O'Rourke DenisDENIS O'ROURKE (NZ First): Thank you very much Mr Chairman; a very good choice. I just wanted to respond to—Matt Doocey: That's just rewarding the behaviour.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! Sorry the member should know better. I am not going to say that I am going to punish people for disagreeing with me because that is not fashionable these days but the member should take some care when he criticises the Chair's rulings. Denis O'Rourke starting again.DENIS O'ROURKE: Thank you Mr Chairman. I just wanted to comment on some of the comments made by others concerning the three Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that I have proposed. The first one I will not need to take much time on because it has already been found by the Chairperson that SOP 325 concerning a foreign land-ownership register is within scope. I just wanted to say this: that really all it does is ask for some very basic information about nationality name and address and so on. That does not seem to me to require a huge effort on behalf of either a purchaser or the land registrar. It is quite simple to do relatively straightforward and inexpensive but the benefits in relation to that small effort that small cost would be huge. I do not need to say anything more about that.I did want to make some brief comments also on SOP 314. I would like to make just two points on that in relation to what others have said. First of all it is pretty obvious that just about everybody agrees that those requirements for verification of the identity of a mortgagor already exist. Indeed Mr Finlayson himself actually cited other legislation that makes that the case. So how on earth could having this clause in this bill add any additional cost? How could it add any additional complexity?The real point is this: many people forget it is not just about fraud. With respect to Eugenie Sage who talked only about fraud remember—mistake. I will tell you of a case that I was involved in as a very young lawyer early in my career. It was a case concerning an equitable fraud on a power of appointment. It was a case in which the fraud was alleged to have occurred by a 13-year-old girl who had no idea what she was signing had not been advised had no representative and yet it was she who had allegedly committed this fraud.The point I am making is this: mistakes and wrong procedures happen. It is not just deliberate fraud. That is why this sort of provision is important in this kind of legislation. It actually again does not add any costs to any expense or any difficulty whatsoever. It is stuff that the banks already do. This is the Land Transfer Bill. This above all is the legislation in which that provision is necessary. It should not have to rely on codes of practice or other legislation.Finally in relation to my SOP 313 that is a very serious issue. If clause 57(3) is not deleted I believe that serious miscarriages of justice will happen simply because if that clause continues it will be very difficult for a court to ever be in a position to be able to grant cancellation—very very difficult indeed. A double hurdle—first manifest injustice and secondly it is the applicant who has to do the proving. The burden of proof is completely wrong. It should be the defendant who does that.After all applicants will usually apply for both cancellation and compensation. Why not leave it to the court to decide which of the two is the most appropriate? Why hamstring the court from being able to do justice in the way that that clause would do? It just does not make sense. It will cause injustices. I sincerely suggest to the Government that it looks again at that clause 57(3). It should not be in the bill and it should be taken out. I urge all parties with any common sense at all or any sense of justice or understanding of this legislation to actually vote in favour of Supplementary Order Paper 313 and remove that clause.