Land Transfer Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLand Transfer Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 15 March 2016. Volume:712;Page:9682. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Land Transfer BillFirst ReadingHon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Land Information): I move That the Land Transfer Bill be now read a first time. I nominate that this bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee for consideration. This bill has been developed in response to the Law Commission’s review of the Land Transfer Act of 1952. That review resulted in the commission’s 2010 report A New Land Transfer Act. The Law Commission’s report showed that the existing land transfer legislation is fundamentally sound but it is well overdue for modernisation simplification and consolidation. The bill will modernise New Zealand’s land transfer legislation to make it clearer more workable and more consistent with modern ways of working. It retains the core principles of the Torrens system of land registration and introduces new measures to improve security of property rights.The Land Transfer Act is over 60 years old and contains provisions from early legislation dating back over 100 years. Much of the language is archaic complex and difficult to understand. The Act is focused on paper-based transactions which is completely at odds with the modern reality of an electronic land title registration system. The Act has to be read alongside two stand-alone amendment Acts. This creates a legislative framework that is difficult to navigate for property owners wanting to understand their rights and obligations. The Land Transfer Bill addresses these problems by replacing all three statutes with a single statute that is clear workable and focused on electronic registration.As land is the principal source of wealth and wealth generation in New Zealand the land transfer system is critical to the ongoing functioning of the economy. Confidence in the certainty of property rights in New Zealand underpins economic growth and attracts overseas investment. A land transfer system that provides people and businesses with secure property rights is essential for a prosperous and sustainable economy. It is still true that for many New Zealanders buying a home is the biggest investment they will ever make. To ensure people continue to be secure in their property ownership the bill retains the principle of indefeasibility of title. This is a fundamental aspect of the Torrens system which provides that in general once registered a transaction cannot be set aside.However the bill also recognises that in some circumstances indefeasibility of title can result in unfair outcomes. For example an owner who is an innocent victim of third-party fraud can lose their home to a registered purchaser. Another example is where Māori freehold land is sold in breach of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act depriving current and future generations of Māori landowners of their ancestral land. To address this problem and improve security of property rights the bill gives the court discretion in limited circumstances to order the alteration of the land title register where necessary to avoid manifest injustice. In situations like the ones that I have just described if the outcome would be manifestly unjust the court would have the power to order ownership to be restored to the previous registered owner. The manifest injustice threshold is intended to balance the need for certainty of property rights with the need to protect against unfair outcomes. The limited judicial discretion is intended for use only in exceptional cases.Another measure aimed at improving security of property rights and addressing mortgage fraud is the new requirement for financial institutions to take reasonable steps to verify the identity of customers taking out mortgages. The bill also makes changes to the Crown compensation scheme for those whose land or an interest in land through the operation of the land transfer system—these changes will make this scheme fairer for landowners and the Crown. Currently compensation is based on land value at the date of loss. This can be unfair. The loss can take some time to discover and the compensation in that case would not cover an increase in property value or improvements made to the property in the interim. The bill addresses this problem by providing for compensation to be based on the value of the land at the date when the claimant discovers or should reasonably have discovered the loss. In most cases the new compensation formula will result in claimants getting more compensation from the Crown.The court will however have discretion to change the valuation date and add a loss adjustment allowance based on property market movement to avoid an unfair outcome. For example the loss adjustment allowance might be necessary when a claim is made in a rising market and land value is appreciating. However it might not be appropriate in a falling market when land value is depreciating.The bill also makes clear that landowners are required to take reasonable care in their land dealings. Compensation can be reduced where the claimant contributes to the loss. The Crown will be able to take proceedings to recover the amount of compensation paid for loss caused by a third party.The bill improves the protection of privacy by extending the Registrar-General of Land’s statutory powers to withhold an individual’s personal information for the protection of their personal safety. The bill also clarifies that the electronic register is subject to the relevant privacy principles under the Privacy Act.A number of measures in the bill will also improve efficiency. These include shifting some certification requirements from the Act to regulations. This makes it easier to automate more transactions and update requirements to keep pace with changing technology. The bill also allows covenants in gross to be noted on the title. This is a new mechanism that offers a cheaper and quicker alternative to the current practice of registering encumbrances which can slow down land development. Another efficiency measure is a simpler process for claiming landownership on a limited title on the basis of adverse possession.This bill has been a long time in the making. I want to thank the Law Commission and in particular to acknowledge the contribution of George Tanner QC the commissioner responsible for the review of the Land Transfer Act. I also want to acknowledge the contribution made by Warren Moyes the former Wellington district land registrar and Land Information New Zealand official. Sadly George and Warren have since passed away.Land underpins everything. The ability to transact in land efficiently and with confidence in the security of property rights is vital for the economic and social well-being of New Zealand. The Land Transfer Bill will deliver long-overdue reforms to New Zealand land law that will enable everyone transacting in land to do so with greater confidence and certainty. I commend this bill to the House.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): Every now and again in this House a seemingly technical and innocuous bill comes before us for reasons that I would warrant are not innocuous or technical. This bill was languishing at around about No. 90 on the Government’s Order Paper and yet it suddenly sprang up to No. 2 today and it is before us at the moment.So today in my brief remarks I am going to firstly outline what the bill contains and then go from the what to the why—why we are debating this now and what it says about the Government’s attitude to landholdings in particular at a time of great stress in our rural sector. First let us consider the substance of the bill. As the Minister for Land Information has pointed out this is—some would say—a much overdue amendment to the basic legal framework for land tenure and land registration. It follows from the Land Transfer Act first written in 1952—it is older than most members of this House—and it follows from the Law Commission’s report of 2010 entitled A New Land Transfer Act.Labour is supporting this bill to the select committee—supporting it for its first reading—so that we can hear from the legal fraternity in terms of their submissions about what is right and wrong about this drafting overhaul. One of the things that seem promising is that the bill integrates the 1952 Act with two subsequent amendments: one from the standalone 1963—a fine year that—Land Transfer Amendment Act and the Land Transfer (Computer Registers and Electronic Lodgement) Amendment Act 2002. It would be helpful all things considered to have those three pieces of legislation