Seven submitters—mostly individuals and resident-owner groups—supported having limits on proxies. The mischief they were concerned about was that unlimited proxies can allow for the abuse of the voting process. In contrast, 18 submitters opposed having proxy limits. These submitters did include body corporate managers, other professionals, and the unit title working group. These submitters were concerned that limiting proxies could limit the ability of unit title owners to have a representation at a meeting. This is particularly difficult for time-share owners, who may actually not know who the other owners are. Therefore, their usual practice is to appoint the chairperson as their proxy. Submitters were also concerned about the risk that having proxy limits would mean that some bodies corporate would struggle to meet their quorum requirements. If a quorum is not met at a general meeting, the meeting can be held one week later at the same time whether or not quorum is met. This may reduce the ability of unit owners to attend and will increase administration costs, as officials have told us.