Canterbury Property Boundaries and Related Matters Bill

It is my pleasure to take a call in the Committee stage on this bill. It is a piece of legislation that, as a Canterbury member of Parliament, I am eager to see pass through this House. It is a piece of legislation that is required by many homeowners in the Canterbury region in order to get on with their lives, to settle their insurance claims, and to be able to begin the process of rebuilding.

What this bill does is something quite fundamental. It acknowledges that, after a series of earthquakes of the magnitude such as we have seen in the Canterbury region since 2010, the land has moved. When the land has moved, the boundaries need to move with it, because there are a range of discrepancies. There are around 11,000 properties in the Canterbury region where there has been a greater than 20 centimetre—either horizontal or vertical—movement of the land. So this is no small problem that needs to be rectified for those 11,000 people for whom this is a problem. This piece of legislation seeks to tidy that up and to look at that.

I think that there were some important changes that the Local Government and Environment Committee was able to make when it heard submissions and then came to consider this piece of legislation. They were important because some interesting questions were raised. It has to be said there were not submissions in their thousands, but there were some quality submissions on this. The Christchurch City Council gave a very considered submission, the Law Society gave a very considered submission, and we did hear a number of points raised by the surveying community and professional surveyors and what their views are.

One of the things that have happened during the passage of this legislation, of course, is that the dates that are covered have had to change. After the Valentine’s Day quake of this year in Canterbury, the cut-off date for when this legislation would apply needed to be moved out. So the decision was made to extend this legislation out from a 6-year period from now until 2022, in recognition that there was further land movement on 14 February of this year from that quake in the Christchurch region. It is heartening to see the Government realising the long-term impacts that the earthquakes are having on the city of Christchurch and the region of Canterbury. I would implore the Minister for Land Information to, perhaps, speak to some of her colleagues about the ongoing mental health issues in the Canterbury region and about some of the other ongoing impacts that are going on.

It is heartening to see that the dates have been extended out in clause 4 of this piece of legislation. The other clause that I would like to speak to in this is clause 8 of this legislation, addressing a title conflict. It goes to the heart of what happens when there is a conflict between two property owners around a title when the land has moved, and it may be, when we talk about the land moving, that someone’s garage now resides on their neighbour’s property or it may be that when someone is seeking to rebuild on a parcel of land, that parcel of land is substantially different for the purposes of where the boundary of that land is in terms of the rebuild.

So the select committee did make some recommendations to the original legislation that amended clause 8(1) to clarify that the approved interim surveys must satisfy the provisions in both clause 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(b). One of the things that this piece of legislation does is it goes back and retrospectively validates some of the surveying that has been done in the nearly 6 years since the September quake of 2010. But in order for that to be validated it does have to satisfy those requirements in clauses 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(b), and it is important that we can have certainty in the Canterbury region around what it is that we are retrospectively validating, because the last thing that any of us wants to see is these boundaries coming back and being disputed and for people to enter a further period of uncertainty around their homes and around their properties.

One of the other issues that came up that would come within here was that a number of submitters made the recommendation to have a dispute resolution framework included in this legislation, with the inevitable conclusion that there would be disputes between property owners and between neighbours around how it was that the boundaries now fitted together in the changed landscape of the Canterbury region. The select committee was of the opinion that the Property Law Act of 2007 and the Land Transfer Act provided adequate mechanisms to deal with those disputes, and there was not a requirement in this piece of legislation for specific dispute resolution. I would like to just signal that that is something that we do need to keep a watching brief on, to check that that is a fit for purpose mechanism that is able to deal with the particular nature of any of the disputes that may arise within this piece of legislation.

But Labour is supporting this bill. We are supporting it at this Committee stage. We have supported it all the way through. We think that it is really important that we do get this matter rectified for many constituents in the Christchurch area and many citizens in the wider Canterbury area. Their insurance claims cannot be settled until these issues are settled. So it is absolutely critical that we do get this. Perhaps once this roadblock is removed from getting people’s insurance claims settled maybe the Government can look at removing some further roadblocks, to allow Cantabrians to get on with their lives. But Labour is happy to commend this legislation to the Committee, and we will be supporting it.