properly integrated into one single piece of law.As the Minister has said this bill does retain the essence of the Torrens system where title to land is acquired by registration. It is as far as possible secure and indefeasible—one’s home is one’s castle; one’s title is the anchor of one’s home. A purchaser should not need to go behind the register to investigate the root of the title—that is the title itself is gold-plated. That is also a strong tenet of tenure so to speak.The bill does make two significant changes which the select committee is going to need to consider carefully. The first is in relation to indefeasibility where the bill introduces a limited judicial discretion to order the alteration of the register in situations where immediate indefeasibility would result in what is termed a manifest injustice. So it is introducing a little more flexibility into the law provided that clear grounds can be established on which to proceed without change would be manifestly unjust and that is useful in situations where an unexpected complication has arisen between a mortgagee and a mortgagor. Sometimes that mistake results from the passage of life into an estate.The second significant change to the status quo is in respect of compensation. The bill retains the State compensation that currently operates but it makes a few modifications. Compensation will be available for loss through a registrar’s error of the operation of the land registration system in having acted in reliance on a guaranteed search but those guaranteed search periods are shortened. That is if a citizen acts in reliance on the statute and on the operation of the registry and for some unforeseen reason is thwarted and their title is “defeased” then they may in certain limited circumstances be entitled to compensation.The bill clarifies that the amount of compensation payable where the claimant has been deprived of an estate or an interest in land is the value of that estate or interest. So it rules out by implication pecuniary damages and for mortgagees compensation only extends to the value of the security and excludes any amount beyond that.There are a number of measures in the bill that the select committee will wish to hold to the bill’s stated purpose of enhancing clarity and certainty: provisions clarifying that the registered title may be limited by overriding interests in other statutes—and we will come on to some examples of that that are very important—provisions clarifying the nature and scope of the registrar’s powers of correction; removing inconsistencies around existing legislation that protects administrators from some kinds of personal liability but not others; and limiting the effect and use of covenants in gross for consistency with the original policy intent.Much of that goes to what we call good housekeeping of the law. It goes to the periodic updating of the legislative framework in part because of the 2010 review. But that is where I think the mystery starts—that is that a 2010 review has slowly wound its way through the system and was languishing well down the Government’s Order Paper until today where it leapt to the Government’s highest priority bar one. None of us would argue with the previous priority the Kermadec sanctuary and its wonderful and bipartisan innovation but this one is a little bit of a mystery. It has been around for years; it is seemingly administrative and innocuous—why now?Here I think is the reality: media over the last week have been focused on New Zealand’s growing rural land crisis—and it is a land crisis; it is driven by a sustained collapse in dairy markets. It has resulted in what Dairy New Zealand and the Reserve Bank in its publication the Reserve BankBulletin of December 2015 forecast in its worst-case scenario which was a payout of $4 per kilogram of milk solids sustained for 2 years and then rising. We are worse than that worst-case scenario now at $3.90. It forecast in this document a 40 percent decline in rural land values—a 40 percent decline. Even in the mid-case scenario where prices are rising back to $6—and that seems fanciful on today’s money—that is a 25 percent decline in land values.These are the technocrats; these are the economists. This is a matter—this analysis—that is not political but the implications start to get political. I do not think that the Government wanted to debate on this bill in 3 or 4 weeks’ time or 2 months’ time because this situation is rising to be one of the most severe economic crises that New Zealand has faced. If land values collapse by 40 percent as the Reserve Bank is predicting what is going to happen to the incomes of farmers? What is going to happen to rural towns and communities? What is going to happen to the broader New Zealand economy?The National Government is arrogant and out of touch. It is not being straight with New Zealanders about the magnitude of this challenge. If all of those banks foreclose on those farms and we see a 40 percent collapse in farm prices the knock-on effects will be huge. And I think we all know where the pressures will be. There is the National Government caught between two core constituencies: the big banks on the one hand and the dairy farmers on the other. Something is going to have to give. Do you know what it is—and this is where this bill comes in—it will be fire sales overseas. That is why it wants this legislation on the way through because it is preparing for a massive swathe of fire sales on New Zealand farmland to overseas buyers. Iwi are not that stupid; iwi do not sell their land overseas.We should be very vigilant and we are saying today in this debate that the Labour Opposition is going to be extremely vigilant about this issue. Because who takes the haircut? Is it going to be the banks that have made in technical terms a freaking killing of profit on the lending they have done to both the rural sector and residential urban real estate? Are they going to take the haircut? Is it going to be the farming families—the sharemilkers and the farmers—who get foreclosed on? Are they going to take the haircut? Is it going to be rural New Zealand communities—are they going to take the haircut when this bill facilitates the fire sale of New Zealand farmland?And what is the Government doing about it? You know if this was a rugby game it would be a brawl and the referee just abdicated the field. The Government is not even playing the role of a decent touch judge.Hon Michael Woodhouse: He’d have given you a yellow card.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: That has got Mr Woodhouse’s attention because he can understand football even if he cannot understand immigration. The Government is out of the game. That is why New Zealanders need a Government that can take a long-term view of land sales with secure tenure and good strategy and protect it for future generations.SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): It is actually a pleasure to stand and rise to speak in this first reading of the Land Transfer Bill brought into the House by the Hon Louise Upston. My goodness if I am here as long as Mr Cunliffe and I come up with conspiracy theories along those lines please just show me the door. It is incredible to sit here and listen to 10 minutes of just absolutely phenomenal conspiracy. What this bill is about is modernisation.Mark Mitchell: It’s The X-Files David.SARAH DOWIE: It is The X-Files—it is absolutely The X-Files. It is beyond a joke. At the end of the day the Land Transfer Act has been in force for 60-odd years and it is in need of modernisation—nothing more than that. Land transfer has evolved. I was there I remember in my short 40 years as a lawyer practising and running—Hon David Cunliffe: You’ve been practising for 40 years? You don’t look a day over 60.SARAH DOWIE: —the land-based transactions in the conveyance transactions. We have changed now to an electronic—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I am going to interrupt the member and although she might have brought the interjections on the member making the interjection should know that I am over 60.SARAH DOWIE: Thank you. The process of conveyance has actually changed and we have moved to an electronic system so it is only fair to modernise and update the Act that governs this process and make it more workable and more reflective of today’s day and age.I am really pleased that the Minister has referred this bill to the Government Administration Committee. We are the heavy lifters in this Parliament I think.Chris Bishop: Ha ha!SARAH DOWIE: We are so Mr Bishop—we are the heavy lifters. We often get technical legislation and lo and behold as an ex - property lawyer I am excited about the Land Transfer Bill—I am excited.When