Nash StuartSTUART NASH (Labour—Napier): I stand in support of the Land Transfer Bill. As has been commented on by most of the speakers this comes out of the 2010 Law Commission review. There are a number of things about this bill that are important but first and foremost when the legal profession recognises that we need to go electronic you know that we are in the 21st century. It is probably one of the last professions that has embraced technology in a way that many others have before it. I can say that as my father was a lawyer and learnt to type at about the age of 78. Dictaphones are no longer the way I do not think any more. But this is bringing us into the 21st century. It is over 50 years since the legislation has had a comprehensive review. The Law Commission did do a big report on it but there are a number of points that I would like to make with regard to this bill but also with regard to Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) in general.Land Information New Zealand obviously is the one under which this bill resides or the registration of title resides but it also looks after the Overseas Investment Act. There was a point in time when I was the land information spokesperson and I had a good hard look at the Overseas Investment Office what it was doing and the provisions in the Overseas Investment Act. This is central to the bill because obviously before a foreigner can purchase more than 5 hectares of land that has to go through a process which is with the Overseas Investment Office. The overseas investor has to prove that they can add value over and above that which can be added by a New Zealander. It is quite a tight test. There are about six different areas under which an overseas investor can show they are adding value and it is to do with employment it is to do with technology it is to do with adding value and it is also to do with just a number of different areas. But the thing that concerns me about this is that the Overseas Investment Office is woefully understaffed to the point where it is making decisions that are not in the best interests of New Zealand.The other thing that is happening with the Overseas Investment Office under LINZ is that in fact it is not following up on whether these overseas investors are meeting the promises that they make when they put an application in to buy land. This is obviously under LINZ and it is a very important part. I think it is important to remember that before a title can be registered—and this is a problem—it has to receive approval from the Overseas Investment Office through the Overseas Investment Act. I know that up to about 2 years ago and before that for about an 8-year period there were over 80 overseas investments that had actually gone through the sale and purchase process for an overseas investment that had not received approval from the Overseas Investment Office. So they had been registered with LINZ and the sale had gone through but it had not received approval. The interesting thing about this is that every single one of these was actually granted retrospectively. I think what that says is that we are not taking a really good look at who is buying our land why under what conditions and as mentioned whether they are meeting the promises made.This is where we have come in. We support this bill because it is a largely technical bill but it is important to move with the 21st century. Our Land Information New Zealand agency is actually held up internationally as one of the best. The system we use is held up as one of the better ones—there is no doubt about that. It is very difficult—we talk about indefeasibility—actually to commit fraud under this system because of the checks and balances.The interesting thing about indefeasibility as Michael Wood mentioned and no doubt a number of other speakers have is that you can claim compensation only if there has been fraud but not if there has been a mistake. There are one or two examples of where a lawyer has registered the wrong title and the claim of the person—usually the purchaser—is only through the Lawyers Fidelity Fund or by suing the lawyer. They actually cannot get the property back once it has been registered. I did not sit on the Government Administration Committee and I would have enjoyed it actually. I would have loved to hear the submissions from the various lawyers involved in this and from the Law Society because it would have been quite interesting but I am not too sure whether that has changed in this. I suspect it probably has because it is about fairness. The other thing of course is that this should hopefully reduce compliance costs for mortgagees. Whether or not it does remains to be seen and there are a number of bills that have appeared before this House—one in particular that I spoke about last week—where a piece of legislation has actually reduced the costs for the ratepayer or the taxpayer or the person involved in the transaction. We had a real concern that that cost would not be passed through but that the margin would be taken by those in the profession who actually are responsible for advocating for the Act—i.e. the person who was buying or selling a house who should have benefited from any changes in efficiency or any reduction in the cost of the transaction actually was not. There is a little bit of concern about this. I am not too sure whether it was canvassed at the select committee. I am assuming it probably was. But it is my view that if efficiency is driven through by legislation then everyone should benefit from this—of that there is no doubt.There were also amendments made as mentioned to reduce compliance costs and it is mainly for banks which would have had to take reasonable steps to verify the identity of mortgagors including offshore investors. Again I come back to—we have got an anti - money-laundering bill going through the Law and Order Committee at the moment. Whilst it is slightly more onerous or we are placing a greater responsibility on lawyers and other professions that deal with overseas clients we are placing a greater responsibility to ensure that in fact the transactions that are going through the system are robust and are nothing to do with money-laundering or financing terrorism. It is absolutely necessary. I would like to think we are leading the way in this part of the law but in fact we are not. We are followers.Michael Wood and Ruth Dyson talked about our global reputation and how it is very important to protect the integrity of our system because it plays into our global brand but also what we would never want to be seen as is a soft touch for people who are laundering money. What we do know—and I am sure Phil Twyford has talked about this before—is that the buying and selling of properties is an easy way to launder money so what we are very much looking to do is tighten up on that. Anyone who is involved in nefarious activities do not come to New Zealand because we are going to make sure that you are caught out. Under the proceeds of crime legislation we can actually confiscate a lot of this stuff without actually having—[Interruption] Yes back to LINZ. One of the principles—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Back to the bill actually.STUART NASH: Back to the bill actually—yes. One of the fundamental principles of the land transfer system—it will remain unchanged. But some improvements that were recommended include for example giving the court limited discretion in the event of fraud or other illegality to restore a landowner's registered title in rare cases where such intervention is warranted to avoid a manifestly unjust result. Of course manifestly unjust is—Hon Ruth Dyson: Pretty unjust.STUART NASH: It is extremely unjust. But again it is one of those concepts that often need to be defined in a court of law. I do not think there is a legal definition of manifestly unjust but I think that if you use the reasonable person definition then it is pretty easy to come up with a definition ourselves.What it does is it reinforces the obligation of lenders to property to verify landowner identity for mortgage purposes. Again this is just tightening up the rules. It is common sense. This is the thing about this legislation—it is actually common sense. It does bring the system—a very old system. The Torrens system goes back centuries I think does it not?Hon Member: 140 years.STUART NASH: 140 years. It does bring it into the 21st century. What it does do is it clarifies the scope of the powers of correction of the Registrar-General of Land which is very important for those who are interested in this game. It also provides new mechanisms for noting land covenants where the benefit attaches to a person rather than to land—if that makes sense.But anyway what I would like to say is that I think the Minister is very responsible in actually accepting the vast majority of the Law Commission's recommendations.Hon Ruth Dyson: Who was that Minister?STUART NASH: The Minister was Maurice Williamson—a good Minister I understand. I think he is actually off to—I am not too sure where Maurice is at the moment.Phil Twyford: They should bring him back.STUART NASH: They should bring him back. Was he any good Phil at housing? I am not sure.But the bottom line is that we do support this bill. Labour supports most common-sense bills. There need to be more of them in this House. But we do support the bill for the right reasons and that is it is bringing things into the 21st century it is providing clarity it is reducing compliance and red tape and it is exactly the sort of bill that I think New Zealanders expect us all to work very hard on. Thank you very much.Bill read a third time.