Mackey Moana: Unit Titles Bill — In Committee 
Mackey Moana: Unit Titles Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:661;Page:9873] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I will take a short call on Part 4 of the Unit Titles Bill. It is about disputes resolution. I want to comment on the decision of the Social Services Committee in terms of whether the Tenancy Tribunal the High Court or the District Court would be the appropriate forum for disputes resolution. Clauses 155 to 159 make clear that this bill extends jurisdiction for non - title related disputes—that is an important distinction—under $50000 to the Tenancy Tribunal. That is an important change. Currently those disputes would have to go to court which can incur far greater cost because court lawyers are involved whereas that is not the case at the Tenancy Tribunal. The Tenancy Tribunal can also hear cases far more quickly. 
The primary concern that submitters raised was that the Tenancy Tribunal does not have the experience in unit title law to be able to adequately fulfil that function. That was certainly something that the previous Government considered and something that the current Government has considered. We are assured by officials that the very competent individuals who manage and run the Tenancy Tribunal will be well trained and well briefed in this law so that they will be able to pick up that role. And it does make sense; the Tenancy Tribunal is a very efficient forum. It is able to come to agreement on disputes involving lesser amounts of money far more easily than the courts. So non-title related matters under $50000 will go to the Tenancy Tribunal. The District Court will hear any matters transferred from adjudication any appeals on decisions that are made by the Tenancy Tribunal and any claims with a value of between $50000 and $200000. 
In what I think is another good move the District Court will replace the High Court as the court of first instance. That is another important move to make dispute resolution much faster and far less costly. 
The High Court will now retain jurisdiction only over title issues. To clarify title issues are disputes that relate to the title of the land—for example over redevelopment cancellation of a unit plan or conversion to unit title tenure. Those disputes will remain with the High Court as will any claims with a value of over $200000. Those are very very good moves which will make it far easier to resolve disputes far more quickly. 
I acknowledge concerns raised by submitters who did not feel that the Tenancy Tribunal would have the skills to carry out this function. I feel confident from the assurance that we were given about the training those individuals will receive that that will not be the case. They will be adequately trained. I am sure that in the long-run members of the public will see the overwhelming advantage in terms of both the speed of resolution and the cost of resolution in transferring that amount of work to the Tenancy Tribunal and in making the District Court the court of first instance instead of the High Court. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 112 in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to Part 4 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 4 as amended agreed to.