we talk about the Torrens title system this is a system that underpins our property transaction basis. It is an incredible system of course developed in Australia and adopted by us gosh I think it was about 100 years ago. But it really does underpin the nature of our property transactions. New Zealand is known—having adopted this Torrens system and through the Land Transfer Act—as a secure place to do business in respect of buying and selling property.Of course two of the premises behind the Torrens system are that it is a secure system and that you do not as a purchaser need to go beyond the register or beyond the title to research what is on there. You can reasonably rely on that register and of course on indefeasibility of title. That has sustained time within New Zealand—that no claim or interest can be defeated or voided with a past omission or error or act. Like I said before that has sustained time. But what this bill does is it modernises indefeasibility in respect of that premise. It is allowing a limited change to indefeasibility where there are fraudulent actions and the result would be that there would be a gross injustice and somebody would miss out or be harmed by some fraudulent action. Therefore the courts can go and look at that and indefeasibility would be somewhat modified there.Look this bill is updating the legislation in respect of the evolution of what we have seen with regards to property transactions. The e-dealings need to be properly documented and updated so that the legislation is reflective of where we are at the moment with our property system. This is a good bill. There is no conspiracy theory with it. It is updating a 60-year-old bill. It is timely it is needed and it is important. I commend this to the House.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): “A minor technical amendment bill”—yes well we have heard that in this House so often. Those of us who have been around for a wee while tend to look a little suspiciously at such statements. I listened to Minister Upston and I had to agree with some of her statements although not all. Land “underpins” everything she said. Now that is partly true I guess—if you are lucky enough to have some land. It “attracts overseas investment”—well that is true as well.This is more than just a minor technical amendment to a piece of legislation. It comes off the back of a recommendation made in 2010 by the Law Commission an independent body that comes to the House with recommendations—a bit like the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment although the Government seems to ignore those recommendations.I just want to go back as a member of a committee that had oversight of Landonline the technical electronic system that we have. It cost us a fortune to be fair. There was a huge cost blowout and now we are making some minor technical amendments to ensure that it operates properly. We in Opposition have to acknowledge that as time moves on technology certainly has. Some of these changes will be required to ensure that we can retain the property rights—not to the extent that the ACT Party might proclaim; we are not that ridiculous. We are not that neanderthal in our thinking. There are new nuances around ownershipthat are referred to in this bill such as lessees’ leases that I am not going to get into.I come back to the issue raised by my colleagues as to why this bill is going through now. There are some quite technical issues here and things that are being changed that will have far-reaching implications—some of which we will not raise or realise in this House today. But those people who are out around the worldwho might be to quote the Minister “attracted to New Zealand for overseas investment” will be looking very carefully at this.Mark Mitchell: Yes good.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: The member over there who nods his head is probably quite happy to protect the rights of those people who are going to want to come and invest in New Zealand. I have a greater concern and that is for New Zealanders who currently have the land or New Zealand families who want to keep and retain the land.The fact is that we are under pressure. In 1985 when I was a sharemilker I remember going to a rally against the then Labour Government and being told that farmers should farm for productive returns and not for capital gains. The unfortunate thing is fuelled and encouraged by the banks by the Government and by DairyNZ. Farmers have ploughed huge amounts of capital into land arguably to the point where land values are unsustainable. Just as leaders of the dairy industry say that production levels around the world are actually unsustainable—that is about as true as saying that New Zealand land values are unsustainable. The question for Kiwis and for the New Zealand Government is which one should give in first. Which one is going to cave in first? That is will it be the foreign production of milk all around the world which is swamping us at the moment or will it be the unrealistic land values of farmers up and down this country?My colleague David Cunliffe pointed out the truth in his speech. The banks have walked away with billions of dollars of profit—billions of dollars of profit. What we have now is a whole lot of—thousands literally; not the 10 percent that John Key wants to refer to. It is actually probably closer to 50 percent of farmers who are under real financial pressure now. The issue of land values is crucial to their future good or bad. The reality is that unless the banks and the Government leave the door open to that foreign investment we are likely to see a downward adjustment of up to 40 percent of land values in this country. That is a frightening scenario for too many farmers up and down this country. I suggest that not as part of a conspiracy but just as part of the normal modus operandi for the National-Tory Government the Government wants to tidy up these technical details. That is why this bill is in the House now: to ensure that the foreign investors—and there are millions of them around the world who would love to come and invest in this country. The member over there is shaking his head. He should get his head out of the sand.Why would you come and invest in New Zealand? There are a couple of reasons. Firstly if you want to put your money in the European Central Bank you will have a negative interest rate of 0.4 percent. That is you will be paying them to look after your money. If you want to come and invest in New Zealand you can buy land enjoy capital gain without any taxation and most likely see further upward movement of land values—if the door is left open to further speculation from offshore investors.The Government is caught in a bind here between its constituencies as was said before—between the bankers who have got very high exposure to our land values around this country and want to secure that as best they can and the farmers who are indebted as well.There will be a downward adjustment of 40 percent which will mean potentially massive sales which will mean that this piece of legislation is absolutely crucial to protecting the property rights of those selling or purchasing and of those who might be leasing or subleasing.I am assuming that the minor technical amendments that we are talking about here actually do protect the property rights of people coming or going but my concern is for those farmers who might be going—or in future those farmers or wannabe farmers who will not be able to acquire the land.We are facing a major issue. The timing of this legislation is just a little too cute for my liking. Although I have not been and will not be on the select committee I will be following this closely because if we do not get this right and if the National Government and the banks are quite prepared to see the massive sell-out of land in this country to foreigners we will be as John Key said and preached tenants in our land—under his Government endorsed by his Government.Hon Louise Upston: After you sold so much.