Canterbury Property Boundaries and Related Matters Bill

on behalf of the Minister for Land Information: I move, That the Canterbury Property Boundaries and Related Matters Bill be now read a first time. I will be nominating the Local Government and Environment Committee to consider this bill. It is part of the package of practical measures that this Parliament needs to legislate to support the recovery from the earthquakes. It provides much-needed clarity and certainty for determining where the legal property boundaries are on land that has dramatically moved as a consequence of those earthquakes in 2010 and 2011.

Surveyors and others with interests in affected properties have been uncertain about the correct location of some legal property boundaries. This is because the common law in this area has been open to different interpretations under the extraordinary scale of land movements that have occurred in Canterbury. It is not directly on point with the type of land movements that were triggered by those Canterbury earthquakes. The generally accepted survey principle to date has been that legal boundaries do not move with the land. It has been difficult for surveyors to identify and interpret physical evidence of boundaries, all of which have moved with the land movement, in light of this principle. This uncertainty has resulted in surveys taking longer to complete, with reluctance by members of the surveying profession to undertake surveys in the worst-affected areas where the movements have been greatest, and more costs for property owners and delays in rebuild work.

The bill addresses this problem by providing, from the commencement of the new legislation, that legal boundaries of land in Greater Christchurch have moved with the land movements caused by those earthquake sequences. This means that all surveyors can apply the new boundaries moved principle with greater confidence and with certainty. The bill applies only to land in the Greater Christchurch area and to the movement that was caused by those 2010 and 2011 earthquakes. The bill’s approach may not be suitable for responding to future earthquakes in Canterbury or elsewhere in New Zealand or their impacts, which may differ from what occurred in Greater Christchurch. It is a pragmatic and specific measure for what occurred in that city.

Because of the uncertainty that has existed since the issue emerged following the Canterbury earthquakes, Land Information New Zealand has approved surveys by licensed cadastral surveyors on either basis—that is, on the basis that the boundaries did move or did not move—provided the surveys were otherwise compliant with the Cadastral Survey Act 2002. To avoid unfairly penalising surveyors and property owners who acted in good faith and reliance on those surveys, the bill validates surveys done on either basis, provided they were done by licensed cadastral surveyors acting in good faith and without negligence. The bill also confirms that licensed cadastral surveyors and the Crown will not be liable for surveys done and approved in the interim period just because they were done on the basis that the boundaries did or did not move with the land.

The overall impact of these measures is that property boundaries will continue to be located where property owners generally expected them to be, which will result in fewer potential conflicts and disputes than would have occurred under the status quo—that is, if a person has got a building on a property and the land has moved, and if we did not provide for this bill, we could end up with the inadvertent situation of the person having a legal contest with the boundary owner that their building was now incurring on to their title. The approach being provided gives greater certainty and fairness for those who carried out, approved, and acted in reliance of interim surveys.

However, it will result in some boundary conflicts between interim surveys done on the basis that the boundaries did not move and the surveys done after the commencement of the new legislation on the basis that the boundaries did move. The existing provisions of the Land Transfer Act provide sufficient mechanisms to resolve any title conflicts, including Crown compensation in appropriate cases, and the bill confirms that registered landowners, under the Act, continue to enjoy its protection. Other processes and mechanisms outside of the bill, such as private agreements and the Property Law Act 2007, are available to address those survey conflicts. To minimise the cost and inconvenience to affected landowners, boundary corrections made under this amended legislation for alignment with the boundaries moved principle will not be a subdivision for the purposes of the Resource Management Act. That would only add additional expense and uncertainty. Without this provision, landowners could be required to have to go away and get subdivision consent, and that would be unreasonable.

Finally, the bill will amend the Cadastral Survey Act to enable the Surveyor-General to issue voluntary guidance for surveyors. The guidance material is intended to promote consistent interpretation and improved compliance in relation to the mandatory rules and standards made under that Act. It would be good to get this legislation considered and passed promptly by the House to support Canterbury property owners and the rebuild programme faced by the uncertainty of the complexity of these survey title issues. I hope that our colleagues on the Local Government and Environment Committee will be able to seek submissions, consider professional advice, and report this bill back to the House with some priority. I must acknowledge the work of Louise Upston, the Minister who has been responsible for preparing this bill for the House. I would like to thank all the stakeholders who have contributed to the development of the bill, particularly those professional surveyors who have sought a practical solution to this problem through the various consultation processes over the draft bill.

I will conclude by saying it is essential that the people of Greater Christchurch whose property boundaries have been affected by the earthquake have this certainty over their property rights. It is also essential to maintain public confidence in the cadastre and to support the planning, rebuild, and recovery of affected communities, including the repair and rebuilding of land, of infrastructure, and of other property in Greater Christchurch. I consider that the measures introduced in this bill will achieve these objectives in a practical way and commend the bill to the House.

It is my pleasure to take a call on this Canterbury Property Boundaries and Related Matters Bill and to signal that Labour will be supporting this bill at its first reading and supporting its referral to the select committee so that we can hear the expert advice and the range of submissions that I am sure will flood into that committee for this piece of legislation.

As Minister Nick Smith, who has just taken his chair, has indicated, this is part of a suite of legislation that is currently going through this House that is about the recovery of Greater Canterbury and Greater Christchurch—about how it is that we enter this next phase. Although it is a very small piece of legislation, it is an important piece of legislation. Boundaries and how we record the boundaries round a property are actually incredibly important. For many people, their home and their property is the greatest asset that they will ever own in their lifetime. The legal definition of that plot of land is important for so many things, such as securing security from a bank over that piece of land and the ability to borrow against it, so it is important that we get this right.

What we do know is that the sequence of earthquakes that we experienced in Canterbury over the last 5 years has actually resulted in some quite significant shifts in our land and that we do have to now consider how it is that we are going to deal with this situation. The preferred option in the considerations that the Minister for Land Information, the Hon Louise Upston, gave was that we actually say that the boundary moved with the land. What we are talking about here are land movements over 20 centimetres. There actually were 11,000 properties across Greater Christchurch that fall into this category. So if we stop and consider the magnitude of that and the amount that the earth moved for everybody in Christchurch, we have had quite a 5 years on our hands.

