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 third time. Although it might be relatively short, this is a very important bill. It provides much-needed certainty for surveyors and property owners affected by land movements caused by the Canterbury earthquakes. In addition, it ensures that Cantabrians have the confidence to go about rebuilding their homes while knowing their property rights are protected.

The scale of land movements that occurred in Canterbury following the 2010-11 earthquakes was extraordinary. Because of this, the common law in this area has been open to different interpretations, and surveyors and other interested parties have been uncertain about the correct legal location of some property boundaries. Early in the process of developing the bill, Minister Upston met with Christchurch MPs and recognised the importance of addressing this uncertainty without creating widespread concern among property owners in Christchurch. She appreciated their involvement and valued their input.

The uncertainty resulted in surveys taking longer to complete. In the worst-affected areas, where the movements have been greatest, surveyors have been reluctant to undertake surveys at all. All of this has meant higher costs for property owners and delays for Cantabrians, who simply want to rebuild their homes and move on with their lives. By addressing this uncertainty, the enactment of the bill will mark another step towards achieving this Government’s strong commitment to Christchurch’s recovery and regeneration.

The bill deals with three key aspects of this uncertainty. Firstly, it clarifies the law that relates to the location of legal property boundaries in Greater Christchurch following the 2010-11 earthquakes. It provides that legal boundaries of land in Greater Christchurch are “deemed to have moved or to move” with the movement of land caused by the earthquakes. After the commencement of this legislation, surveyors in Greater Christchurch can apply the new “boundaries moved” principle with confidence and certainty.

Secondly, the bill recognises the validity of all cadastral surveys and boundary determinations in Greater Christchurch that were approved by Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) in the interim period between 4 September 2010—the day the first earthquake struck Canterbury—and the commencement of this legislation. Since the 2010 and 2011 earthquakes, LINZ has approved surveys by licensed cadastral surveyors on either basis—that is, on the basis that the boundaries did or did not move—provided the surveys otherwise complied with the Cadastral Survey Act 2002. These interim surveys are valid, regardless of which basis was used, as long as the surveys were done in good faith and without negligence.

The bill also excludes liability related to a cadastral survey or boundary determination of land in Greater Christchurch that was done in the interim period on the basis that the boundaries did or did not move with the movement of land caused by the Canterbury earthquakes. But the bill does not exclude liability for negligence, bad faith, misconduct, or non-compliance with statutory obligations and professional standards that is unrelated to the boundary movement principle. The bill’s validation of interim surveys and exclusion of liability avoids unfairly penalising surveyors, property owners, and others who acted in good faith and relied on such surveys.

A small number of potential boundary conflicts might arise from validating surveys from the interim period that were done on the basis that the boundaries did not move. Existing contract resolution mechanisms, like those under the Land Transfer Act 1952, are available to resolve such conflicts. In addition, LINZ will work with surveyors and property owners to manage any such conflicts.

Finally, the bill provides for the Surveyor-General to issue guidelines for surveyors about rules and standards made under the Cadastral Survey Act 2002. New Canterbury-specific rules have been developed in consultation with the surveying profession, and will come into effect 2 months after the enactment of this bill. In addition, guidelines will be issued to further assist with boundary determinations in Greater Christchurch after the Canterbury earthquakes. More generally, this ability to issue guidelines will also help in future to achieve consistent interpretations of, and improved compliance with, the Cadastral Survey Act.

On Minister Upston’s behalf, I would like to thank again the members of the Local Government and Environment Committee and its chair, Scott Simpson, for their work and thorough consideration of the bill. The committee’s work has improved the clarity of several of the bill’s provisions. The committee has also addressed another issue of uncertainty about the further impact of land movement and boundaries resulting from this year’s Valentine’s Day earthquake and any earthquakes and aftershocks in the next few years. The bill’s definition of “Canterbury earthquakes” now includes not only the 14 February 2016 earthquake but also any earthquakes and aftershocks for a further 6 years after that earthquake. This futureproofs the legislation and provides greater certainty and clarity for surveyors and property owners in Christchurch.