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: That Minister is quite happy because she has acknowledged in her speech the robust and secure land tenure in this country which goes back to something that we took from the Australians—you have got to be suspicious of that in the first place—back in the 1800s. We have refined it and this bill will further refine it. But let us not get distracted by minor technical amendments.When the underlying agenda of the Government is to satisfy its mates offshore—it wants to be seen as open and welcoming to foreign investment. The banks because they want to save any potential loss from a downward valuation of farmland around this country—the poor farmers who are stuck in the middle who have been encouraged to go out and invest huge amounts in land values on the basis and the false promise of high dairy payouts are caught out. We need to support them. We need to support them not with money but with a fair deal and a fair process. I am not convinced that this piece of legislation does anything to protect the fair process. We are told it will. I am suspicious that it might be more about protecting the property rights of those who might come in from offshore.I am in this House as is the Labour Party for one reason and one reason only. That is first and foremost to look after New Zealanders—people who want to come to this country commit to this country and generate wealth. I am not here to look after overseas foreign speculators who might want to come in and off the backs of poor farmers invest in property that they get free capital gains off. If this piece of legislation supports and enhances and helps them then we are not for it. But if it does support the property rights in the place of New Zealand’s farmers—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but his time has expired.MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Like my colleague Sarah Dowie I am really excited to take a call on this the Land Transfer Bill. I would like to refer to the previous speaker Damien O’Connor. We co-captain the Parliamentary Rugby Team. He is a pretty tough West Coaster and he is passionate about what he does. I would like to make an offer to the chair of the select committee who I am sure will be very pleased to see him come on to the committee. I would like to extend that invitation. I know that he would like to be more involved in this bill.But there is one thing that I do want to address. It is a very serious matter. It is that I think that probably the member for West Coast - Tasman was very pleased to see a National Government come into power because what we did is we stopped the flood of sales of our land to foreign investment. And it was a flood. Under the Hon David Parker there was more land sold. In fact the biggest single transaction in the sale of New Zealand land was made under the stewardship of Labour and the Hon David Parker. So I am sure that the member was very pleased to see a National Government come in where we made sure we tightened things up and we actually slowed that down. We felt that it was really important to do that. We made sure that the Overseas Investment Office process was a much more rigorous process to go through and we have been very careful about the foreign investment that we do invite into New Zealand. It is important but it has got to be the right sort of investment.This is a very important bill and I just want to refer to some of the key messages in the bill. This Government holds an important role dealing with land transfers and ensuring New Zealanders can have confidence in their property rights. This is really important because actually most Kiwis do aspire to owning their own home and having their own land and it is actually very important that they feel their property rights are protected.Our current land title registration legislation is outdated and this bill will modernise simplify and consolidate it. I just want to make mention too that Sarah Dowie in her speech raised the fact that the Hon David Cunliffe appeared to be running some type of conspiracy theory. I totally agree. I think it would not be unusual to see him sitting in Copperfields speaking to Agent Mulder and getting the new “X-file” opened up and running—Hon Louise Upston: And they’re invisible.MARK MITCHELL: That is right—and they are invisible too. The bill will make land transfer legislation clearer more workable and more consistent with modern ways of working while retaining the core principles of the current land registration system—this is very important—and there will be new measures to improve security of property rights.I just want to talk very quickly too about the need for the change and what brought about the changes that we have made. The Land Transfer Act is over 60 years old so it is an old piece of legislation and we see many times in this House that it is time to actually modernise this legislation and make it relevant to the world that we live in today. It contains provisions from earlier legislation dating back over 100 years as my colleague Sarah Dowie also alluded to. Much of the language is archaic complex and difficult to understand. The Act is focused on paper-based transactions which is completely at odds with the modern reality in the modern world that we live in now where electronic land titles and registration should be able to be done online.The Act is to be read alongside two stand-alone amendment Acts. This creates a legislative framework that is difficult to navigate for property owners wanting to understand their rights and obligations—and I think that any property owner who has entered into a transaction would agree that things can become complicated very easily. Most people try to avoid costly legal bills when they are entering into a sale and purchase agreement or a land transfer so this bill will actually go some way towards helping to reduce some of those compliance costs.As land is the principal source of wealth and wealth generation in New Zealand the land transfer system is critical to the ongoing functioning of the economy and confidence in the certainty of property rights in New Zealand underpins economic growth and attracts good overseas investment. This is a very good bill. I am very happy to recommend it to the House and look forward to the receiving it at the select committee. Thank you.EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. The Green Party is pleased to support the Land Transfer Bill to go to a select committee. It is quite a technical bill obviously so we will be very interested in submissions. The fact that the bill is the Government’s response to the Law Commission’s very comprehensive 2010 report A New Land Transfer Act and it closely resembles the commission’s draft land tenure bill is reassuring. When the commission did that report its recommendations were aimed at modifying simplifying and consolidating the land transfer legislation because—Chris Bishop: That’s right.EUGENIE SAGE: —as others have noted—thank you Mr Bishop—the Act was passed in 1952 and it has not been updated for nearly 60 years. It obviously has not kept pace with technology as the Act was based around a paper-based manual transfer system for land registration and now land registration is almost entirely electronic. Nor did we see back in the 1950s the same degree of sophistication around mortgagee and mortgage fraud that we are seeing today. So it consolidates existing legislation by repealing the Land Transfer Act 1952 the Land Transfer Amendment Act 1963 and the Land Transfer (Computer Registers and Electronic Lodgment) Amendment Act.This whole system of land registration that we have in New Zealand is the basis for secure title. It is the basis for people being confident when they buy and sell land because it ensures that there is a central public register that describes and records all of the material facts that relate to a particular property. It ensures that title is secure and that people do not have to go behind that title to search out relevant information in relation to that particular area of land. I have got only a very limited understanding of land law and I look forward to getting more understanding if I am on the select committee but the State through our land transfer system guarantees indefeasible title and that means that title cannot be annulled or made void and it protects any registered proprietor against the claims of someone who is claiming ownership of that. It also protects the owner—and it protects sellers too—against any encumbrances or estates or interests that do not appear on the title. So the register is intended to reflect as accurately as possible the true state of title to land so that people do not have to search elsewhere.The State supports the whole Torrens title system by guaranteeing the accuracy of the rights that are registered with the land transfer register. Anyone who is deprived of land or of an interest or estate in land because there has been a mistake in the way title is entered in the land transfer register is entitled to take legal proceedings against the Government to recover damages. So my understanding is that the bill has some new clauses around mortgage fraud and this concept of indefeasible title in order to clarify the powers that the registrar has to correct the register and around compensation if there has been a loss because of the way the land transfer system has