The concentration of these properties is, not surprisingly, in the parts of the city where we had the greatest earthquake damage. So the concentration is in the eastern suburbs, particularly around the New Brighton area, with pockets in the Port Hills area and in Sumner. I am sure that will be of consideration to my colleagues the Hon Ruth Dyson and Poto Williams when they talk to their local constituents about how it is that we look at that. Because when we actually consider the magnitude of this problem—those 11,000 properties I am describing—that is actually excluding some of the worst-hit parts of the city because it is excluding the Crown-owned land in the residential red zone. So this actually is a significant problem that we do have to address, and we look forward to this legislation coming through the House.

There are some significant questions because this is so important. It is the basis of so many people’s security—their land—and where their land stops and their neighbour’s starts is incredibly important if we are going to avoid a number of disputes. We can see that a range of methodologies have been used over the last 5 years by surveyors. Because of this, the bill offers indemnity to the surveying profession under clause 10 of the legislation. This is something that we want to examine closely at the select committee. You can absolutely understand the rationale of why it has been put in the legislation, but we have to stop and ask some significant questions around this in terms of where liability will lie. If we are giving indemnity to the surveyors who carried out this work in good faith and in accordance with their profession, but, none the less, there is an error, where will the liability for those errors lie? That is something that I think the Local Government and Environment Committee will need to think about, will need to listen to expert advice on, and will need to give due consideration to.

We know already that there are 300 properties in the Greater Christchurch area that the Surveyor-General himself has identified, just through a desktop exercise, as being surveyed on a basis different than the preferred approach—that is the language that the documents are using. So we already know that there are 300 properties out there that have to go and have some fix-up work done to them. So we will be looking at that. We will be looking at the issues around liability and who is liable for what, because we know that there has always been a fund that does actually pay for fix-ups for the Crown on these issues.

Minister Smith in his speech asked that the Local Government and Environment Committee give this piece of legislation priority. The Local Government and Environment Committee is a very, very effective and efficient select committee that will give every piece of legislation priority. But one thing I do urge, and I want to put it on the record, is that we will give it priority, but it needs to be seen in the context of the other bills that that select committee is currently working through, and I am not referring to the workload of members here. What I am referring to are the two very significant Canterbury bills that are currently out for consultation at the moment, one of which puts in place our governance arrangements for our regional council—a very significant piece of legislation. It is our little bit of democracy back—that is not. That is something that Cantabrians want to submit on.

We also have a very fundamental piece of legislation that was heard in this House and has now been opened for submissions, and that is the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill, which itself is out for submissions at the moment and puts in place the transitional arrangements for how it is that we are going to regenerate our city and our province over the next 5 years. It is not work that can be rushed, but, none the less, the Government has put both of these pieces of legislation through with what I think are less than preferable consultation periods. We have moved amendments to both pieces of legislation, asking that we be able to give proper and due consideration to such important and fundamental legislation as it goes through. So the last thing that I want to see is any attempt to rush this legislation through, because it needs to be seen, just as the Minister described in his speech, as part of a suite of policies and not something—the Canterbury package of legislation—that we can just dump on the people of Greater Christchurch and Canterbury and say: “Submit—think about all these things.” They need to be able to think about these things with due consideration.

I notice in the regulatory impact statement that has come out with the bill that some consideration has been given to the consultation that this bill has gone through. So a sector group was formed, including representation from Land Information New Zealand itself, the survey profession, insurers including the Earthquake Commission, lawyers, Christchurch City Council, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority, and that was convened in March of this year. I think, as my colleague the Hon Ruth Dyson has identified, we have to ensure that we are giving property owners and residents the chance to be heard on this. There can be no greater stakeholders in this legislation than property owners and residents, and we have to ensure, as a Parliament and as legislators, that we are properly engaging with this group and hearing any concerns that they might have.

I want to hear what they think about the fact that surveyors have been indemnified. It might not be a problem, but I want the chance to have, under that group, a conversation. I see in paragraph 96 of the regulatory impact statement that we have the feedback from CanCERN and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority’s public engagement team indicating that residents are primarily concerned that their property rights and physical property boundaries are maintained. Well, take Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority as the body. That is a Government department. This is not the way we go and talk to residents, and if you actually look at any kind of satisfaction ratings around that particular Government department, you will see that that is not really the way to gauge what Cantabrians and people in Christchurch are thinking. In fact, there could probably be a no more ineffective way to engage with the people of Christchurch and Canterbury than through the auspices of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority.

But this is the doozy; this shows how much time the select committee does have to spend on this. Direct engagement with property owners on the proposals will occur through the “In the Know” hub. The “In the Know” hub is a hub set up for people to go and seek advice around the Earthquake Commission and insurance issues. I say to any member on the Government benches that if you want to start having another conversation with someone who has been locked in a battle with the Earthquake Commission and their insurance company for the last 5 years, and start indicating that their boundaries might have to change as well, good luck to you. This is not an effective form of communication. We know how fraught this is. Only last week this facility actually had to be closed down because a resident threatened to go down there with a gun. This is not a place to start having other conversations; this is a place where very stressed and very fraught individuals are going to seek advice. To even suggest that this is a way in which we should be consulting on this legislation is just laughable and it is why the select committee has to be given good time to have proper consideration of this.

Labour will be supporting this bill at its first reading. We think it is important that we get the sequence of legislation right.

As chairman of the Local Government and Environment Committee, it is always a pleasure to take a call on the first reading of a bill that is going to be directed to the committee. This Canterbury Property Boundaries and Related Matters Bill is, as the Minister indicated in his opening speech, part of a suite of Canterbury-Christchurch legislation that goes towards the regeneration of Christchurch as we enter into that regeneration phase. I am looking forward to guiding the select committee through this bill through our scrutiny of it, and looking forward to hearing submissions from people from Christchurch and the Canterbury region.