I also want to thank those people and organisations who contributed to the development of the bill through various consultation processes and at the select committee stage. This includes not only the professional surveyors who gave so much of their time and expertise but also the New Zealand Law Society’s property division, the Insurance Council, the Mayor of Christchurch as well as Christchurch City Council members and officers, the mayors and officers from Selwyn and Waimakariri District Councils, and the Christchurch MPs, with whom the Minister had a number of briefings and whose input has been invaluable. I also want to take this opportunity to thank Minister Upston’s officials at Land Information New Zealand. Their hard work and commitment to this bill has been greatly appreciated.

This bill clarifies the law relating to local-level property boundaries in greater Christchurch following the Canterbury earthquakes. In doing so, it provides greater certainty to surveying and land titles. The overall impact of this bill is that property boundaries will continue to be located where property owners generally expect them to be, reducing the likelihood of future boundary conflicts and disputes that would have otherwise occurred. I commend this bill to the House.

It is my pleasure to take a short call on this piece of legislation, which Labour is supporting. I think it is important that this bill does pass through this House and be enacted into law, because many people are relying on this being sorted so that they can get on with getting on with their lives, which Minister Woodhouse alluded to in his speech. I think that when we sit back in a few years’ time and look at the number of pieces of bespoke legislation that we have had to put in place to address what has happened in Canterbury since September 2010, the statute book itself is going to tell a story about the amount of change that has happened.

What we are talking about here is not an isolated incident. It is quite simple legislation: where the land has moved, we need to make sure that the legal boundaries of that land can move to be with it as well.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: The earth has moved.

That is right, Mr Cosgrove; the earth has moved. So what we have is that we have some material that does need to be put in place—and this applies to 11,000 properties in the Canterbury area, so this is no small undertaking, given the number of homeowners who will be impacted by this legislation and need to get this sorted. One of the things that the Minister who spoke talked about is that we need to get this legislation passed and put in the parcel of legislation that is required in order for people to get on with their lives. I commend Minister Upston for taking that approach, and I think she should have a wee chat with some of her Cabinet colleagues about the need to fasten processes so that people can get on with their lives in Canterbury in other parts of their lives, as well. So I would ask her to consider having that talk.

One of the changes that submitters did come to the Local Government and Environment Committee and ask for was that there be more robustness put around the disputes resolution clauses within this legislation, because there will still be instances where people do not agree in terms of where it is deemed a property boundary has moved to. That was not included. The select committee made a decision to not include that change. I think that is something that we need to watch very carefully to see whether that is something that we are going to have to change in terms of this legislation—whether we are going to have to put greater provision in there to deal with disputes. The last thing that we want to be doing is passing a piece of legislation that allows people to get their insurance claims settled but then ties them up in litigation around where their property actually is, which will mean that the very point that they want to get on with, rebuilding their homes and their lives, will be further delayed. So I am signalling that that could well be something that we are back in this House amending in the not too distant future.

The properties that were affected where the boundaries have moved the most are, by and large, as you would expect, in some of the most earthquake-impacted parts of the city. So I think it is, as this bill passes into law—and we are coming up to the sixth anniversary of the earthquake that started this sequence of events in Canterbury—worth acknowledging what people all throughout the city have been through, particularly in the parts of the city that have been most impacted by the earthquakes and the damage to property, and the inability of people to get on with their lives as a consequence of that.

I will also note that this legislation had to change, as the Minister noted, because of the Valentine’s Day earthquake of this year. It is a little bit horrifying, as a Cantabrian, to read a piece of legislation forecasting earthquakes going out to 2022. I hope that is not a provision of the legislation that we have to use, and that Valentine’s Day this year was the last of the major sequence that we will see. I just feel the need to touch wood about now. Labour is happy to support this bill. We are happy to support any measure that would let Cantabrians get on with their lives, and, in fact, we would like to see far more of them. Thank you.

It is a pleasure to take a call in the third reading of the Canterbury Property Boundaries and Related Matters Bill. The Local Government and Environment Committee, I think, did good work, and I am pleased that both Minister Woodhouse, and Dr Megan Woods on behalf of the Labour Party, have acknowledged that good work, because this bill was part of a suite of legislation that the Local Government and Environment Committee has considered in relation to Christchurch and Canterbury earthquake - related matters over a long period of time now, since the earthquakes of 5 years ago.