operated. Those powers include giving the High Court the discretion to intervene in cases where there might be an obvious injustice and the discretion to correct and adjust the compensation in certain cases. The bill also requires mortgagees to know the identity of mortgagors as they have no entitlement in cases of identity fraud.My understanding too is that the Law Commission consulted quite widely in developing the draft bill that was tabled in Parliament—both publicly and with interested stakeholders. But there are still concerns that the Green Party has around the relationship between the Land Transfer Act and Te Ture Whenua Maori Act which my colleague Marama Davidson will talk about more because there is further work needed there and perhaps a major investigation.As other speakers have noted with the current collapse in dairy prices this bill which deals with changes to the way land transfers occur is going to have a major impact potentially if there is land sold because of the collapse in the dairy payout because of the milk lake that we have got in Europe the signs that the dairy industry changes may be structural rather than just cyclical and the major stress that a lot of farmers are under. Dairy New Zealand has predicted that 85 percent of dairy farmers are unlikely to make a profit this season a recent Federated Farmers poll showed that 11 percent of dairy farmers are now under pressure from their banks over their mortgages and farm consultant Peter Fraser has warned that around 25 percent are vulnerable. We have had the Reserve Bank predicting that up to 44 percent of dairy farm loans in this very heavily indebted industry—where debt totals around $38 billion—are going to be at risk of becoming non-performing.So if you have got that sort of crisis—if banks are putting pressure on farmers and farmers are being pushed to sell—then the likely buyers are obviously overseas owners and that is where there is a major gap in legislation because the Government is just saying that dairy farmers are expected to get through. It has done nothing substantial to tighten the legislation to protect productive New Zealand farmland from being sold and transferred to overseas owners. So we are facing the prospect of a double disaster if the dairying slump continues and flows through to the rest of the economy and if the Government’s very lax laws around overseas land sales mean that huge tracts of productive land are sold offshore.In China Switzerland Canada the USA Argentina Thailand Japan Ireland India and Korea there is much stronger legislation that bans the sale of farmland to non-country owners. If the Government tightened the laws on overseas ownership there would be likely to be a substantial increase in interest in leasing land. Although this bill in itself might seem non-controversial the fact that the Government has failed to prevent the sell-off of farmland to overseas interests and to adequately control that means that the land transfer process will occur more often and that is a major gap in the law that needs to be plugged.The Green Party is supporting this bill’s referral to a select committee but the bill does not address that major problem with overseas ownership of farmland. Thank you.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): Before I heard David Cunliffe I thought this was a non-controversial and non-political bill. Actually I think that it is. I expect it will be supported by all parties and it will certainly be supported by New Zealand First. In fact it is a pleasure to see such an important and comprehensive piece of legislation begin the enactment process.I want to begin by acknowledging the long years of hard work on this bill by the Law Commission and others—in particular the late George Tanner QC of the commission and the late Warren Moyes of the Office of Registrar-General of Land. I think this bill is a fitting tribute to their effort their dedication and their professionalism.New Zealand has long been blessed with an efficient reliable and effective land registration system. It is still based on the Torrens system of title by registration which grants the high indefeasibility of State-registered proprietorship of land and it effectively guarantees title upon registration of a transfer or a transmission. The system was named after Sir Robert Richard Torrens the third Premier of South Australia and became the method adopted within the English law countries almost 100 years ago now. It progressively replaced the deeds system thus providing certainty and simplicity to land transactions by doing away with the need for proving a chain of title by searching through a whole chain of deeds and other documents.Before finishing my law degree as a very young law clerk—just a few years ago now—my job was to search titles. I would fill out things that were called search notes in pencil by searching through huge dusty books of titles which was a horrible job. But if that was bad enough where there was no registered title—and there was still land that was not within the system—you did have to search through the registered deeds that were available. That was very time-consuming not very rewarding and very archaic. However it had to be done.The system has improved and improved and improved over many years but even the current system has had its challenges. I remember appearing in the High Court in a number of cases concerning unclaimed land because of the informal transfers of land and I remember on the West Coast in one particular case a certificate of title was handed to me. It had written on it in pencil a number of memorials like “Last Saturday I sold this land to Joe Bloggs dated so-and-so. Bill Brown.” and there was a whole list of memorials like that. It had never been registered and nothing formal had ever been done but we found a way of getting around all that and rectifying the title with the cooperation of some very practically minded judges. I recall in particular the late Justice Roper who I thought had a particularly good and practical system of dealing with those sorts of situations.However the system basically worked very well and by the time I surrendered my practising certificate and gave up practice in 2002 the system had been computerised and was online. So over all those years it really travelled a long way.The Torrens system itself works on three fundamental principles. One is called the mirror principle which reflects accurately and completely the current facts about each title by way of a certified memorial on the face of the title document itself whether it be a transfer a transmission a mortgage or a discharge of a mortgage a lease an easement a registerable covenant or whatever. The second is the curtain principle. There is no need to go behind the certificate of title. Everything you need to know and everything affecting that title is recorded on the face of it. Thirdly and lastly is the indemnity principle: providing State compensation for loss caused by private fraud or by errors made by the registrar that causes a loss by the person who is claiming the title to the land.That stood the system well over many years and all of it was in the Land Transfer Act 1952 as amended in 1963 and later in 2002. By that time of course it had moved away from the paper system in favour of the current electronic one. But the old legislation is not well structured for that electronic system and so this bill is welcome because it modernises the law and brings it up to date with those systems as we now see them. It has great advantages for everybody. Lawyers and conveyancers can search titles and process transactions from their own offices—therefore costs are lower—survey information is better integrated and security is improved.The two main changes that I see incorporated in this bill are first of all judicial discretion to alter a title in cases of manifest injustice—that has always been needed. It is really good to see that finally arriving. And another one which has been long coming and is very welcome is the provision to avoid mortgage fraud by requiring a mortgagee or their lawyer or agent to verify the identity of the mortgagor thus ensuring that the mortgagor does in fact have the legal authority to mortgage the land. That has always been a serious flaw in the system and it is good to see that hole being plugged.State guarantee is preserved in the bill and compensation is still payable. Where for example loss occurs from a guaranteed search compensation is—as has always been the case—payable but now for a shorter period. That just reflects the speedier transaction processing now available and it is quite appropriate. Also land value will now be as at the date of the claim rather than as at the