It is a pleasure to take what will be just a brief call in the Committee stage of the Canterbury Property Boundaries and Related Matters Bill. The reason that it will be a brief call is that, like many others in this Chamber, I am keen to see progress made on this bill. It has been a little longer in coming back to the House and being debated than some may have hoped, but now that it is here, I am keen just to get some points on the record, and then get it progressed.

I want to begin my contribution by acknowledging and thanking Minister Louise Upston for the inclusive way in which she prepared this legislation and brought it to the House. On an issue where so many people have been affected in such a personal way—i.e., the boundaries of their home property—to have the opportunity as local members of Parliament to hear directly from the Minister and the officials about the options that are being considered and the thinking behind the legislation was really appreciated. It put us in a stronger position to competently represent the situation to our constituents who have been asking about this, so I just want to note to the Minister that she has set a very good example, and I hope that it spreads throughout her colleagues—I am not holding my breath on that point though.

The reason this bill is necessary is that, as a result of particularly the 2011 Canterbury quakes, but to some extent the September 2010 quakes—nearly 6 years ago now—a large amount of land literally moved, and therefore the determination had to be made on where the boundaries were. Were the boundaries on the old place, or did the boundaries follow the land? That is not a situation that Parliament has considered before, to the best of my knowledge. I hope it is not one that it has to consider again, actually, given the circumstances that caused it. It also was not an easy position for Parliament to determine. It was really important though that clarity was given.

I have a number of constituents who have currently got their building consents on hold while this legislation is being determined. So they cannot put in their building consent applications until they know where their property boundaries are. I hope, Minister, that next week you can get the third reading of this bill progressed, and we can see those people being able to get their building consents in and then take the next step of getting their homes rebuilt, and they can move home. It is 5½ years since the February 2011 quake; that is a long time for people to have been waiting.

There is a lot of uncertainty in Canterbury. My colleague Dr Megan Woods mentioned the mental health issues that have been totally ignored by the Minister of Health, and one that I know, as constituency MPs, we feel week after week by the representations we have had. This is one of the uncertainties: what is going to happen with the property boundaries? This legislation will mean that that uncertainty will go, and perhaps the Minister could support the Canterbury members of Parliament in dealing with the others. The bill is a good initiative. It will support some people better than they have been over the last little while. I commend its progress to the Committee.

I want to take just a brief call in this Committee stage. I want to start by thanking the Local Government and Environment Committee for the very constructive way in which it has supported and assisted in ensuring that this piece of legislation is absolutely right for the people of Canterbury.

As the members before me have outlined, there were really two key aspects to this bill. The first was that the rebuild and recovery of Canterbury is one of four Government priorities. The first part of it was making sure that there were no unnecessary delays for people who were wanting to get on and do their rebuilds and progress with getting their lives back to where they had been. So ensuring that we removed some of the time barriers was one priority.

The other priority was ensuring that not just those in Canterbury but those across New Zealand continue to have confidence in our legal property rights system. The member before me, Ruth Dyson, made a comment about the fact that perhaps it has been progressed at a slower pace than the House would have expected. When this challenge first presented itself it became very clear early on that it was important to get it right, to take our time to ensure that we got it right for the people of Canterbury, and I do appreciate the input from the Canterbury MPs into this important piece of work. Given that this is a bill that did have changes in the select committee stage, I also want to thank the officials for working alongside the select committee members.

I do want to draw the Committee’s attention to Supplementary Order Paper 192. All it does is just relocate the purpose clause. I understand that was a drafting error. There is no content change, just a location change. So I just want to thank the select committee, in the Committee, and I appreciate the Committee’s support in progressing this bill further at pace. Thank you.

There is nothing that riles up the constituents of Christchurch East more than issues relating to their properties, because over the last 6 or so years their properties have been front and centre of their minds—whether they have been damaged through earthquakes or damaged by waiting for a long time to have their home repairs completed. So I am really pleased to take a call on this bill, and to commend Minister Upston for the way in which she was very inclusive of the Canterbury MPs in ensuring that this bill came to the House, so that, at least, we can provide some certainty around their boundaries for property owners in the Christchurch East electorate.