The Canterbury earthquakes of 2010 and 2011 had, of course, an absolutely devastating impact, not only in a physical sense but also in an emotional sense, upon the lives of all Cantabrians. Initially, the responses in the first hours and days were, of course, to secure human life and maintain and protect human life, and then we moved into, in the days and weeks that followed, a period of time to clean up, to tidy up, and to try to gain some equilibrium again for those people who were so affected. Then, of course, we entered, in the months that followed and the years that followed—the 5 years that have followed since—a period of recovery, and we now come to this stage of the next phase, which is the regeneration stage. This bill is designed to assist in that process.

One of the very obvious features of an earthquake, and a significant earthquake of the sort that struck Canterbury, is that the land literally moves, and in some places the land has moved very considerably and very dramatically; in some places less so, but still importantly in terms of the legal approach to how we as a nation define land tenure and the ownership of land. And it is the very basis of our land, our property-owning democracy, that land is defined in a way that is measurable, that does have boundaries, so ownership can be well defined.

What has occurred in Christchurch is that there has been a situation that has arisen that makes, literally, a legal fiction of some of the basic premises of our land tenure system. Landowners have not had the much-needed security and certainty that they need in order to progress their way through this regeneration phase. They have not had the ability to rely accurately upon surveyed lines and boundaries in terms of wanting to re-landscape property, to rebuild dwellings and buildings, and to make sure that they could do so with certainty and a robust nature. The changes that the earthquakes have strewn upon the land literally made a lie of some of the boundaries. Surveyors, for instance, have not been able to rely accurately on the historic lines and they have not been able to exactly determine where new boundary lines should be. There has been an area of dispute, an area of concern, and an area of uncertainty that must have been very professionally challenging for those surveyors and those people involved.

It has been a very long time since I studied land law at Auckland University, but one of the things that I do remember as a basic principle of our land law is that the general rule is that boundaries do not move with the land. So, in most cases, for instance where there might be a slip or something of that nature, then the boundary line stays exactly where it is. The land falls where the land falls but the boundary line remains the same. That, of course, has not been able to be the case in Christchurch.

So this bill, as I read it and understand it—and I will look forward to getting into the nitty-gritty of it as it goes through the select committee—is a bill that would turn that principle on its head, so that it would be a common-sense recognition that in the case of Canterbury and in Christchurch the boundaries did move with the land. So that is a significant change to the basic principle of our land law, and that is why this piece of legislation, which is well defined in terms of its geographic application, is needed to ensure that certainty and structure can go on so that the people of Canterbury can continue with the rebuild in a way that gives them the knowledge and certainty that they need in order to do so.

This bill will bring, I think, some much-needed clarity to people who have not had that clarity until now. The bill will ensure that the boundaries reflect the actual land changes and the real land changes. The bill will reflect a situation where the boundaries will be as landowners generally expect the boundaries to be. I think that is a very good thing. Surveyors will be able to apply the new “boundaries move” principle with certainty, and they will be able to get on and do their job.

There is no doubt in my mind that this bill will speed up the regeneration and the rebuild of Christchurch. I want to assure the Labour member who has just resumed her seat, Megan Woods, that the select committee, under my chairmanship, will give this bill every thorough scrutiny. There will be plenty of time for submitters to make submissions, and we will be able to, I am sure, accommodate this bill, small though it is and important though it is, within the wider range of the suite of legislation currently before the committee. I commend the bill to the House.

It is my pleasure to take a call on this bill. It is an interesting bill because, as the last speaker, Scott Simpson, alluded to, the fundamental tenet of property law is that boundaries do not change. But, of course, we are dealing with a very unusual situation in this case. Let me just give you a little bit of an indication of the situation we are dealing with. I was surprised when I read in the regulatory impact statement that there were just over 124,000 properties that moved between zero and 20 centimetres, but there were 10,000 properties that moved between 20 and 50 centimetres and over 1,000 properties that moved over 50 centimetres. So we are dealing with a situation here that is brought on only by the sorts of things you get in an earthquake, and it does have to be dealt with.

But I do have some concerns about this. Megan Woods alluded to the fact that we are going to support the bill going to the select committee, but let me run through a couple of issues that I hope will be addressed through the select committee process. First of all, let me say, and we know this, that New Zealanders have a love affair with property. I am not talking just about homeowners; I am talking about investors, I am talking about developers—in fact, I think we are trying to deal with one of these situations in the next bill on the Order Paper, when we bring the brightline test in. That is going to be a very interesting debate, but back to this one at this point in time.

What this bill, in my view, seeks to do is to minimise the risk of those who are involved in the business of cadastral surveying or who may have some sort of liability, whether that be the surveyors, whether that be the council, whether that be the Crown. In a way, that is most important because there would be nothing worse than a whole lot of cases being tied up in the courts for years and years and years as this sort of thing draws on due to a whole lack of certainty.

There are a couple of things in the regulatory impact statement that sort of caught my eye. I do not expect answers now, obviously, but, hopefully, these answers will come through in the select committee. We have got to remember that this has been going on now for 4 years. The earthquakes, as we know, were in 2010 and 2011. It is now nearly the end of 2015. This is a fundamental issue with regard to property—i.e., where is my boundary? Where can I build the fence? Where can I situate my property? Nearly everything to do with building a house or a fence has some reference to where the boundaries are, where you can situate a house, etc. We all know this.

What the regulatory impact statement did say is that some surveys have been undertaken and approved using a cadastral survey method inconsistent with the preferred approach. I am not too sure why this was done, keeping in mind that only licensed cadastral surveyors can actually undertake a survey. These are men and women who have gone through I think it is a 3-year university degree course—it might even be 4 years—and they are well versed in how this works. I would have thought that one of the first things that would be dealt with by the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority, or the Crown, or Mr Brownlee was “OK, when we are looking at property boundaries that we know have moved, this is the method that must be used”—or, if not the Crown, then certainly the Surveyor-General.

This was always going to be an issue in Christchurch. The fact that it has taken so long to come here and the fact that some surveyors did use a method inconsistent with the preferred approach makes me wonder why this was done in the first place. Or if surveys were lodged with the council or with the Surveyor-General, with Land Information New Zealand, why were these particular surveys not pulled up, with someone saying “Hey Mr Surveyor, we have slight concerns about your methodology. Can you walk me through why you are doing this?”, so we would not end up with the situation we are in at the moment?