date of the loss because that was always not easy to fix. It also allows for consideration of improvements post-loss so that is another welcome change. Another one is to reduce compensation where there is some fault attributable to the claimant’s lawyer or conveyancer. That is very appropriate.There are many other changes to the bill which are far too numerous to mention here but I am glad to see that there is now a definition of “fraud” better protection of legal administrators from personal liability better ways of recording easements in gross and better control over the way statutory land charges are administered because they were always a bit of a mess—just to name a few. So the bill really takes some important leaps forward I believe and is a very welcome piece of legislation as I have said.Another thing that it does is make the land register subject to the Privacy Act and its principles thus permitting personal information to be protected in appropriate circumstances. I am glad to see that as well. And of course since last year tax statements have been required—and that is incorporated in the new legislation—as a prerequisite to the registration of a transaction. That clears the way for something that New Zealand First has wanted for a long time—that is control over who can actually own land. This is very important to New Zealand First because we want to put a stop to the sale of productive land and existing houses to overseas citizens—Hon David Cunliffe: Hear hear!DENIS O’ROURKE:—not resident in New Zealand. And I am glad to see that the Labour Party has caught up with that policy and adopted it as well and we are glad to provide a policy-making service to the Labour Party and other parties in that way. So it is good to see that happen.But overall this is a welcome piece of legislation and I look forward to studying it in a lot more detail as it progresses through the House. New Zealand First will be voting in favour.BRETT HUDSON (National): It is a pleasure to rise in support of the Land Transfer Bill. I see the member for New Lynn David Cunliffe over there. I just want to reassure him. He has been in this House I believe for about 17 years—since 1999—and the good folk of New Lynn might be somewhat surprised today to see that despite those many years of service here it appears that he could not comprehend that this particular bill does not actually amend the Overseas Investment Act and therefore has absolutely no bearing on the ease or difficulty foreign buyers have in actually buying some land. I would suggest for the benefit of that member and in fact for the benefit of his constituents that he might find that comprehension would be aided if he were to remove his tinfoil hat when reading bills.It is quite topical for me this particular bill. This is a first reading; it is going to take some time for this bill to make its way through this House. But as it so happens this Friday my partner and I will settle on two houses. We will settle a sales transaction on our current house and we will settle the purchase of a new house in Khandallah. And if I may Khandallah translates as “the resting place of God”. Let me assure you that the suburb of Khandallah is indeed a slice of paradise in Godzone. Of course you could actually use that to describe any part of the Ōhāriu electorate the very best electorate across all of the country.So this Friday we will settle on two transactions. But we are not alone because this chain as it is for many New Zealanders buying property is a chain of at least four transactions—four that we know of. Each one of those is a potential area of some uncertainty or error—we do not and would not suspect any fraud—in a law that today I think we would all agree we would describe as archaic and very complex and incredibly difficult for lay people to navigate. Therefore we would perhaps suggest there is the potential for some uncertainty in an area that is still likely to be the largest investment that most Kiwis will ever make and in terms of property rights it is something that underpins not only economic growth but also just confidence in our economy and in the rule of law in New Zealand.As I say we do not anticipate any issues in the settlement chain for us this Friday but I think by its very definition you would say that for any property settlement that goes awry particularly if it were to be due to fraud. So I am very pleased—in fact I applaud the changes we see in this bill to help to provide some greater restitution for people who might suffer a manifest injustice particularly due to the fraudulent activities of others. I commend this bill to the House. I look forward to its successful passage through the House.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call. Marama Davidson—5 minutes.MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): Tēnā koe. Huri noa i Te Whare tēnā koutou katoa. I am going to stand to support all that my colleague Eugenie Sage has pointed out in this the first reading of the Land Transfer Bill. As she said the Green Party will be supporting this bill to the select committee and we look forward to what comes out of the select committee consideration so we can further ascertain what we can celebrate or what we may be concerned about in this bill.I am going to particularly outline some of the Treaty of Waitangi considerations with my Māori affairs portfolio hat on. So just to quickly summarise in 2010 the Law Commission gave some recommendations around a new piece of land transfer legislation and the bill implements those recommendations. And as people have said the driver is to streamline land transfer law so that it is up to date so that it is simpler for all of us—for ordinary New Zealanders and all alike—to be able to handle these land transactions. It does away with three other land transfer statutes and puts them all together so that we have got this one collection of land transfer legislation.The whakapapa—or the background to this bill; the driver coming into play—appears to be that the current legislation is rather old and raggedy. It needs a bit of a spruce up it needs a bit of a dust off and it just has not kept pace with technology. So this bill has possibly been a long time coming and on the face of it then this Land Transfer Bill seems like good governance. It seems like a good way to overview and review our legislation and make sure that we are keeping up to pace again for ordinary New Zealanders to make such an important transfer—one of the most important in our ordinary lives.So I come now to what if any Te Tiriti o Waitangi considerations with the Land Transfer Bill are. I too like my colleague have a limited understanding of land law. However Māori collectively have extensive experience—firsthand lived and generational experience—of land transfer. Not just of Māori land—I will acknowledge that Māori do not just own or manage Māori land. We also purchase private land that will of course obviously come under the normal part of this legislation.But I am interested in looking at how this may impact particularly on Māori land including Māori freehold land and Māori customary land. It appears that—and the Law Commission itself reports it—this bill does not make substantial changes to the current law governing Māori land. But the Law Commission does go on to say that there are—well we need to understand a little bit more. Land law on its own is complex and profound and so there is actually a little bit more information that we need—for example the issues surrounding the relationship between the Land Transfer Act and Te Ture Whenua Maori Act. Those two pieces of legislation on their own are huge and complex; we need to look at the interface between the two of them and get a good grip on what is actually happening.So I agree with the Law Commission that this does need further investigation and that is just also good governance. Keeping an eye on and keeping a monitor on how these pieces of legislation how these statutes that we put before the House impact on other statutes is always a good idea—it is a good idea for the Government. So the bill apparently does contain some changes that will impact on the treatment of Māori land.I wanted to have a go at this indefeasibility concept for listeners like my mother who is wise intelligent and deeply clever but is not a land lawyer. So we are looking at indefeasibility as a core concept of the land transfer system. It protects registered owners against competing owners—that can only be a good thing on the face of it also and particularly for those people interested who are not registered.I just wanted to say that there are some principles of land law that seem to be protected in this bill. I am interested in looking at how it interplays with Māori land law legislation. We are happy to support the bill to the select committee. Kia ora.