This is a relatively small but really important piece of legislation, because it brings certainty in an area of our land law that has been very uncertain for the folk of Canterbury and Christchurch. I just want to quote from the president of the Institute of Surveyors, Mark Allan, who said in his submission that this bill: “promotes the option that causes the least disruption and the least concern for land owners.” That is, I think, a very important aspect—it sort of sends the tenor and the flavour of what this bill is about.

After the earthquakes 5 years ago, not only did the land move laterally and horizontally but also it moved vertically, and when the select committee had an opportunity to visit Canterbury and Christchurch as part of its consideration of this bill we were given an opportunity to tour parts of the red zone and see for ourselves exactly what it meant in terms of property movement. It has been a very long time since I studied land law, but my recollection of the basic principles of New Zealand land law is that, as a general rule, boundaries do not move with the land. This bill seeks to turn that around and actually make a common-sense, practical, prudent decision—that, as a result of the earthquakes, in this case, boundaries have moved. So we are turning that basic principle of land law around to be of particular relevance and interest to Canterbury and Christchurch. I think it is a very pragmatic piece of legislation.

What this bill does is provide certainty for landowners and people who have had so much disruption and concern in their lives in the years, days, weeks, and months since the earthquakes. This is a very simple piece of legislation that provides certainty not only for the landowners but also for the surveyors who have to do the professional work. There has been quite a lot of confusion amongst surveyors, some of whom have been reluctant to actually carry out the work because of concerns about professional rules around the general principle that boundaries do not move. But it has meant that up until now there has been quite a lot of cost involved for landowners who have had to go about having new surveys done. So this common-sense approach—this common-sense, small piece of legislation—actually helps people to get on with their lives. It helps them finish up and resolve insurance claims, and it helps the rebuild and regeneration of Christchurch and Canterbury to continue at pace, and what it means is that those delays have been removed.

There is one particular area that I want to focus on, and that is a matter that Dr Megan Woods also commented on. The select committee suggested that in order to futureproof this legislation—and, touch wood, we hope that it is not required or needed—this legislation should be relevant and go from 14 February 2016 through until 14 February 2022. Let us hope that we do not have to face or suffer any further dramatic land movements in Canterbury and Christchurch through until 2022 and that things settle. But I think it was prudent and practical for us as parliamentarians to actually futureproof the legislation, to extend it out to that period of time, and to give certainty should there be any further land movement in the years immediately ahead of us.

This is a very good bill. It is a practical bill. It is, in legislative terms, quite a small piece of legislation but it has an impact on a lot of people, and it will bring certainty and clarity to them. It is a good bill, and I commend it to the House.

Can I begin my contribution by agreeing with the member who has just resumed his seat, Scott Simpson, that even though this is a relatively small piece of legislation, it will have a huge impact on 11,000 property owners in Canterbury. So I am delighted that we will see the end of this bill tonight, I hope, and, I suspect, with unanimity from all parties in Parliament.

I want to acknowledge the way in which Minister Louise Upston worked to develop this legislation. In a rare moment of collaboration with all other parties, the Minister invited us to her office, where she gave us a comprehensive briefing, talked to us about the engagement that she wanted to have with residents in Canterbury prior to the bill being introduced, and listened to our contribution on that. As my colleague Dr Megan Woods did, I would highly recommend that other Ministers think about working with people outside their own little row on the front bench, because it does mean that the legislation is better once it comes to the House, and that is always a good thing.

The quality of submissions on this bill was very high, so I want to acknowledge the people who took a lot of trouble and put in a lot of effort to contribute to the thinking. I want to say that from the outside looking in—because I was not a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee—and from hearing the contributions of select committee members and reading their deliberation, it is my view that the select committee members did those submitters proud by the way they responded to them. They took them seriously, they debated properly, and they made some changes—not many changes, but some changes—as a result. So I want to commend the members of the select committee as well.