The other thing that concerns me a little bit is that in the regulatory impact statement it actually talks about the status quo, and I am going to quote this: “Under the status quo, case law will eventually emerge to establish the most appropriate approach to surveying within these areas. It is unclear whether the case law will produce a legal interpretation that best meets the Government’s objectives for the survey and land title system in Greater Christchurch in post-earthquake rebuild.” The thing that concerns me a little bit about that is that it talks about the Government’s objectives for the survey. It does not mention there at all the landholders’ objectives or the landholder outcomes.

Whenever there is a piece of legislation like this that indemnifies a profession or the Crown, inevitably there are winners and there are losers. If there was not a winner or a loser, then we would let case law deal with this. But, as mentioned, possibly due to the scale—there are over 1,000 houses that have moved by 50 centimetres or more. Again, I do not know how many of those are in dispute. One of the Christchurch MPs may know this. But there are obviously a number of houses or a number of property boundaries that are in dispute—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: There may be 300.

There may be 300. It is more than the courts can reasonably handle. Therefore, what we need to do to just expedite this is come up with a legislative solution where ideally a case law solution would be the preferred method. But with 300 or 400 houses, as mentioned, we cannot work through this.

But what we really need to understand with this is who are the winners and who are the losers. We cannot have a situation, in my opinion, where the Government is the only winner here and it is the Government’s objective to expedite these, at the expense of a fair deal for Christchurch landholders. We must get this right. Whatever the outcome, I think there will be aggrieved parties. Whether it is the surveying profession, which is indemnified, whether it is the Crown, or whether it is landowners, what the Government, what Parliament, needs to be able to do is to say we went through a very robust process, we understood the arguments, and, due to fairness overall, we came up with a solution that meets the requirements of all parties. That is my concern when I read this regulatory impact statement.

It does go on to say, and I understand the arguments about this, that until we get a piece of legislation—and, obviously, there is not case law because if there was, it would set the precedent—there is a level of uncertainty and cost for landowners. Goodness me, those Christchurch landowners who are still in boundary dispute—for how long has this been going on? It has been going on for far too long. They need a level of certainty. They need the ability to be able to move on, to build that house, or locate that fence, without having the fear or the uncertainty of having to rip it up again. There is no doubt about that.

What we also need is surveyors to be able to apply judgments that lead to rules and outcomes that are understood. As mentioned, at this point in time my understanding is that one of the main reasons for this is that there are inconsistent or conflicting boundary determinations. There is nothing worse, when you get one surveyor saying this and another surveyor saying something else, and where does that end up? If you are lucky, it is sorted in mediation; if you are unlucky, yet again it ends up in the courts, which is far from ideal, especially for residents who will have to foot the bill themselves and no doubt have faced immense cost just in the rebuild process let alone in taking a case to court where, like I said, there are winner and losers.

The other thing, also, is that there is the belief that there is a lack of clarity about whether the information provided by Land Information New Zealand is actually an accurate representation of the title. This is most important, because the Land Information New Zealand information is what lawyers, surveyors, real estate agents, and, of course, those who buy and sell houses, rely on. If we cannot rely on the Land Information New Zealand information, the cadastral maps that we see on the website or when we go to a legal office, then the whole system begins to fall down. Again, the last thing we need in Christchurch—and, as I mentioned, there are over 130,000 houses that have had some movement—is legal uncertainty—

💬 Poto Williams: More.

—more legal uncertainty—where people are reluctant to buy a house, or people cannot sell a property, or investors are unwilling to build the necessary rental properties, or developers are unwilling to put up a high rise, or basically anything that hinders the rebuild of this city. The risk of that must be mitigated.

But, as I mentioned, we are going to support this to select committee. Unfortunately, I do not sit on the select committee, but I will be watching this very, very closely because I think there are some precedents that are going to come out of this as well. But, as mentioned, there are some questions here. We do need to know who the winners are and who the losers are going to be, but most of all we do need certainty. I have no doubt there are going to be a lot of submitters on this. There will be great interest from a number of Christchurch landowners and the Crown. We will support this to select committee, and so let us see what comes out of that. Thank you very much.

It is an honour and a pleasure to rise in support of the Canterbury Property Boundaries and Related Matters Bill. It is a bill at its first reading and I am looking forward to it being expedited to the select committee, to go through the legislative process, and to get the many submissions from Cantabrians. I think Cantabrians acknowledge the support that the Government is giving Canterbury post-earthquake—it is one of the top four priorities. It is a great day today with the announcement from the Minister of Health of extra funding for Canterbury District Health Board in responding to health care post-recovery. I know that constituents in my electorate of Waimakariri are looking forward to the opening of the new Rangiora Hospital in 2 weeks’ time. So we are committed to Canterbury, to rebuilding the best new city in the world.

When you look at that process we are going through at the moment, from response to recovery to regeneration, we need to ensure that there is legal clarity for the rebuilding. I am no surveyor, but when we ascertain that survey pegs are not matching up to survey plans, we need to ensure that we get systems right and to ensure that surveyors have the tools that they need to ensure the smooth recovery and the smooth regeneration of the city, because there is a range of issues affecting property owners in Greater Christchurch. I know many affected in my town of Kaiapoi around increased flood vulnerability, around vertical movement, but this legislation will focus specifically on horizontal movement, or lateral spread. That is something that many Cantabrians might not have known about a few years ago, but now the term “lateral spread” is very well known. We know about lateral spread in housing and this is to do with lateral spread in land, around the legal requirement. The surveyor’s threshold is up to 10 centimetres but we know many properties have stretched over that 10 centimetres—even in some cases up to 20 or 30 centimetres. This bill will provide clarity for laws relating to locating legal property boundaries themselves.

So I support this bill wholeheartedly, commend it to the House, and look forward to following it through the legislative process at the Local Government and Environment Committee. This is a select committee I am on, and there are many energetic and focused Cantabrians from all sides of the House on that select committee who will be ensuring the quality of that bill and legislation. Thank you.

