Property Law Bill

It is a bit unusual, really, to start off this debate without a prefatory comment from the Minister. I am a bit surprised by that because this is important legislation, which has a history that in recent times has gone back to 1952, but beyond that it goes way, way back to the conveyancing ordinances of 1842. There is a shameful aspect to it, which I would like for just a moment to refer to—that is, we are here faced with legislation that was the basis of a very careful report by the Law Commission some years ago, and it has taken all this time to come to fruition in the parliamentary process. It was, I understand, in 1994 that the Law Commission completed a report on this important topic, yet it was not until 14 November 2006 that the Government introduced this legislation.

One of the current issues in Parliament is this word “property” and the scope of this word, and in the last few days that has been an issue that this Parliament has had to revisit in a number of contexts. But here we have a very broad and sweeping definition. “Property” means everything that is capable of being owned, whether it is real or personal property, and whether it is intangible or tangible property. In the context of some seven parts to this legislation there is an opportunity, of course, to take multiple calls, but I would just say that in respect of Part 1, where we are dealing with preliminary provisions, what is at issue here is the purpose of the legislation and a raft of definition provisions. I notice that the Act will bind the Crown, which is surely appropriate, and there are some other general and enabling provisions.

I commend Part 1 to the Committee.

I would like to join my colleague Dr Richard Worth in commending Part 1 of the Property Law Bill to the Committee. We spoke at the second reading of this bill last night and, as my colleague has said, this is a very important bill. It probably is, too. I have not weighed it and I have not counted the pages, although I guess they are numbered, but it must be one of the largest bills before the House, as well. Perhaps not—the Minister in the chair, Ruth Dyson, is not sure.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: That’s the tax bill.

The tax bill is larger. OK, that is significant. But this is a substantial bill and, indeed, it is a very important bill, because property, and its correct definition, is something that affects all of us to varying degrees, right throughout our lives. It is interesting to see where the—

💬 Hon Member: Cradle to grave.

That is right—and even after.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Can’t take it with you.

Well, an awful lot of people, when we look at the Wills Bill, try to determine how things will happen from the grave.

To give members an instance of how important the definition of “property” is, and how important mortgages and attendant qualifications are, I will tell members about a press release I got from the West Coast today that reflects on the significance of mining licences or permits as property. It was about a case where a West Coast company has received another setback, with the Court of Appeal effectively ruling that the licence the company bought for $45 million in 1997 has a real value of just $290,000. The managing director said that he was totalled by the decision.

It was an interesting case. The genesis of it was, in terms of property, a mining licence that, in 1994, had a value of $100. It was first issued to two partners in one company; it was transferred to a further company for $5,000; it was later transferred to yet another, and another after that for $10,000; and then the value of the resource was put at $45 million to $180 million. The valuer was prepared to go to the larger figure but the value was set at $45 million. It was estimated the extraction value of the stone would be $4,000 a tonne, and there were 15,000 tonnes. A transaction occurred, but all was lost after the settlement. A debenture and mortgage of shares were executed, the trust account of $44,920,000 was delivered to the purchaser, but the Chief Inspector of Mines in January 2000 withdrew a consent for the modified work programme that had been lodged 2 years earlier. By the time the licence expired in 2000, the company, Glenharrow Holdings, had extracted only 3,600 tonnes of stone. So the legal complications go on and on and on.

It was interesting to be part of the select committee that examined the Property Law Bill. I guess the best contribution one can make to this part of the debate is to signify parts of the report of the Justice and Electoral Committee. In the case of Part 1, probably one of the significant things—and it was discussed earlier in the last bill debated, the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Amendment Bill—was the irrevocable powers of attorney. It was recommended that “clause 21 of the bill be amended to make clear that it applies in favour of purchasers. This ensures that the current law contained in sections 136 and 137 of the Property Law Act is retained, and helps to make it clear that third party purchasers are protected.”

This is a long bill—I think there are seven parts. I am sure that those who are in the Chamber are familiar with the bill, and there is little point in talking it to death. So I will restrict myself to that much on Part 1.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 146 in the name of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to clause 4 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 General rules relating to dispositions, instruments, transactions, and property