Shearer David: Unit Titles Bill — In Committee 
Shearer David: Unit Titles Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:661;Page:9871] 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 I will take a short call on Part 3 of the Unit Titles Bill this evening. I was speaking when I spoke last about the 75 percent and 25 percent provisions—the change in the threshold—in terms of coming to an agreement with the body corporate. I was saying I thought that that was a good decision in the sense that it allowed and enabled the body corporate to move forward and make decisions about property without needing absolutely everybody to reach a unanimous decision because essentially one owner could have held up the entire process. I acknowledge my colleague Phil Twyford’s question about why the threshold is set at 25 percent and I hope that an answer on that may be forthcoming in the next little while. But at least in this modern day and age that provision enables the great bulk of the people who are involved in the body corporate to be able to move on and make decisions about their particular property. 
I guess the counter to that though is the need to ensure that the 25 percent of voters—and it may not be 25 percent; it may be much less than that—do have some sort of a process ability or avenue for redress should they disagree with what is being brought forward. That is really what I would like to look at in the next couple of minutes. Basically we need to have a robust process to ensure that those who disagree with the majority can apply to have their views heard through preferably mediation but certainly the adjudication of the courts. There was some discussion on how this is to happen remembering that for much of the last 38 years the High Court was the body that heard a lot of those disputes. Considerable work has gone into this by the officials who have looked at a range of different options and different bodies that would be able to take care of disputes. They looked at the disputes tribunal for example. It was considered not to be the best option. It was a possible option but it certainly was not the best option because the disputes tribunal did not really offer any incentive to resolve disputes. In addition many of its decisions were not necessarily very transparent and were not published. 
What was decided upon was that the Tenancy Tribunal would better fulfil the objective of establishing a more holistic and effective disputes resolution service. It would be quick accessible and credible and it was proven. The Tenancy Tribunal has a very good record in resolving disputes from both landlords and tenants and in this case could be extended to a body corporate. The Tenancy Tribunal has a demonstrated approach to dispute resolution. It has information education and mediation services etc. The process is also very easy to understand and follow particularly as it is nearly always the case that the people who take their cases to the Tenancy Tribunal are not lawyers but are people who seek good and fair redress to a problem that they have. I think that that was a good decision. We are looking at the Tenancy Tribunal in the first instance taking the role of mediating any disputes particularly—as I was saying before—those between the 75 percent majority and the 25 percent who perhaps disagree and enable that to go forward in a way that will be to the benefit and certainly to the satisfaction of all concerned. 
I once again acknowledge the hard work of the officials on this very technical legislation and once again the cooperation that has occurred between members on both sides of the House both during the term of the previous Government and into that of this Government as well. I acknowledge Mr Phil Heatley who brought this legislation to Parliament just a few weeks ago. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 112 in the name of the Hon Maurice Williamson to Part 3 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to.