I am pleased to take a call on the Canterbury Property Boundaries and Related Matters Bill. The Green Party will be supporting this bill partly because—well, obviously because—New Zealand’s whole land title system is very well regarded and it is long established. There needs to be certainty inherent in people when they buy a parcel of land, knowing that they are buying an area—its location, its shape, and its size—that has been marked out by a registered cadastral surveyor, and that title is guaranteed by the Government through the Land Transfer Act; the certainty that then provides to all sorts of transactions in relation to property.

So where you have had an earthquake and where the land has moved, there is uncertainty about property boundaries because of that land movement. This bill is sensible in addressing the issue that surveyors have faced where they have not known where to put the boundaries. In common law the boundaries do not move with changes in the surface of the land. What this bill is doing is recognising that nature is actually more powerful than the law, that the law needs to change, and that our common law understanding of boundaries needs to change in relation to Christchurch and the effect of the earthquakes, so that property boundaries do move where there has been substantial movement of the land.

This has affected a number of properties. As others have said, over 135,000 Christchurch properties have been affected by land movement and that has made it very challenging for surveyors, particularly in those worst-affected areas in the eastern suburbs and close to rivers: in Redcliffs, New Brighton, the lower slopes of the Port Hills, and Sumner. So the bill is, in a way, making the way in which land title is regarded and the way land boundaries are defined by law similar to what happens with water; because there boundaries do move where the waterway moves. I think it is a recognition that nature is more powerful than the law.

We do have some concerns about why it has taken Land Information New Zealand over 4 years to address this issue, because surveyors knew that it would be an issue immediately after the quakes, with the extensive amount of land movement. Certainly, there have been some guidelines that the Surveyor-General issued in, I think, February this year, but there was substantial pushback from the surveying profession because those guidelines confirmed the common law position that the boundaries stayed in the same place and did not move with the land. Surveyors came back and said that a much more pragmatic response was needed from Government, rather than just reasserting the common law position.

We are interested in submissions on the bill. As other speakers have pointed out, the fact that we have got three significant pieces of legislation affecting Canterbury all being pushed through at this late stage of the year and all being requested to have a truncated process by select committee really does undermine democracy because it reduces the time that the public have to make submissions. It reduces the time for officials to actually examine those submissions and analyse the points that are made. It inevitably reduces the time that the select committee has to consider changes to the legislation and to consider submissions. So, again, it is this Government not having a good sound legislative programme, coming up with things late when this could have been put into this House much earlier, and then reducing the opportunity for the public to have their say.

This is important on this bill because although there was a technical advisory group established to provide advice to Land Information New Zealand, that was made up of professionals; it did not include Ngāi Tahu, it did not include residents or homeowners. There was some discussion with CanCERN, but that was all. Yet it is residents and homeowners, particularly those going through settlement of insurance claims and settlements of claims with the Earthquake Commission, who are potentially disadvantaged by changes in the boundaries. So people need to have a say, and Government needs to gets its legislative programme in better order so that the select committee is not being forced to have hasty consideration of important bills such as this.

Nevertheless, we will be supporting it because it is a sensible measure to provide more certainty around land title and to recognise, where the land has moved, that boundaries should move in accordance with that because that is much more practical on the ground. But I would note to the Government that nature is more powerful than the law. The Government’s current approach to climate change is that it has got its head in the sand over the real consequences for Aotearoa New Zealand, both in terms of sea level rise and the incursions on property there and the impacts that there will be on property owners. The Government has got to address that too and address it by mitigating the effects of climate change and reducing our emissions so that in future we do not have to change the law to look at the encroachment of the sea on what people had understood was their property. Thank you.

I am going to take only a relatively short call on this matter because I think that most of what needs to be said has already been said, and it is, in the end, a relatively simple issue, even if it does have some quite significant impacts. As others have said, the purpose of the bill is actually to clarify the law in particular circumstances, which are those that relate to locating legal property boundaries of land affected by movement of that land as a result of the 2010 and 2011 earthquake sequences in Canterbury. In addition to that, another purpose is to provide for guidelines to be issued about standards to assist with boundary determinations so that surveyors can do their jobs properly and people can rely on what they do.

It has been very difficult for surveyors to actually do that job in the circumstances that Christchurch and other parts of Canterbury are in at the present time. It is very difficult to identify and interpret physical boundaries, especially surveying pegs and the like, in the circumstances that have occurred. This bill addresses the problem by attempting to provide people, landowners, and surveyors alike with some certainty about legal boundaries of land in Greater Christchurch that have moved because of the earthquake sequences. It does that by providing some flexibility. So what we are going to get is certainty from some flexibility around the general rules that usually apply to the location and identification of boundaries. That is very necessary in the circumstances that have occurred.

So even though I am a lawyer who tends to want to stick by the rules, let me be the first to say this: in the circumstances that have occurred in Christchurch, there is a need to vary the usual legal rules relating to boundaries somewhat, simply to provide for the practicalities of what has happened and to provide certainty for people whose boundaries have moved with the land. That is actually what this bill does—it is as simple as that. It is not incredibly difficult to understand, and I was at a little bit of a loss when I heard some of the Labour speakers who tended to over-complicate what is actually a relatively simple issue.

I am not saying that there will not be anomalies that will occur, but those anomalies will happen whether we pass this legislation or not. The reason for that is that there is a whole array of different things that have happened in Christchurch and Canterbury that will affect property boundaries and their identification. So I agree that there does need to be some flexibility. It is not going to alter the long-term general rules about the location and identification of property boundaries, so there is nothing to panic about. This is simply a bill to assist in practice, with some sensible new legislation to assist people with their boundary identification in the particular circumstances of Christchurch and Canterbury. I welcome that kind of legislation because I approve of good, practical, sensible legislation, and that is what New Zealand First stands for. It is not usually what the National Government stands for, but in this case it has, possibly by sheer coincidence, got it right on this occasion. So I am going to support it and New Zealand First is going to support it with this particular piece of legislation for that reason.