Scott Simpson, the chair of that committee, was right when he said that, generally, in New Zealand land law we have the position where the land moves but the boundaries do not. Because of the dramatic land movement in Canterbury, it was considered worthy of looking at whether that should remain the case, and, obviously, with this legislation we have decided that the law is going to change in quite a fundamental way, so that if the land moves, the boundaries move.

I hope that not too many people have already rebuilt their homes and are now living with part of their house on a neighbouring property. That will be the case, but I hope it is not for too many, and I am not sure what consideration the select committee gave to that. I suppose that is the frustration that I feel—that it is nearly September 2016, 6 years since the first quake, and here we are just now debating what is a pretty fundamental point for so many people. I know that in my electorate I have a large number of constituents who are actually waiting. Their building consent is on hold because they cannot get any certainty until this legislation is passed. So—and I have been letting them know about the progress of the bill—today will mean a big step forward for them. They will be able to get their building consents lodged with the city council—and, hopefully, approved quickly—and will be able to get on with their building.

So, with that, I want to conclude my contribution because I do want to see this bill progressed this evening so that those people can have a bit more certainty in their life and can retain some of the good aspects of homebuilding that they have had pending before them for so long. I commend the progress of this bill.

It is a pleasure to rise in support of the Canterbury Property Boundaries and Related Matters Bill. As the past contributions have been clear and concise but succinct, I too will take a short call and not deny the good people of Canterbury the passing of this bill to provide a very practical solution to some very real issues.

First of all, I want to pay tribute again to the Cantabrians who have lived through the earthquakes of 2010 and 2011. I can remember those horrific scenes on the television. I am sure that for Cantabrians that is still very, very fresh in their minds, yet day in and day out they are dealing with the consequences of that earthquake, and that includes dealing with their property issues.

I too remember learning in law school that when the land moves, legal boundaries do not move, and one of the practical examples that was given is when you buy property with a river in it that meanders through your property. But, of course, the gentle, time-consuming meandering of a river on land is not the same as the devastation of an earthquake. For some of those Cantabrians dealing with the consequences of that earthquake, finding their property structures on their neighbour’s land is harrowing, not only psychologically but, of course, when dealing with the legal consequences of that moving forward.

This bill is a practical one. It changes the existing law to make sure that the legal boundary will move with the land in a common-sense way. I think, given the events of 2010 and 2011, that is a practical, pragmatic way forward. Given that this is a very common-sense bill, I see no reason in delaying it. I commend it to the House.

Tēnā koe. Similar to previous speakers, my contribution on the Canterbury Property Boundaries and Related Matters Bill will be short, but I would like to begin by extending our sympathies from the Green Party to the people in central Italy who had that awful 6.2 magnitude earthquake, resulting in a number of deaths. Rescuers have been working through the night, and the early hours of the morning now, trying to see whether there are any survivors in the rubble. We remember that profound sense of disorientation and dislocation in Canterbury on 4 September, when we were woken by that big earthquake in the early hours of the morning, so our thoughts are with the people in those mountainous hilltop towns and the distress that they are going through.

This bill is a good one. It deals with the issue that, in the worst-affected areas of Christchurch after the earthquakes, surveyors had quite considerable difficulty in locating the legal property boundaries because the measurements between where the survey pegs were and where the markers on the ground were no longer matched the official survey plans. It was difficult for them to determine where the actual legal boundaries lay. This bill is a sensible initiative to ensure that the law is that the boundaries move with the land. As others have said, it extends out to potential earthquakes in future, so it is futureproofing the legislation. It helps get rid of that uncertainty, and it ensures that for any surveys that have been undertaken in Canterbury in this interim period, the boundaries stay where the surveyors designated them, as long as those surveys were done in good faith and with no negligence. So it is providing certainty. Certainly, most surveys that have been done since the earthquakes have been consistent with the principle that the boundaries move with the land, but there are around 400 surveys that, I understand, were done using a different approach. Land Information New Zealand is identifying those and will be actively managing them.

As others have done, I would like to commend the Minister for Land Information for the very consultative approach that was taken with this legislation. Officials consulted also with CanCERN and with the city council, and there was an exposure draft that was produced, so a lot of the issues were resolved before the bill came before the House. We encourage other Ministers to do the same.

