Property Law (Sunset Clauses) Amendment Bill

The last time we debated this bill, the next call was actually a Te Pāti Māori call. I call on Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke.

Tēnā rā koe e te Pīka, otirā tēnā rā tātou e te Whare. Ko te katoa o tēnei kōrero ka reo Māori. E tū ana ahau ki te waha i ngā kōrero mā Te Pāti Māori mō tēnei o ngā pire e hāngai ana ki ngā ture kaihoko hanga whare.

Nā reira e tautoko ana Te Pāti Māori i tēnei pire nā runga anō i te mea kia taurite ngā āhuatanga e pēhi nei i te kaihoko. Waihoki hei taurite i ngā āhuatanga i waenganui i te kaihoko me te tangata e tiki ana i tōna ake whare.

Nō reira, āe, tēnei momo pire ka panoni i te Property Law Act 2007 kia āhei ai te kaihoko ki te whakaū i tā rātou offer me tā rātou pena moni ki te tiki i tō rātou whare.

Nō reira, āe, e tautoko ana mātou, Te Pāti Māori, i tēnei pire.

[Thank you, Madam Speaker; indeed, greetings to all of us in the House. All of this speech will be in the Māori language. I stand to give voice to Te Pāti Māori’s statements with respect to this particular bill regarding property acquisition legislation.

Te Pāti Māori supports this bill due to its balancing of matters that oppress buyers; furthermore, to balance matters between the seller and those people that are seeking to acquire their own home.

And, yes, this type of bill will amend the Property Law Act 2007 so that the buyer will be able to confirm their offer and save money to acquire their own home.

So, yes, we, Te Pāti Māori, commend this bill.]

There have been many cases where whānau have committed to buying a home, only for delays to push their arrangements over the sunset date. That allows a bad-faith seller to tear up the contract and list the property at a higher price. This bill would stop that practice. So, with that, Te Pāti Māori commends this bill. Kia ora.

Kia ora, Madam Speaker. As Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke just said, this is a good bill. It’s a bill which actually addresses some of the issues around homes. Buying a home off the plan can be risky, and what this bill does is just lay off one of those risks. Sunset clauses, which this addresses, are those clauses where the builder, if the building isn’t complete and ready within a set period of time, can back out of the contract without any other reason than to say, you know, “The clock’s ticked, the sun has set, and I’m out.” One of the challenges of that, of course, is this: that it’s the purchaser of the building who is taking all the risks in terms of what will happen to the market, and the builder who gets the benefit of all of the risks. So it gives an incentive when the market is rising for the builder to slow down and then say, “Oh dear, I’m going to call in the sunset clause.”, and there are cases where builders have done that in extreme bad faith and then come back and said, “But you can buy the house off me if you pay an extra $10,000, $20,000, $50,000, $100,000.” That’s the kind of behaviour we want to stop.

Sunset clauses do have a place when there are real reasons—for example, the land can’t be subdivided, or some other genuine external reason has caused a delay—but for them to be used as a tool for developers, essentially, to game the property market is a bad thing.

Ingrid Leary’s bill addresses that; it does it very well. It doesn’t do it absolutely; there is an out by recourse to the courts or by consent of the purchaser. It’s a good bill, and I’m sure everyone in the House will support it—I certainly do.

Madam Speaker, I too want to add my congratulations, and I welcome you back to the seat that you bring so much mana to. So welcome, Madam Speaker.

I too rise to add my contribution to the Property Law (Sunset Clauses) Amendment Bill. For those who have just tuned in, we are in the first reading of this bill. I would like to explain that to some of our listeners, because not everyone is so attuned to the happenings of Parliament. So we’re in the first reading and this member’s bill—and for those listening who are not familiar with those terms, that’s when a bill is drawn out of the ballot system that we’ve got here—was introduced on 9 April 2025 to the House, in the name of the Labour MP Ingrid Leary. Ingrid Leary is someone who always has very pretty and noticeable shoes on, amongst other things.

The principal Act that this bill seeks to amend is the Property Law Act 2007.

Hon Dr Duncan Webb: It’s a bad speech, though, for the National Party.

RIMA NAKHLE: The thing is this: Dr Duncan Webb really needs to open up “Duncan’s Wine Bar” and turn that frown upside down.