I do think that people need to look to Parliament, when there are circumstances out of the ordinary, with the expectation that we will not simply say: “Well, sorry. That’s the law. That’s the way things are. Go away and deal with it.” I do think you need to have a practical approach, and I want to say this: I spent a long time when I was in legal practice doing work on the West Coast. If there is one part of this country where you need a practical and sensible approach to the law, and especially to property issues, it is the West Coast. There are things that happen there that are actually very—well, I can see Mr Hague nodding. He understands what I mean. What I am saying is that you do need in those sorts of places, those parts of the country, to take a practical approach. I appeared before many judges who took that approach because they knew that in places like the West Coast and possibly other places in this country—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Chatham Islands.

The Chatham Islands—yes, Ms Dyson—is another place. Those judges know that the strict application of the law actually causes so much injustice that they have to take a more sensible approach. This is that kind of legislation, and I commend it to the House simply because a Parliament needs to be responsive to a population that is under stress and needs a good, practical solution to what has happened. This a good piece of legislation. We should all vote for it and just get on with it.

I just want to say thank you to New Zealand First, because this is a sensible, practical bill with a sensible, practical approach. The bill does give much-needed clarity and certainty in determining the legal property boundaries of land that has moved because of the earthquakes. As a National list MP based in Christchurch East, I welcome the bill because the New Brighton area has suffered immensely from the earthquakes, and I believe that this bill will give the property owners there a lot of certainty around where their boundaries are, to make sure that where they want their gardens, their garages, and the places where they park their cars—that that piece of property they are utilising is truly theirs and will remain theirs.

I realise that some property owners have been through times where they have had their properties surveyed by a licensed cadastral surveyor, and we heard the Minister for Building and Housing talk a little bit about that in his speech on behalf on the Hon Louise Upston. This bill validates the surveys done by those cadastral surveyors in good faith and without any negligence prior to the passing of this bill. So it does give certainty around that. This bill also takes the Cadastral Survey Act and amends it—it amends it and enables the Surveyor-General to issue voluntary guidance material to the surveyors.

I believe that our Minister for Land Information, Louise Upston, has worked very hard for the benefit of Christchurch, and I welcome everything that is going to happen from here on out, from the time we move into receiving submissions, to the second reading, the Committee of the whole House, and right through to this bill being passed into law. I for one want to see this happen very speedily for the people of Christchurch and especially for those who live over on the east. So without any further ado, I look forward to the second reading of this bill and I commend the bill to the House.

I call Mojo Mathers—5 minutes.

It is my pleasure to take a call on the Canterbury Property Boundaries and Related Matters Bill. As a Christchurch list MP, I have seen firsthand the need for this bill, and I am very pleased to be supporting it. We regard it to be a sensible and pragmatic response to what is a very serious issue in Christchurch.

We are concerned that it took 4 long years for this bill to come to the House. It was apparent immediately after the quakes that there had been significant land movement and a significant impact. At the property that I was staying in at the time, you could walk out the door and see there was this massive shift of the land towards the river. It was very clear that because of lateral spreading, because of liquefaction, and because of the slumping of the land generally in many areas, this had affected the state and nature of the boundaries. So there are literally thousands of properties affected, some of them very significantly, with land movement of over half a metre—50 centimetres. That is quite profound in terms of the nature of determining the title to the land.

What this has meant is that some people’s lives have actually been put on hold. Their plans for their properties’ development or rebuild have been put on hold. Some have found that they have inadvertently built a property that is now technically on the adjoining title of land and so on, because of how the boundary appears to have moved. It is really important that we provide clarity to all of these hundreds of people affected because, otherwise, it is very clear that they are going to clog up the courts with endless disputes. We need a way forward to resolve that so that the rebuild can go forward on firm foundations, as it were.

It is really important that during the select committee stage we do hear from the people who have been affected. The last thing that we want to see is unintended consequences of this bill. We know that there is a problem and we hope that this will be a straightforward resolution to that problem, but it is such a complex issue. The last thing we want to see is, sort of, unintended consequences, and the way to identify that is to have a robust consultation process where affected people can have the time to have their say, to process the contents of this bill, to consider how that will affect them and their property, and then to have the opportunity to provide their viewpoint back to the select committee and for the select committee to consider that properly and get the appropriate advice. So I will be hoping that the select committee will do all of that in really good faith because this is the foundation for much of New Zealand property law and it is incredibly important that we have this result for Christchurch.

Previous speakers have already mentioned this, but there is some concern about the sheer number of bills that are affecting people in Christchurch and Canterbury that are out for consultation at the moment, whether it be the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill or the Riccarton Racecourse Bill, or any of the different bills that are out for consultation. It is really concerning that so many are suddenly rushed in, put out, and sought feedback on at the end of the year when it is an incredibly busy time of the year for many people. I hope that that could have been avoided with better planning, and it is disappointing to have this situation in front of us now. Thank you.

I call Poto Williams—5 minutes.

Tēnā koe. Thank you for the opportunity to speak and to take this short call. There are really just a couple of points I want to make about this bill, and the first one cannot be emphasised too much, and that is about the rights of property owners in Canterbury and how those rights have been somewhat stretched over the last 5 years. Just to recall, it is not just the earthquake sequence that has impacted on the people of Canterbury, and it has not been just the several tons of liquefaction that they may have had to move off their properties; it is the fact that the latest rates valuations turned up in their letterboxes and there were some significant differences in property values that they had to contend with. There are issues around coastal hazards. There are issues around section 72 notices going on land information memoranda. There is issue upon issue upon issue for the people of Canterbury to deal with in terms of their property, and it cannot be stressed enough that they need to be given the appropriate time, full information, and due regard for their concerns in this process. I am not comfortable that that is actually occurring when we have four Canterbury bills before the people of Canterbury to make submissions on, two of them with quite significantly truncated select committee processes to deal with.

This is a group of people who actually deserve the time and the patience to have all the information presented to them and to be given the opportunity to consider it properly and to know that this House will actually consider their views—not give them a few weeks to consider a huge range of information that impacts many of their lives, impacts the way that the regional council will be made up, impacts the way that the regeneration will occur, and impacts on their property rights. If there is one thing that the people of Canterbury do not need, it is a Government standing over them demanding—

💬 Nuk Korako: What?