The Local Government and Environment Committee is debating legislation around local government changes. There was no consultation with the sector before that bill was introduced, so it takes considerable time for the submitters, for the select committee, and for Parliament to address what is, really, poorly drafted legislation.

This bill is an example, a shining example, of what happens when there is good consultation before legislation is introduced, so that the role of the select committee is to then only tweak it. So I commend this bill to the House, and encourage other Ministers to adopt a similar consultative approach prior to introducing legislation.

I too am going to take only a short call on the third and last reading of this bill, the Canterbury Property Boundaries and Related Matters Bill, because all that needs to have been said on the bill, which is a very technical bill, has, in fact, already been said. In a nutshell, surveyors in Canterbury did need to have more flexibility to deal with boundary issues, as a result of the Canterbury earthquake sequence. Some boundaries moved; some did not. Obviously something had to be done about that. But they needed to do it in a way that did not compromise professional standards or create any uncertainty, and that has been done by providing that, indeed, where land has boundaries that have moved, then those boundaries will be recognised in that moved position.

The bill achieves all of those objectives in, I think, a very practical, sensible, and very clear way. That is very welcome. As others have said, it means that people in Canterbury know their position, know what will happen, it creates certainty, and people can get on with their lives. Where there are disputes—and I hope there will be very few of them—the bill provides for a robust dispute resolution process, which we in New Zealand First also welcome. That is all I need to say. New Zealand First will be very pleased to vote in favour of the bill at this final stage.

It is a pleasure and an honour to rise in support of the Canterbury Property Boundaries and Related Matters Bill in its third reading. I think this bill is very important because it acknowledges how far we have come. Of course, quite often we call them the “Christchurch earthquakes”, but they are the Canterbury earthquakes. The town in my electorate of Kaiapoi was hard hit in the first earthquake. We are working through these very practical issues now, of how we move forward. Next week is a good acknowledgment of how much we have moved forward, with the opening of the new Farmers building in Rangiora. It is very much an anchor project of the recovery, and I know the whole “Waimak” is looking forward to that opening on 1 September.

What we are looking at here—it gives me a lot of comfort that what we are doing in Parliament is giving cross-party support to the people of Canterbury. I think we need to acknowledge that. It is a continuation of the cross-party support for the regeneration legislation, and it continues Parliament’s standing behind Canterbury. I want to acknowledge all parties in this House for standing up for the people of Canterbury.

The reason we have this bill is because the pegs were not lining up with the survey boundaries. We have heard that before, with surveys; they were measured as if the pegs had stayed in the land, but now they have moved. What we have found out is that we need to give people certainty and reliability, and I think that is what Land Information New Zealand is doing through this very good bill. We know it also extends the time out to 2022. We learnt a very valuable lesson in the Valentine’s Day earthquake about the risks that are still there for the people of Canterbury, so it futureproofs this legislation for ongoing seismic activity. Also, it does amend the Land Transfer Act to ensure and clarify that resolutions can be addressed through that vehicle. I would just like to finish by saying that this great bill gives certainty to the people of Canterbury. Thank you.

I join with other members in support of this bill, and it shows what a quality process this has been in terms of consultation with community groups and stakeholders. As other colleagues have said, it has been a quality ministerial process where other legislators from other parliaments were brought into it, and the outcome is that we have a high-quality bill in front of us. As the previous speaker, Matt Doocey, said, this will provide certainty—a long time coming, but certainty for those victims of the earthquakes. As other speakers have said, what could be worse and more nightmarish than knowing that your property has somehow moved and that, as my colleague Ruth Dyson pointed out, you may well have built over somebody’s boundary?

It does highlight another point, if I can make it, and it is interesting that Mr Doocey rose to speak to this piece of legislation. This is an important—vitally important—piece of legislation for a large number of our citizens. We stand here tonight and we are taking short calls to rattle this through because we want to get it through. It has had a pretty efficient gestation period, and we want to get it through so that we can provide some measure of comfort and do what we should do as legislators by passing laws and rules that assist people.