National does oppose this bill, and there’s a number of reasons why we oppose this bill. We understand the intentions behind this bill, and I think I can put it in a nutshell—that Ingrid Leary does hope to protect consumers from bad-faith developers. That’s very clear—very clear in her opening address to this bill, and very clear in the information we have about this member’s bill.

But the National Party doesn’t think that this avenue is the right avenue to do so. What this bill does highlight, and I appreciate, as a first term MP as well—and there are those across the House who can appreciate this as well—is that we don’t necessarily have a direct interpretation in law as to what a sunset clause is. So that’s something for us all to take away and think about. The concerns that we have with this member’s bill are, for one, that it assumes that there’s a widespread misuse of sunset clauses by developers to cancel agreements and resell at higher prices. The other side of the House talk a lot about evidence; there hasn’t been much evidence to show that this is a systemic problem within Aotearoa New Zealand right now.

So that’s one of the main issues I personally have with this bill, and why I add my discontent and why we won’t be supporting the bill going forward. I do believe that most developers—and I’m blessed to be in a situation where I have a lot of developers in my beautiful electorate of Takanini. Takanini is the fastest-growing electorate in the country. Right at this stage, we’ve got almost 18 percent more population than any electorate when it comes to electorate boundaries and the numbers, and so the new electorate boundaries are going to come out on 8 August. Takanini will be affected because our population is so high. It’s the fastest-growing electorate, particularly right now in the Flat Bush area. So Flat Bush is south and east Auckland, and we have a lot of developers there. I know most of them are good, decent, hard-working people with the right intentions in mind.

Developers find themselves in situations where they need to use sunset clauses. For example, let’s just say one of my developers or neighbours in Takanini are building five town houses, and they encounter a supply chain delay. Under the current law, they can invoke the sunset clause to release buyers who no longer want to wait. And we find with particularly our first-home buyers, those that are thinking of starting a family who would like to release themselves from the contract, that this proposed law will change the ease at which they can do that.

I’m really proud of the fact that the National-led Government is rejigging the Resource Management Act to address those supply issues and address those resource consent issues. But, for now, respectfully, I do not commend this bill to the house.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Has he got pretty shoes?

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: No, I have one pair of shoes and they’re not pretty. No, they are not, but neither was that speech. That was a pretty pathetic attempt to try and justify what I think is a pretty unjustifiable position. The Government knows that people have been shafted by sunset clauses and they’re not willing to do something about it.

Rima Nakhle: You had six years.

Hon KIERAN McANULTY: That’s the guts of it. Again, something pathetic—“You had six years.” So do something now. You’ve got the chance and you’re choosing not to. The MP for Takanini is choosing not to help people and is choosing not to prevent people from being shafted. In fact, all of the Government members are making a choice today.

This bill introduced by Ingrid Leary, who I want to actually acknowledge—she’s doing tremendous work in this area. She’s doing tremendous work in the area of retirement villages. Sam Uffindell is a fan. Sam Uffindell recognises that Ingrid Leary is doing tremendous work. I think deep down, Sam Uffindell recognises that Ingrid Leary is doing tremendous work in the area of sunset clauses. I have a suspicion that there are a few of them over there that deep down would actually quite like to support this bill, but they’ve been whipped. They’ve been whipped and told that they cannot support this bill.

So what does it do? Quite simply, it brings in reasonable parameters to prevent developers scamming purchasers. That’s it. Why would we want to allow that to continue? It’s happened. Those examples have been provided in the House. The Government members have been given those. They may not have read them, but they’ve been given them and they’re choosing not to protect consumers.

It’s very similar, actually, to their big announcement this week where they’ve made out like they’re making it cheaper for consumers to get rid of the PayWave, but actually, when you look down at the details, they could have done something with the banks and just got rid of them altogether. But no, no, consumers are just going to end up paying.

The point here is that, in particular the National Party, when push comes to shove they will side on the big end of town rather than the small end of town, and this is another example. It would have been really easy just to support this bill, to let it progress and to say that the Parliament is united in a small change that will protect people from being shafted in the future. But no, they have chosen not to. They have chosen to stand up and talk about all sorts of things and then a real quick example as to why they’re not supporting it, which actually is irrelevant. They’ve got nothing.