It is a very important issue because, unlike many of the other areas in Canterbury—perhaps with the exception of Kaiapoi—it suffered the most lateral spread. The issue of lateral spread is where the land is stretched, and in some cases that means, as my colleague Dr Megan Woods mentioned, someone’s garage or a part of their fence may, technically, be on another person’s property. So in order to ensure that we get these matters around property boundaries resolved, it is really good that we can progress this piece of legislation through the House.

The other impact, I guess, that has been significant in the Christchurch East area is in respect of liquefaction, where great mounts of liquefaction actually came to the surface, which could result in land levels actually dropping. One of the aspects of this particular piece of legislation is not just taking into consideration the lateral spread but also the fact that height of land has actually changed as well. Other than in regard to landslip and rockfall, the notion of the vertical movement of land has also been taken into account when preparing new boundaries for property owners.

As I say, there is nothing that gets people in Christchurch East more riled up than issues about their properties and the value of those properties. So I am really grateful that we are progressing this particular piece of legislation through the House. If any of you happen to come to Christchurch East and drive along New Brighton Road, there is a very real example of how the lateral spread has actually occurred—and that is actually just looking down the river. If you drive along New Brighton Road between the All Saints Church and the mall at The Palms, you are literally driving below the level of the river, because it has dropped that much. It is a very real representation of the issue that this piece of legislation is seeking to address. So many Cantabrians will be heartened to know that there will be some certainty around their boundaries.

Clause 4 puts into practice what will be the end date for this particular piece of legislation. The Valentine’s Day quake was a very real reminder that the earth has not stopped moving in Canterbury—that was quite a significant quake. So the fact that clause 4 actually extends the date out to 2022 is very useful. Within clause 8—of course, my colleague talked about the title conflict—this clause seeks to insure and validate any of those interim surveys that were put into place during that interim period. They can now actually be validated and no longer be classed as interim.

There were a limited number of submitters. Of course, the Christchurch City Council would be a key submitter on this particular piece of legislation, if only around the calculation of rates. The Christchurch City Council has been actively engaged with local residents with regard to their properties when it comes to a whole lot of other earthquake issues: with regard to increased flooding vulnerability, and increased vulnerability to liquefaction, as well.

As my colleague commented, a process for disputes is very useful. There will inevitably be lots of discussion amongst neighbours on where property boundaries should and should not be, so that is very useful to ensure that that goes ahead.

In conclusion, I do want to say that there are still lots of very vulnerable people in Canterbury who are waiting, and who have been waiting for a significant period of time to have some certainty around their properties—whether they are waiting for repairs or rebuild or whether they are waiting to be able to move on with their lives. If there is anything we are able to do to effect some quicker turnarounds than our people have been able to experience, then I am all for that. On that note, I commend the bill to the Committee.

This will be a short call on the Canterbury Property Boundaries and Related Matters Bill. The Green Party supported the bill at its introduction, continues to support it, and will be supporting Supplementary Order Paper 192 in the name of Minister Upston, which, as the Minister explains, just changes the location of the purpose clause.

I certainly thank submitters on the bill. There were only 11, but they made quite detailed technical submissions, particularly those from the surveying profession. That is largely what the bill is about—maintaining public confidence in the cadastre, because of the 11,000 properties that moved more than 20 centimetres after the earthquakes. I would like to acknowledge the Minister for Land Information in terms of her consultation with Canterbury MPs, knowing that we were all vitally interested in this issue.

In terms of the changes in practice in surveying on the ground in Canterbury, initially after the quakes surveyors adopted that quite practical application that the boundaries would move with the land. But, then, around the middle of 2014 Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) changed its approach and advised surveyors to apply the pre-earthquake boundary dimensions. Then there was some more guidance released by LINZ, in February 2015, which highlighted that boundaries should not move with the land. I think this bill is really necessary because of the confusion that was occurring both in the profession on the ground and amongst the wider public about where boundaries were going to be located when the land had moved. So the fundamental part of the bill, which is that the boundaries do move with the land, is both a sensible and practical one, and it creates a great deal more clarity.

The other issue in the bill is the fact that there is not any liability for surveyors for using the interim techniques that they used as long as there has not been negligence and the like, and that is also sensible. It means that those determinations of where the boundaries lie will not be relitigated.

