Land Transfer Bill

The question now is that Part 5, which is clauses 207 to 247 and schedule 2, stand part. I am assuming that Mr Wood would like a call at this point.

Having tempted the appetites of other members in this Committee to hear about the regulation-making powers that are set out under this bill, I will continue my comments in relation to this.

I think where I got to was that if we have a look at clause 226, it does set out quite a wide range of regulations. It stretches to, goodness me, a couple of pages of the bill—about three or four pages. Just to give a flavour of some of these, they are some very practical things, but some quite important things. For example, “specifying [the] classes of persons”—I am looking at clause 226(12) here; there is actually another addition from the select committee—“who must electronically lodge, or direct the electronic lodgement of, an instrument of a specified class … (12a) specifying classes of electronic instruments that are not capable of electronic lodgement …”.

Of course, this stuff is quite important because it is dealing with electronic means of lodgment, and what we know about that is that if we looked at the different ways in which people might have electronically communicated 10, 15, or 20 years ago, they were quite different to the ways in which we might communicate now. There are constantly different tools and different systems and different channels that people use, and if we want to set up an enduring piece of legislation, there does need to be some regulatory flexibility to be able to include or exclude certain forms of communication. So, looking specifically at paragraphs (12) and (12a) there, which have been inserted by the Government Administration Committee, those do seem to me to be sensible regulations to put in place, to make sure that the Act keeps up with the times in respect of people’s ability to lodge the important information that they will need to under the terms of the Act. It goes on to the various other regulations that it also prescribes.

But what I really want to get to is clause 226(3), and this is at the bottom of page 117. What it notes, I think quite sensibly, is that “The Minister must, as soon as practicable after the end of each period of 5 years from the commencement of this section,—(a) commence a review of regulations made under subsection (1)(18); and (b) consider as part of that review whether any matter contained in the regulations should be enacted in this Act.” Let us just take each of those in turn, so firstly clause 226(3)(a). The reason this is important is that when this Parliament, when this House, gives to the executive—and of course the makeup of that executive can change, whoever it is—the powers to make these kinds of regulations, it is appropriate that it is not a lead that can just go and go and go. So I think it does make sense in these cases, particularly with a large and technical bill like this, that it is actually quite central to the way that our economy and society operates. We spoke about this earlier, the fact that having absolute certainty over who owns what bit of land, and what size bit of land that is, and where it is; it is quite important that there is some oversight over that. So where the executive makes regulations having a process whereby we come back and review them in 5 years’ time strikes me as a good measure. I am pleased that the select committee in this case decided to insert that into this bill. I think that is something that, perhaps, should be considered in some of the other bits of legislation that come before this House.

The second bit, I think, is also a good suggestion, which is that having done that, having conducted that review, if there are regulations that seem to have an enduring quality that are important enough that in 5 years’ time they are still there, they are still relevant, and they are still important in terms of the way that we put this Act into practice, then instead of just having them sitting out there as regulatory powers of the executive, why not actually bring them into the ambit of the Act itself. That to me seems to be a sensible and appropriate thing to do where we determine that about those regulations.

The other addition made, just following on from clause 223, is clause 226A, “Regulations providing for transitional matters”. This to me seemed to be a little bit of an oversight that it was not there in the first place, and that we did not have a clause in the bill that provided for this. We know that in the transition period when a bill like this comes in, there are going to be things that get picked up and will need addressing. So it is entirely sensible and appropriate that the select committee picked that up and inserted it into the bill so that we have got some regulation powers in that transitional period. We certainly support the insertion of that into the bill. Thank you.

I would like to take a short call, not necessarily with some comments, but observations.

The term “fraud” has not been defined until now. The term “mortgage” is defined, but “encumbrance” is not. The term “adverse possession”, although well defined in common law, is not defined under this bill. Having said that, this is a largely technically laden and, it could be, dry bill, but we did enjoy taking calls on this bill.

For me, as the newest MP, it is the very first time to have such a great opportunity to have a look at the bill itself. So I would like to thank the Government Administration Committee, which has a wonderful chair, the Hon Ruth Dyson, and again thank the Law Society for its submissions and thank the Law Commission for having shaped and reshaped the bill in such a wonderful form. Thank you.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 252 in the name of the Hon Louise Upston and on Supplementary Order Paper 323 in the name of the Hon Mark Mitchell to Part 5 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Part 5 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 1

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 252 in the name of the Hon Louise Upston to schedule 1 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.

Schedule 2

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 252 in the name of the Hon Louise Upston to schedule 2 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.

Clauses 1 and 2