They have no reason to oppose this other than they don’t want to vote against developers, and I think that is sad. I think that is sad because at the end of the day, the vast majority of the developers are good people who follow the law, and even if there was a quick buck to be made, they wouldn’t induct a sunset clause to make it.

But just like any other group—any other group at all—it only takes one. It only takes one to ruin something for someone and to actually ruin the reputation of that industry and that sector, and this bill would have addressed both. It would have added integrity to property development and it would have protected consumers. Why on earth would they not support that? But they’ve made a choice, and I would just say to anyone in the future, anyone that is looking to purchase something off the plans, if that sunset clause is invoked and they either miss out on the opportunity or they are tempted to be squeezed for a few extra thousand by buying back, think back on this date, because Ingrid Leary’s bill would have prevented that. But now, every single MP of New Zealand First, the ACT Party, and the National Party voted to keep things as they are. They can thank them for that because you can mark my words, it will happen one day. One day, someone who wants to buy a house will be shafted by this and it could have been prevented, and they’re not taking that chance. Pathetic.

Excellent, thank you. I do just want to acknowledge your accession to the Speaker’s Chair. What we have just heard is a lot of the word “shafted”, and I thought I would take up that member on some of the things that have happened in the housing industry. Under the last Government, we saw average rents raised by $175 a week. That is the Labour Party shafting renters. We saw house prices skyrocket. The average house price in New Zealand in November 2017 was around $600,000. In 2022, the average house price—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I’d like the member to actually come back to this bill.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL: It is relevant. It is relevant, Madam Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): I’m speaking, actually. The last speaker did mention the word “shafted”, but that doesn’t actually make it allowable for you to make your speech all about that. So please do come back to the bill. At least mention the name of the bill.

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL: Thank you, Mr Speaker, Mrs—Madam Speaker. Sorry, I’ll get my words right. We are talking about the Property Law (Sunset Clauses) Amendment Bill, which of course is ultimately about the supply and affordability of houses because it affects development. That is what I was referring to, and the fact that in 2022, the average house price in New Zealand was $1.06 million, that’s a nearly a doubling. So you might imagine that I am a little bit cynical when the Opposition proposes a bill to help fix the property market.

The thing is, you’ll be pleased to know that under the Government, rents have decreased, house prices stabilised, and 29 percent of total real estate sales last year were for first-home buyers. That is the highest that it has ever been on record. But, Madam Speaker, I take your point about getting back to the property law and the sunset clause.

Now, sunset clauses do exist for a reason. They provide a legal mechanism for both buyers and sellers, especially off the plan or development agreements, to manage the inherent risk and uncertainty in construction timelines. Delays can and do happen, like the Middlemore Hospital planning announced in 2016; we’re finally getting on to it. Now, there is often genuine unforeseen circumstances that can delay development, like supply chain issues. So that’s of course something that this Government is getting on to kind of deal with. It could be discovery of archaeological sites. There’s a myriad of reasons why there can be delays. Here in New Zealand, red tape is one that often does tie up developments. I know some in the Ilam electorate have been tied up with red tape, things the Resource Management Act (RMA)—can I just point out that it does cost about 50 percent more to build a single standard house—

Hon Rachel Brooking: Your Government brought back the RMA!

Dr HAMISH CAMPBELL: —here in New Zealand than in Australia. I do hear over the other side about sorting out the RMA. Don’t worry, we’re getting on to it now.

Now, the thing is, this member’s bill is to modify the property law. If you look at the bill—it is only five pages—but when you look at it, it is inserting a whole new section into the property law and it’s a rather big section. Now, the thing is, it probably is not well suited in this piece of legislation. There are other laws that it probably could be better suited. The Property Law Act relates to property rights about leases and mortgages, etc., but the Building Act 2024 deals with building contracts and consumer rights in relation to residential building work. So if this bill was actually properly thought about, it would not be modifying the property law; it would probably be in the Building Act.

Now, the thing is, we’ve heard about the possibility of developers ripping people off. Well, actually, one of the biggest ways to sort that is actually stopping having such a rampant house price growth, and that’s something that the Government is actually doing. Also, there’s probably other, better avenues to actually deal with it.