We are very pleased to support the bill, and we thank officials. One of the other major issues around land, of course, is the new Land Transfer Bill, which is being considered by the Government Administration Committee under the Hon Ruth Dyson’s able chairing. One of the issues that submitters on this bill raised was that there was a need for a dispute resolution procedure. The bill has not been amended by the select committee to provide for that, and it has been pointed out that the provisions in the Land Transfer Act can deal with those sorts of issues. In fact, Parliament is looking to make those provisions in the new Land Transfer Act even clearer.

So we accept those changes not having been made to this bill by the select committee, because they properly belong in the land transfer legislation. This is a good bill and the Green Party supports it.

It can be very difficult in circumstances such as happened in Christchurch with the earthquake sequence to identify where boundaries are. On my own property on the Port Hills I am sure that one of the boundary pegs has moved. I am sure that the others did not, so perhaps my section has got slightly bigger than it used to be. I do not really know, but neither the neighbours nor I have any great interest in spending money on redefining where the boundaries are.

However, the point is this: there are anomalies that happen, and there needs to be a way to deal with those. This bill provides a very sensible way of doing that. It does not alter the fundamental principles of surveying. It provides a degree of flexibility around the general rules, and I welcome that. I welcome the approach to provide for practical solutions that will actually work in the circumstances. That is, essentially, what this bill does, so for that reason New Zealand First has no difficulty at all in supporting it. It is very sensible.

There are a number of ways in which I and others in Christchurch have noticed some quite strange but important things happen. I remember being told by a friend of mine who during the 2011 earthquake was driving down Manchester Street that he watched the street ripple like a carpet being shaken in front of him. He could not believe what he was seeing. Since then I have looked down that same section of street a number of times, and it seems to me that there has been a new bulge occur in about the middle of the section of the street that goes through central Christchurch. I used to be able to look from Armagh Street all the way down to Moorhouse Avenue and see a straight, level piece of road, but I swear that is no longer the case. There is sort of a bulge in the middle. So that is one of the sorts of things that happened during these earthquakes.

Others have talked about lateral spread. We all know people whose sections have moved and expanded, especially around the rivers and areas like that. The aquifers have altered. People in Woolston, not far from where I live, have had new springs pop up on their sections, some of them actually under existing houses. Water appears out of nowhere and then washes down the gutters.

Another issue has, of course, been land subsidence, and we have seen some of that in what is now called the Flockton Basin. It was never called that; it was just a low-lying level of land in the Flockton Street area. I remember while I was on the city council providing for some improved drainage for that area, but we never called it the Flockton Basin. It is now called that because there is a depression there, and much more drainage is necessary as a result.

So those are just some examples of the magnitude of the things that change during an earthquake. That is why legislation like this, with a practical approach, is needed to be able to deal with those sorts of things.

I just wanted to say one other thing, and that is this: the definition of “earthquake” was dealt with by the Local Government and Environment Committee, and I understand it is now allowing 6 years for the whole earthquake sequence. When we talk about an earthquake, it is really not just a single event. We noticed the 2011 one because it was so huge, but, actually, a few minutes later there was another very big earthquake, which by itself would have been significant. Then there were a number of other shocks and, as time went on, there were some very significant events, too. My hot water system must have sprung leaks about three or four times during that sequence; ultimately, I had to get it replaced. It could not put up with it any more, and neither could I.

So I actually agree that it is very important that we have a practical definition of what an earthquake is. It is a sequence, and, for practical reasons, you need an end point for that. I think 6 years is appropriate. That will mean, I guess, that sometime in 2017 the sequence will be deemed to have come to an end, and that anything that happens after that will have to be regarded as a new event.

It is a good, practical approach. I think the whole bill is a good, practical piece of legislation, which we have no difficulty whatsoever in continuing to support.

Members, I propose to put the Minister’s amendments individually, and then to put the other amendments as one question. This might be the calm before the storm, but it appears there is a bit of unanimity in the Committee on this issue.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 192 in the name of the Hon Louise Upston to Part 1 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Parts 1 and 2 as amended, schedule 1, and clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.