I just, in all seriousness, contrast that with the amount of silliness and time-wasting that has occurred over a couple of members’ bills—you know, Nuk “The Bag Man” Korako, and the Bag Man’s apprentice, Matt Doocey, who just spoke. Yes, we can have a bit of fun and frivolity in this Parliament—that is part of the nature of being a legislator—but to waste hundreds of thousands of dollars and time on silly and stupid pieces of legislation when we have bills like this that are vitally important—[Interruption] I see the Assistant Speaker acknowledging the importance of it, the need to expedite those vitally important bills through the House—that is actually what we are here to do. We can have a laugh and a joke and a bit of a leg pull, that is true, but when you look at the seriousness of the duties that we are charged with as legislators, you have got to contrast this bill—good process, good ministerial process, quality outcome; a bill that will practically help thousands of people in a province that was almost destroyed—with a couple of jokers who are wasting parliamentary time and taxpayers’ money with silly, stupid pieces of legislation.

💬 Matt Doocey: A bit like your speech now.

One of the jokers who has been pulled out of the pack and woken up is sitting down the back of the House now. I say to those two gentlemen: OK, comedy hour is over. Maybe they should think again.

There is, I think, under the Standing Orders the ability to withdraw legislation in some way, shape, or form, and maybe this bill is quite a good example—and I say this to the colleagues on the other side of the House, because they have acted very, very responsibly in relation to this bill—of what we are actually here to do. We are actually here to help people, to empower people, and to help those in the worst possible circumstances. This is a highly technical piece of legislation. It affects, fundamentally, people’s property rights, and this is what we should be here for, not acting like it is the comedy hour, as some actors in this House have conducted themselves over the last couple of weeks. I support the bill.

I too stand to take a short call on this most important bill, the Canterbury Property Boundaries and Related Matters Bill, because on the eastern side of Christchurch they had one of the biggest areas where homes were lost through the earthquake. I want to thank the Minister, the Hon Louise Upston, for the work that she has done on this bill, and the collegiality that was shown within the Committee to get this bill to this place. This bill does bring some comfort to the property owners of Christchurch, and I have no hesitation in commending it to the House. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I too rise in support of this piece of legislation. There are just a couple of points I want to make. I know that we should ensure that this bill passes tonight, and I will be doing my utmost, but I do just want to make a couple of points about this particular bill. The process has to be commended. The ability to have input from Canterbury members from across all of the parties engaged in the discussion has been really useful, and, I think, has encouraged all of us to think that there are better ways to engage with your parliamentary colleagues from across the House when it comes to matters of such significance as dealing with the earthquakes in Canterbury. I would encourage other members, when other pieces of legislation are being developed around this, to use similar processes. The officials on this were very open to suggestions that were made by my colleagues on this particular piece of legislation, and I commend the Minister, the Hon Louise Upston, for that.

The submitters were primarily the council and that group of surveyors who were clear that there were some things that they needed to ensure went into this piece of legislation. Firstly, that those interim surveys that were conducted during those first few months and years after the earthquake could be validated under this piece of legislation. Secondly, they wanted to ensure that all of the variances that occurred with the movement of land—whether that be through lateral spread, whether that be through movement up and down, or whether that be through the impact of liquefaction—were all considered when the boundary legislation was redrawn. Thirdly, they wanted to ensure that there was a disputes process and a remediation process that was included in the legislation. All of these protections have been put in place. This is a good bill. It will go a long way towards giving comfort to property owners that their boundaries are valid and that the surveys are valid. I commend it to the House.

E Te Mana Whakawā Tuarua, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou katoa e ngā mema o Te Whare. This bill, the Canterbury Property Boundaries and Related Matters Bill, is a good bill, introduced by my colleague the Hon Louise Upston, the Minister for Land Information. It is important that it is passed forthwith because, as we know, there have been a range of technical and geotechnical issues faced by the people of Canterbury that have seen some people lose metres off the boundaries of their land, whereas others have had the spreading out of the land that has grown the size of their property but severely damaged the ability to properly measure and register that land. So this is an important bill. It is a timely bill. The Local Government and Environment Committee, chaired by the able and learned Mr Simpson from Coromandel, did a very good job. We did work very cooperatively with members of the Opposition and in hearing submitters. This is a necessary piece of legislation, and I commend it to the House.

Bill read a third time.