. Consequently, on occasion, I have put up my hand twice to vote one way and once to vote the opposite because I had my own vote and two proxies directing me differently on a motion.
In the ACT, perhaps elsewhere, there are safety mechanisms in case a meeting with a ‘reduced quorum’ (<50% of owners) passes a motion unwisely. Notice of the ‘reduced quorum’ decisions must be issued within one week and the decision does not take effect for 28 days. A petition of 50% of owners within 28 days can overturn a reduced quorum decision. IE, if a meeting were poorly attended and one person had rounded up sufficient proxies to put through something that would not be supported by a majority, it is possible to reverse it. The hurdle is high, finding 50% of owners to support the reversal, but something truly awful can be readily reversed before it has been acted on if it is obviously a bad idea. [Might even be a good idea occasionally to wake people up to pay more attention to general meeting agendas!]
Alternatively, a general meeting must be called within 28 days if a petition of 25% of owners (by unit entitlement) requests it stating the matter to be decided, and that second meeting could resolve to overturn the decision of the first meeting.
A further option would be to seek orders from the tribunal. The tribunal has the power to overturn a resolution of a general meeting following a ‘merits review’.
Given these safety mechanisms, I am not too concerned about people lobbying on particular issues and convincing their neighbours to support or oppose some proposal by appointing that person as their proxy. But then I would say that I suppose, as an occasional ‘harvester’. In defence of harvesting I would note that opposition to a worthy proposal from a vocal minority can be very vigorous while support from a majority can be luke-warm unless one puts in the effort to get the vote out. I always prefer and encourage people to attend the meeting first, but offer to take a proxy as an alternative.
Perhaps other states don’t have such robust safety valves. If not, then I would suggest that something along those lines might be a better way to deal with the concerns.