—that they actually engage in a process when they are not sure that they have full information in front of them. You can say “What?”, Mr Korako, from across the other side of the House, but I am sure that from your office you know as much as I do that our people are very concerned that they have full information.

Let us face it. We are not entirely sure that the surveying techniques that were used, which were out of normal practice, will not impact on boundaries of certain people and that those people will have the opportunity to have those disputes resolved appropriately because the surveyors are indemnified within this bill. There are some real, major concerns for Cantabrians, and I am really concerned that the list member across the other side of the House finds this amusing. I do not find it amusing at all. We currently have 300 disputes. As the process of rebuilding goes on there may be more, so we must give due regard for the concerns of the people of Canterbury, and we must get the assurance of the select committee that they will be given the information and the due regard that they deserve. There are issues, for example, right now where properties do not comply with planning laws, and it is really important that we get these matters resolved. I mean, I cannot state it more strongly.

The people of Canterbury and the homeowners of Canterbury deserve to know exactly where their property boundaries are. On top of everything else that is currently going on in Canterbury, we must make sure that they have all the information they need and that this information is given and their consultation is given due regard. Thank you.

Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. That speech from the previous speaker, Poto Williams, was really interesting, but I want to give it to you from the Government’s perspective, I believe, and also from a Cantabrian’s, someone who has been there all of his life. The thing here is that it is, indeed, my pleasure to stand and speak in support of the Canterbury Property Boundaries and Related Matters Bill’s first reading. This legislation will actually not go down in history as a major piece of legislation; it is a relatively minor change. It is practical and common sense, and that change will let many Christchurch homeowners, who the previous speaker was talking about, get on with their rebuilds. This is good, practical legislation. This is a hallmark of this Government, and particularly around the Christchurch rebuild.

This bill is just the latest step in ongoing support that this Government has given to Christchurch. Last time we were here in this House we talked about the transition from rebuilding to regeneration, and that is the first part of this. During the other debate today we talked about the Riccarton Racecourse legislation and how that is actually going to really create a catalyst for over 600 houses to be developed, and 180 of them are affordable houses. This bill confirms that this Government’s commitment is to do everything it can to smooth the way for individual owners who are rebuilding, but also for the regeneration of Greater Christchurch as a whole. This is on top of a lot of things that we have done already as the National Government—$16.5 billion has been put into the Christchurch rebuild by this Government. Last year we heard from members on the other side of the House about how slow the rebuild has been. Where have you been? Go into parts of Christchurch; there were 4,400 new houses last year. I mean, there are incredible things that are happening, and within the central business district as well.

This type of legislation really is the type of legislation that is going to continue with the sorts of great things that the Government is doing within the Christchurch rebuild. Take the Hagley Oval and the Bus Interchange—they are open. We are now seeking proposals from design firms for the Metro Sports Facility, and 96 percent of the central city road and pipe repairs have been completed. That is something. The infrastructure is incredible. This is also part—

💬 Stuart Nash: What’s this to do with cadastral surveys?

It is directly related—just like you did. On an individual level, 162,000 Earthquake Commission claims have been resolved. Is that not incredible? I have listened to speakers who actually do not come from Christchurch or who have not lived there for a long time, and when you look at this side of the House, there are positive steps going forward to actually continue on with the Christchurch rebuild. Going for the common-sense option has always been what this Government does, and that is very much so within the Christchurch rebuild, and the option that causes the least disruption is the very important one with this issue.

So this is great legislation again, like the three other bills that have been presented to this House—the ones today and the one a couple of weeks ago. This bill does that, and, therefore, I commend the bill to the House. Kia ora.

I just want to change tack slightly and try to talk about the bill, actually, rather than listen to boastful, congratulatory messages from list MPs. This is a really serious issue and I am very pleased that the bill is before the House.

I want to commend the Minister, the Hon Louise Upston, for introducing it, but also commend her for the respect that she showed all the Canterbury members of Parliament by giving us a briefing quite early on in the piece about the proposal, and then a briefing again today before the debate that is about to conclude. I enjoyed that and I really appreciate her doing it. I want to commend Nick Smith for standing in for her today. He understands these issues, and I think his contribution to the House was worthy of a positive mention, as are a number of the others. But I just want to highlight two—not out of disrespect for the other contributors but because two of the earlier speakers made contributions that I want to respond to.

Scott Simpson is the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee, and I want to thank him for what I believe was a genuine—and will be delivered—promise to the people of Canterbury that this will not be rushed legislation; that it will be taken at a pace that recognises that this issue needs to be resolved but will not be rushed through in a way that means that the people whose literal properties are impacted by this legislation do not get a fair say. I think we can meet what some may see as a tension between letting us get this through as quickly as possible, or as quickly as is sensible, and also the need to listen to peoples’ concerns, views, praise of it, or whatever their views may be. So I want to thank Scott Simpson for making that commitment on behalf of the Local Government and Environment Committee. I also want to acknowledge that he has done a bit of legal work. You would not really think that he was a lawyer—he seems like such a nice person. He has done land law as well, and he emphasised the fact that this is actually quite a significant change in the law.

I do not think we should just say, as the speaker before, Nuk Korako, said: “This is just a minor matter.” Actually, it is quite a fundamental change in the law—as it has always been, since the first time we had property boundaries recognised. So I want to acknowledge Scott Simpson’s thought about the significance of the legislation. I also want to acknowledge Denis O’Rourke, the New Zealand First member of Parliament. He is another person who has had experience and practice in the law, and he did comment that Labour members were overly complicating it; that this was straightforward and that it just needed sorting. I am not in agreement with the point that we were overly complicating it; I do think that we were raising concerns, but I also agree with his fundamental point that this is a matter that needs to be sorted.

In fact, the Law Society raised significant concerns about this right back in 2012. It is nearly the end of 2015 now. This is not a matter where the Government could say: “Oh well, you know, we need to push this through because it needs resolution.” For 3½ years surveyors and the Law Society have been raising legitimate concerns about what is happening to people’s property, their property rights, their insurance, and their rebuild; those concerns, properly raised, have fallen on deaf ears until now. So I do not want any members of the Government saying that this needs to be rushed through. I would like them to answer the concerns that we have.

