Upston Louise: Canterbury Property Boundaries and Related Matters Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeUpston Louise: Canterbury Property Boundaries and Related Matters Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 02 June 2016. Volume:714;Page:11668. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Land Information): I move That the Canterbury Property Boundaries and Related Matters Bill be now read a second time. This legislation supports Christchurch’s regeneration by clarifying the law for locating legal property boundaries in Greater Christchurch. The enactment of this bill will mark another step forward towards achieving this Government’s commitment to Christchurch’s recovery.First I would like to thank the members of the Local Government and Environment Committee and its chair Scott Simpson for their work and thorough consideration of this bill. I also want to thank those people and organisations who made submissions on the bill. The committee received 11 written submissions and heard from five submitters. All except one of these submitters expressed their support for the intent of the bill. I do want to specifically start by acknowledging the work of the professional surveyors who have contributed to the development of this bill through various consultation processes from the very moment that this issue was identified.My ministerial colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith noted when he introduced the bill into the House on my behalf that surveyors and other interested parties have been uncertain about the correct legal location of some property boundaries. This is because of the extraordinary scale of the land movement that occurred in Canterbury following the earthquakes.The common law in this area has been quite difficult to interpret and has had different interpretations because it is not directly on point with the types of land movements that were triggered by those earthquakes. There are generally accepted survey principles to date and they have been that the legal boundaries do not move with the land. What this has meant is that it has been difficult for surveyors to identify and interpret the physical evidence of boundaries—all of which have moved with the land movement—in light of this principle. Unfortunately this uncertainty has led to delays and surveys taking longer to complete and with there being an obvious reluctance by members of the surveying profession to undertake surveys in the worst-affected areas where the movements have been the greatest. It has also resulted in more costs for property owners and delays in their building work.The bill provides certainty to surveying and land titles and supports the regeneration of Christchurch. This bill also helps maintain public confidence in the cadastre which is our official record of survey and related information that defines the location of property boundaries. This bill achieves its aims in three ways.The first is that it provides for the legal boundaries of lands in greater Christchurch to be “deemed to have moved or to move with the movement of land caused by the Canterbury earthquakes”. As a result of this after the commencement of this bill surveyors in greater Christchurch can apply the new “boundaries moved” principle with confidence and certainty.Applying this “boundaries moved” principle can create conflicts with some surveys undertaken on the basis of the opposite principle which is that the boundaries did not move. Since the 2010 and 2011 earthquakes Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) has approved surveys by licensed cadastral surveyors on either basis—that is either the basis that the boundaries did move or the basis that they did not move—provided the surveys otherwise complied with the Cadastral Survey Act 2002. The bill recognises the validity of all cadastral surveys and boundary determinations in greater Christchurch that have been approved by LINZ in the interim period between 4 September 2010—which is the day the first earthquake struck Canterbury—and the commencement of this bill regardless of whether they were done on the basis of the first principle or whether the boundaries have moved as long as those surveys were done in good faith and without negligence. This avoids unfairly penalising surveyors property owners and others who did act in good faith and who relied on the surveys that had been undertaken.There might be a small number of boundary conflicts that arise from validating surveys in the interim period that were done on the basis of the boundaries not moving. However we are confident that the existing conflict resolution mechanisms like those under the Land Transfer Act 1952 will resolve these conflicts. In addition Land Information New Zealand will work with surveyors and property owners to manage any conflicts on the ground.Finally the bill also provides for the Surveyor-General to issue guidelines for surveyors about the rules and standards made under the Cadastral Survey Act 2002. This guidance will assist with boundary determinations in Greater Christchurch and Canterbury after the earthquakes as well as with achieving greater consistency of interpretations of and of course improved compliance with the Cadastral Survey Act more generally in the future.Submissions as I said before generally agreed with the direction of these proposals. Submitters also made some proposed changes to the bill which were to make the bill more effective and to ensure that the intent of Parliament was delivered through this legislation. I am pleased to see that where appropriate the Local Government and Environment Committee has recommended that the changes be made to the bill to reflect the submissions received.I thought I would just go through some of the changes that were recommended by the committee in the select committee process. One of the key changes was the recommendation of the committee to amend the definition of “Canterbury earthquakes” to include any earthquakes and aftershocks that occur from 14 February this year to 14 February 2022. The previous definition recognised earthquakes only between 4 September 2010 and 31 December 2012 and any aftershocks in that period in between. The committee has recognised the Valentine’s Day earthquake and taken a pragmatic approach to amend the definition of “Canterbury earthquakes” to include that wider period of time.Hon Ruth Dyson: But we don’t have to have them for the next 6 years.Hon LOUISE UPSTON: This amendment futureproofs the legislation. No—we absolutely do not want there to be any more earthquakes in that intervening period—I do want to recognise that touch wood! More important the amendment futureproofs the legislation and provides greater clarity for surveyors in Christchurch by recognising that the Valentine’s Day earthquake resulted in ground movement of a similar nature to the earlier earthquakes and providing for the possibility of others—touch wood that they do not happen—in the future period.Another key change that was recommended by the committee is to the bill’s “no liability” provision for interim surveys that were done on the basis that the boundaries did move or did not move. This change makes it clearer that the bill does not exclude any liability for surveys that were negligent done in bad faith or where there was misconduct or non-compliance with statutory obligations or professional standards. That is completely unrelated to the boundary movement issue.The committee has recommended clarifying the bill’s wording around title conflict resolution under the Land Transfer Act 1952. The changes specify how that Act will operate to address a title conflict arising from an overlap between the approved interim survey and the survey that happens after the commencement of this legislation for the purposes of correcting titles and for compensation under section 172 of the Act.The committee has also recommended a change to the bill’s amendment of the Cadastral Survey Act 2002 to give the Surveyor-General the power to issue guidelines. Currently the Surveyor-General makes mandatory rules and standards under that Act and issues voluntary guidelines to support the rules and standards. The bill’s provision was intended to confirm the Surveyor-General’s ability to do so. The committee’s recommended changes make clear that the guidelines will remain voluntary.The amendments that were proposed by the select committee have clarified the intent and scope of the bill. I am confident that this legislation will provide much-needed certainty for property owners affected by land movements as a consequence of the Canterbury earthquakes. The overall impact of this bill is that property boundaries will continue to be located where the property owners expect them to be. This bill will reduce potential future boundary conflicts and disputes that would have otherwise occurred in its absence.The Canterbury Property Boundaries and Related Matters Bill that we are debating today will help in Christchurch’s regeneration and I proudly commend the bill to the House.