Of course, we’ve heard about shafting—I appreciate you don’t want the speech on that—but the thing is, there’s better mechanisms to actually achieve this goal. I think the intention behind the bill is sound, but I am a little bit sceptical that it’s not in the right place and it could actually have a real chilling effect on the supply of houses. We need to make sure, here in New Zealand, that we are focused on supplying more houses so that it puts a downward pressure on prices, it means rents are going to be cheaper, it means that we are siding on the side of everyday Kiwis, so they can have more money in their back pocket.

It’s been a real privilege to be able to have this reading on my bill, and I want to acknowledge my late mother for her Leary luck in getting my bill drawn. It’s continuing even after her departure, so thanks very much, Mum.

I can feel the sun setting on my sunset clauses bill, which is a bit of a shame, because it is right—Kieran McAnulty characterised it as an anti-scam bill, and that’s exactly what it is. It’s such a shame that the Government members won’t support it in its first reading, because if they had, I think they would find, actually, there would be many property developers who would support this bill because they do not want to be tarnished by the reputation of a few bad apples. That’s certainly been the experience in Australia, where their equivalent bill was overwhelmingly supported in New South Wales and in ACT by the sector. That’s, I’m sure, what would have happened here, but sadly we won’t get that chance.

I also just want to acknowledge the brave people who really, sadly, did lose their money and their opportunity to buy their first home who shared their stories with Radio New Zealand and with other media to try to put some light on this issue, because although Government members might say it’s not a big issue, actually, it has been for many of those families very devastating for them. So I also want to acknowledge the media for their work in doing this.

I would like to just clarify, since I do have two bills that are currently floating around and they are both property law bills. There’s this bill, and then there is also my Retirement Villages (Fairer Repayments) Amendment Bill. I wanted to clarify that because they do have a lot in common. They’re both property law bills, they both protect the little guy or gal, they are both very narrow in scope, and they both deal with unfair contractual clauses. So I think there’s a bit of a theme here with the type of thing that I’m interested in, which is really about getting some parity in the market when we’ve got such big players like investors.

I do have to ask myself—given that New Zealand First has already said they won’t support my other bill, and I haven’t heard officially yet from National—why do these coalition parties back investors so readily at the drop of a hat, rather than ordinary New Zealanders, who, as the previous member Dr Hamish Campbell would have said, are getting shafted, sometimes, by these big investors? It is a legitimate question, and I think Kieran McAnulty was absolutely right to say that when the market inevitably heats up and people get stung again, we do hope they remember this day and they do remember that Government members who could have resolved this issue did not support it.

The problem, of course, is that in a hot market, property developers—not the vast majority of the good ones, but only the bad apples, as I’ve described them—could invoke a sunset clause and be able to put the house back on the market at the expense of the person who has shifted their life around to be able to buy that house. In some cases, and in one particular case, they can make a $100,000 capital gain in a matter of a couple of weeks after they have done that. Now, I think that is pretty shocking that the Government members want to allow that. As I say, I’m sure that most property developers would want to be protected from the reputational risk of being seen to do that.

As my colleague the Hon Dr Duncan Webb has said, there’s a very clear pathway. If a developer felt the sunset clause was being withheld—the permission—they could apply to the court, and there are very broad parameters that the court can take into account, including the terms of the off-plan contract, whether the vendor acted unreasonably or in bad faith, the reason for the delay, whether the subject lot has increased in value, and any other matters it considers relevant. So these scenarios that have been raised erroneously about sunset clauses not being able to be used in legitimate circumstances are actually fictional, and I would encourage members to read the bill so that they can acquaint themselves with it.

When I look at the fact that both of my bills involve contract law, people have said, “Oh, there’s retrospectivity.”, or “It’s contract law, and the will of Parliament should be used differently.” I think that in both cases, we’ve got to remember that the Residential Tenancies Act also involves contracts and also involves retrospectivity, and we would not have been able to get fairer terms and conditions for tenants had we not just used our political will to do the right thing. So those are spurious arguments.

I note that this legislation has worked very well in Australia. I am going to let the sun set on it now—it’s the last gasp—but don’t worry, we’ve got the Retirement Villages (Fairer Repayments) Amendment Bill and you still have a chance to support that, National Party members.