I commented earlier that I was grateful for the briefing that the Minister, the Hon Louise Upston, gave to all of the Canterbury members of Parliament—I think that was a good thing. I asked her at that meeting to please ensure between that meeting and now—which is several months; it was not just last week—that homeowners who were impacted by this legislation were consulted and given an opportunity to say “This will sort it.”, or “This will cause more problems.”, or “Why don’t you think of that?”. I regret that despite me having a commitment by the Minister that that would be done, she unfortunately went to the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority—not a highly recommended strategy for anyone who has had to deal with that organisation—and it recommended going to CanCERN. CanCERN is an advocacy organisation; it does not have the technical expertise or the background in this particular area. It has been a very valuable organisation for a lot of things, but it does not have the expertise in this area.

This is a legal matter about boundaries and the impact on homeowners—individual property owners or their neighbours—of what is going to happen now that we are going to clarify—actually, change—the law. Instead of what we have always done traditionally since the start of property boundaries, which is say that boundaries do not move with the land, we are going to turn that law on its head and say that in Canterbury they do. I do not know what that means for other parts of New Zealand. What about when there are huge floods; what about when there are cliff collapses; what about when there are other significant land movements? Will this just apply to Canterbury, and how will people who are negatively impacted in other parts of the country feel about that? I do not know.

In Canterbury, we have 124,000 people who have had small land movements of less than 20 centimetres. We have got 10,000 people who have had land movement of between 20 centimetres and 50 centimetres—that is not insignificant; that could have quite an impact on the boundaries. And we have got over 1,000 people who have had land movement of more than 50 centimetres—so that is 132,000 people. In the briefing that the Minister gave us today, she said that there are about 300 people who Land Information New Zealand know of for whom land movement and boundaries staying fixed—for instance, not moving with the land—are in dispute. That is a significant amount and this legislation does not make it clear if there is a fair, speedy process about how those disputes are going to be resolved if we change the law in the manner that is proposed in this bill.

So those are pretty significant questions, and they are layered upon a population who has been through a lot of stress. People went through a lot of stress through the quakes—I know some members are a bit over hearing about that, but tragically it is a reality for people living in Canterbury. We have also had significant floods of a different nature than we have had for many years; we have had thousands of homes identified as being on potentially contaminated land; we have recently had the coastal hazards notification by the Christchurch City Council talking about the increase in sea level and the increase in vulnerability as a result; and, because of the earthquake sequence, we have increased liquefaction vulnerability and increased flooding vulnerability caused not by sea-level change but by the land height.

The point of raising this is that these changes cannot just be imposed on a population. They need to be worked through sensitively and carefully, and with particular attention to detail about what impact this will have, perhaps, on individual property rights—I was hoping that the ACT member might take a call and raise that very point but he has not had an opportunity to do that so far—and also on the potential impact when people are currently planning either a repair or a rebuild of their earthquake damaged or destroyed property, or perhaps are looking to make an extension. What difference will this make in practical terms to people’s property rights?

I think that people need to know the answer to those questions before we progress to the final stages of the legislation, and that is the point of the select committee. I am sure that the select committee will be meeting in Christchurch. We need to remember that this is not Christchurch-specific; it affects our neighbours in Waimakariri and Selwyn District Council areas as well, and it certainly needs careful and sensitive thought.

I just want to conclude by acknowledging Adrian Cowie. Adrian Cowie is a licensed cadastral surveyor. He said—I think right back from 2013, but certainly consistently throughout 2014—that the incorrect legal boundaries that we were operating under were causing catastrophic consequences for Cantabrians. Those were the issues that were raised in personal letters to Gerry Brownlee and the Prime Minister, John Key. They have taken over 2 years to be responded to. I do not want us to now rush the outcome; I want us to get it right—

Sorry, the member’s time has expired.

Tēnā koe, e Te Mana Whakawā. It is a pleasure to take a brief call on the Canterbury Property Boundaries and Related Matters Bill in this first reading debate. As my colleagues on this side of the House have commented, this is a very important and timely bill for the people of Canterbury. I have to actually disagree with some of what Ruth Dyson, the previous member, who has just resumed her seat, has said. The technical issues around the surveying of land and the legal definition of boundaries are technical—they are complicated—but this legislation does not need to be, necessarily, a highly complex and technical bill. So, actually, my colleague on this side Nuk Korako is correct in that it aims and seeks to be a very practical measure that will allow people to have the assurance that the boundaries of their land are known to them, and that they, by and large, will be what people already think their boundaries to be, taking into account the catastrophic effects of the seismic movement in the province of Canterbury.

I think we do have to draw a very clear distinction between the earthquakes, which have disrupted legal boundaries in the better part of one of New Zealand’s great provinces, and erosion of a certain coastal area or a flood that would affect a far smaller region. This is a far larger problem. As the member quoted, it affects over 130,000 property owners in some shape or form, and there are hundreds of people whose boundaries have moved as much as a metre—a very significant movement in the legal context. This is not a matter that this Government takes lightly. I sit on the Local Government and Environment Committee and I am sure, under the very wise chairmanship of our chair, Mr Scott Simpson, we will be paying very close attention to submissions from Cantabrians and seeking to ensure that this is the best possible resolution to such an enormous disruption of legal boundaries in that great province.

This is a bill that has been welcomed by stakeholders. The New Zealand Institute of Surveyors president, Mark Allan, said that in his view the current draft of the bill promotes the option that causes the least disruption and the least concern for landowners. Mr Allan is very well-qualified to comment on these matters. Surveying is a very important aspect of the service that the Government provides in terms of land information. It has come a long way since the early days of New Zealand, when the Surveyor-General, along with the colonial Governor, secretary, and treasurer, were among the very first four officials of the Crown appointed here. It has come a long way since the days of theodolites and measuring in yards and miles and feet, and we now have technical tools at our disposal such as satellite, geospatial information systems, and measurements with lasers that can give a huge degree of accuracy. But we have an unprecedented problem in that such a huge movement has occurred in the land itself.

So this is a very timely bill. It will be considered very carefully by the committee, and I commend it to the House.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.