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The Hon David Parker—5 minutes.Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I rise with some pleasure to support this bill. I think our Land Transfer Act is one of the most important pieces of legislation on our books. It ensures that people who buy a bit of land or take a mortgage over it can effectively get an indefeasible title without going back and looking at transactions that may go back over the prior hundred years. And if once they get a transfer in their name they have done what is called a guaranteed search prior to the date of their purchase even if the person they have purchased from had obtained their interest by fraud so long as the purchaser had no knowledge of that earlier fraud the purchaser gets clean title and the person who may have been defrauded out of their earlier interest in land actually has only a right of compensation rather than being able to knock over the title of the person who purchased it—that is assuming that the purchaser was without knowledge of that fraud. I mean that is long established. I think the leading case is Frazer v Walker which goes back to the 1960s Privy Council case that involved the venerable Justice Denning.In any event this is really housekeeping legislation. It should not be changing the law in any fundamental way. It may I understand from the description of the bill be changing some of the compensation provisions where the person who is seeking compensation may have an unmeritorious claim because they had some part in wrongdoing but other than that my understanding is that it just carries forward the existing law. It does not introduce electronic transactions—that has already been done—it just incorporates the amendment Act that currently allows computer registration and electronic lodgment into the body of this rewritten Act.I want to deal with a couple of issues that were raised by others in terms of the impending sort of calamity that we have in the dairy sector. Some of those people sadly are going to eventually be selling up at a mortgagee sale.Those rights are exercised under mortgages under the Property Law Act but the registration of those instruments is under the Land Transfer Act and I think it is proper to record two things. Firstly there is the current Government’s misallocation of capital which is protecting the dairy sector from the true cost of what it does including the cost of increasing emissions—not baseline emissions but increasing emissions—and preventing dairy farmers from facing a cost for their water and it is also giving them a tax advantage for certain asset classes where they can make speculative gains with no tax consequences. Those things together with the Government talking up the prospects of dairy and subsidising irrigation schemes all increased the price of property and encouraged the boom which has now turned into a bust. This Government just like Muldoon in prior years has caused massive misallocation of capital with billions of dollars of additional debt in this sector and the Government is partly responsible for that outcome.What will the response be now? Well the response will be to try to keep up land prices by enabling some of the sales by those farmers in distress to be made to overseas buyers. The Government says: “Oh well when Labour was in Government it sold vast tracts of land.” Actually the major transaction that those members referred to was the purchase by Graeme Hart of the Carter Holt Harvey farms and the onsale on that day to another overseas shareholder—so it went from a United States shareholder to Graeme Hart and then to a United States shareholder on the same day.In any event Labour changed its position. I was the Minister for Land Information in respect of that transaction but I was also one of those who was supportive of us changing our position because I became concerned that in this globalised world there are some assets that ought not be traded at an international market price; they ought to be traded at a New Zealand market price. There is something special about land. Land should be priced according to the ability of New Zealanders to buy land not some rich “1 percenter” from overseas who can pay more for either a house or a farm in New Zealand than a New Zealand purchaser can afford to pay.That is essentially the underlying reason why Labour has changed its position and said we should ban the sale of farms to overseas buyers. Buying our land is a privilege that should be reserved for New Zealanders not offered to overseas people.This is a good piece of legislation. There are some really important details to check through. I think the select committee should take as much time as it needs to deal with any controversies that come up through the submission process and I look forward to its report back to the House.BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): It is a pleasure to take a call on the Land Transfer Bill’s first reading. I really do want to note that the last speaker David Parker spoke of it being clearly housekeeping law which is really quite contradictory to some of the conspiracy theories that we have heard earlier in the day from members of his own party. It seems to me like they are using a very simple piece of process legislation to try to beat up on the Government around the dairy industry. The words that I did just hear from the previous speaker about the dairy industry being bust—well actually the dairy industry is having a hard time but it is definitely not bust.In terms of this bill let us not try to make a crisis out of process. There are three pieces of legislation the Land Transfer Act 1952 the Land Transfer Amendment Act 1963 and then a very long-named one the Land Transfer (Computer Registers and Electronic Lodgement) Amendment Act 2002. This bill is bringing them all together and it is trying to actually make something quite simple out of three pieces of legislation that are currently difficult to tie together.The Land Transfer Act is over 60 years old and some provisions as others have said date back over 100 years. Much of the language is archaic it is complex and it is difficult to understand. It is focused on paper-based transactions and we all know that we are not using paper for many things any more—although the paperless office seems to be more of a dream than a reality for many people. But it is at odds with modern reality and the legislative framework is really difficult to navigate for property owners. It is really important that they are able to navigate it in a very simple way so I really support that this piece of legislation is going to help do that.It is important in this piece of legislation also that limited judicial discretion has been included. In the current legislation an owner who is an innocent victim of third-party fraud can lose their home to a registered purchaser. So if an outcome—under the new planned legislation—would be manifestly unjust the court would have the power to order ownership to be restored to the previous registered owner. Another measure aimed at improving security of property rights and addressing mortgage fraud is the new requirement for financial institutions to take reasonable steps to verify the identity of customers taking out mortgages. It is really hard to believe that this currently does not happen or is not a legal requirement—I guess it happens most of the time but legally it should be happening and that is absolutely the right way to go.I would like to note that at this point no stakeholder groups in the process of bringing this piece of legislation to the House have opposed it. Land Information New Zealand has extensively consulted the New Zealand Law Society the Auckland District Law Society the New Zealand Bankers’ Association and the Financial Services Federation and they have all supported bringing this good piece of legislation to the House. Thank you.Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): I stand to raise a couple of points and understanding the comments made by my colleagues want to highlight to the House that Te Ture Whenua Maori Act a significant piece of land legislation is also in the process of draft iterations yet to be introduced to the House. It is really for that very matter that I think it is important to draw the attention of the House to the potential interlocking impact of the Land Transfer Bill on Te Ture Whenua Maori Act reform in ways that may have unintended consequences or just because of the timing and the sequencing have not been lined up as well as they could. In fact my colleague Meka Whaitiri would be the very person to stand in this House and comment on this bill but here are a few things that I have captured from her concerns around Te Ture Whenua Maori Act reform that I would like to draw the attention of the House to.Firstly there is no other bit of legislation in relation to land transfer that is more important to Māori than Te Ture Whenua Maori Act. The consultations that have taken place have been extensive—yes they have. However they have continued to raise concerns amongst Māori landowners—actually small family landowners—about the extent to which that legislation assures protection of their interests in land. When we are talking about land transfer in a very practical sense for a number of Māori landowners one of the practical problems that they have is unlocking landlocked land. If for example paper roads—Māori roads unformed legal roads—are not registered on their land people have to go through a whole rigmarole to go to Land Information New Zealand to be able to investigate whether or not that is the case. If it is not recorded on the title then they have to go through the Māori Land Court. This is one simple problem that relates to the Land Transfer Bill and I think in terms of good conscience and due diligence of the select committee to consider fully the impact of going towards new legislation—and I understand all the reasons why you might want to do that—this type of issue needs to be looked at.I raised earlier the issue of interlocking legislation. Take for example the provisions of the Rating Valuations Act 1998. Section 5B specifically relates to Māori land and the Land Transfer Act 1952. I think that the select committee should consider the extent to which the Rating Valuations Act as it refers to Māori land is or is not accommodating in taking forward the specific provisions of that Act with this piece of legislation. Take also a practical situation where a number of reserve lands which were gifted by Māori a very long time ago are administered by local government and whether or not those protections and those registrations on title will carry forward. I raise that again to implore the conscience of the select committee to have a look at these types of issues to give the assurance that if it is housekeeping legislation if it is a tidy-up then nothing is lost and there are no unintended consequences in terms of taking these matters forward but also providing the types of protections over Māori land and the registrations on the title that should be there.There is another area of interest: there are Ngā Whenua Rāhui kawenata that are deemed to be an interest in land but not necessarily recorded on the title of those particular lands. It seems to me that again if you take a surface read of this bill that type of history of land gifted for a specific purpose with a specific intent—the history of that could be lost if it is not recorded on the title in the way that the bill requires that it should be.I have commented—and I am sure my colleague Meka Whaitiri would want me to make the very important point—around lands that have been taken under the Public Works Act. This is not a new issue for Parliament; there have been all types of arguments that have been brought to the attention of members of this House around the significant challenges of addressing this fully. It is not just a matter for this Land Transfer Bill; it relates to other bits of legislation: the Local Government Act Te Ture Whenua Maori Act and the like. But I did want to make mention of the Public Works Act and the potential impact of losing the historic nature of how land was acquired under this piece of legislation. If I have got that wrong I am happy to have got that point wrong but I think it does require at least a question in the select committee to pursue that because it would be in the interests of members across the House—because this is not just a Māori issue—to satisfy themselves again that there are no unintended consequences of rewriting this legislation.In fact the provisions that relate to land over 100 years ago and again I am summarising—in short it seems to me that there is the potential that land with a 100-year-long history perhaps may not have the full registration of interests on its title. If that is the case it does cover the very issues that go to the heart of Treaty settlements. I think in some practical way as Labour has put the date for settling historical claims at 2020 if it was the case that all historical claims were settled at a point in time one might consider that these types of issues would not be a matter because they would all be resolved under the Treaty settlement process. But again due diligence of the select committee I think should just pursue with a little bit of effort whether or not this is a problematic issue that has been created—albeit an unintended consequence.Members on our side of the House have raised a number of issues around land transfer and having surety of ownership in purchasing land but I really want to focus the substance of my contribution on how Māori interests in land are being dealt with under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act. There remain outstanding issues that are of utmost concern. I am really really worried about the nature of the legislation being proposed in Te Ture Whenua Maori Act reform coming to the House. I really want to register that that Act and this bill to a degree go hand in hand a point that was made by my colleague Marama Davidson. I implore the select committee to just pull through some of the key concerns ask the questions and pursue the matters that are going to give greatest assurance that in tidying up three Acts in this Land Transfer Bill you are not creating unintended consequences that create greater grievances in the House and less surety for people who want to purchase land. Kia ora.CHRIS BISHOP (National): It is a pleasure to take a call on this bill. I just want to contrast two of the speeches we heard in the debate on the bill. The two speeches I want to contrast are David Cunliffe’s and David Parker’s. Mr Cunliffe’s speech was quite an extraordinary contribution to the debate on this bill and it actually continues a long line of his speeches on a lot of bills that come before the House which is to really put on the old tinfoil hat and see conspiracy theories when they are not there. Somehow on this very technical—very important but very technical—piece of legislation he seemed to imagine all sorts of theories about foreign investment and about the dairy industry.Then we had David Parker’s speech which was a sober and serious and important contribution to the debate particularly the front half—I did not necessarily agree with the back half of the speech but it was a pretty good speech. I just want to say to the House that that was an interesting contrast.I was not at university someone who enjoyed property law. I have got to say at Victoria University across the road I enjoyed the lectures by Professor Richard Boast. I enjoyed learning about the history of the Torrens title system—and we heard a lovely exposition from the New Zealand First member Denis O’Rourke earlier who I did not know was a lawyer actually but that was an interesting thing for the House. We heard a very interesting exposition from Mr O’Rourke about the history of the Torrens title system and it is fascinating.I particularly enjoyed the lectures from Professor Boast on some of the history of Māori land law and we have just heard from the Hon Nanaia Mahuta about some of the past wrongs and some of the implications for Māori under this Act. Very very interesting—but I was not someone who was particularly interested in the technicalities of property law the indefeasibility and the way in which the Torrens title system works.But I think that the take-home point from those lectures—and this is my final point—is that the land transfer system we have in New Zealand is world class it is world leading and it is extremely important. Not a day would go by when thousands of New Zealanders around the country would not use the Land Transfer Act and the systems contained within it that have been built up over time. It is extremely important—and this point has been made by a number of speakers—to the operation of our functioning market economy based on property rights and it is absolutely very important that we get it right.I do not think I will be on the select committee considering this bill but I know that my colleagues led by Sarah Dowie and the rest of her team will be doing a good job of considering this bill in great detail. With those brief remarks I commend this bill to the House.Bill read a first time.Bill referred to the Government Administration Committee.