Dyson Ruth: Canterbury Property Boundaries and Related Matters Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeDyson Ruth: Canterbury Property Boundaries and Related Matters Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 03 November 2015. Volume:709;Page:7593. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I just want to change tack slightly and try to talk about the bill actually rather than listen to boastful congratulatory messages from list MPs. This is a really serious issue and I am very pleased that the bill is before the House.I want to commend the Minister the Hon Louise Upston for introducing it but also commend her for the respect that she showed all the Canterbury members of Parliament by giving us a briefing quite early on in the piece about the proposal and then a briefing again today before the debate that is about to conclude. I enjoyed that and I really appreciate her doing it. I want to commend Nick Smith for standing in for her today. He understands these issues and I think his contribution to the House was worthy of a positive mention as are a number of the others. But I just want to highlight two—not out of disrespect for the other contributors but because two of the earlier speakers made contributions that I want to respond to.Scott Simpson is the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee and I want to thank him for what I believe was a genuine—and will be delivered—promise to the people of Canterbury that this will not be rushed legislation; that it will be taken at a pace that recognises that this issue needs to be resolved but will not be rushed through in a way that means that the people whose literal properties are impacted by this legislation do not get a fair say. I think we can meet what some may see as a tensionbetweenletting us get this through as quickly as possible or as quickly as is sensible and also the need to listen to peoples’ concerns views praise of it or whatever their views may be. So I want to thank Scott Simpson for making that commitment on behalf of the Local Government and Environment Committee. I also want to acknowledge that he has done a bit of legal work. You would not really think that he was a lawyer—he seems like such a nice person. He has done land law as well and he emphasised the fact that this is actually quite a significant change in the law.I do not think we should just say as the speaker before Nuk Korako said: “This is just a minor matter.” Actually it is quite a fundamental change in the law—as it has always been since the first time we had property boundaries recognised. So I want to acknowledge Scott Simpson’s thought about the significance of the legislation. I also want to acknowledge Denis O’Rourke the New Zealand First member of Parliament. He is another person who has had experience and practice in the law and he did comment that Labour members were overly complicating it; that this was straightforward and that it just needed sorting. I am not in agreement with the point that we were overly complicating it; I do think that we were raising concerns but I also agree with his fundamental point that this is a matter that needs to be sorted.In fact the Law Society raised significant concerns about this right back in 2012. It is nearly the end of 2015 now. This is not a matter where the Government could say: “Oh well you know we need to push this through because it needs resolution.” For 3½ years surveyors and the Law Society have been raising legitimate concerns about what is happening to people’s property their property rights their insurance and their rebuild; those concerns properly raised have fallen on deaf ears until now. So I do not want any members of the Government saying that this needs to be rushed through. I would like them to answer the concerns that we have.I commented earlier that I was grateful for the briefing that the Minister the Hon Louise Upston gave to all of the Canterbury members of Parliament—I think that was a good thing. I asked her at that meeting to please ensure between that meeting and now—which is several months; it was not just last week—that homeowners who were impacted by this legislation were consulted and given an opportunity to say “This will sort it.” or “This will cause more problems.” or “Why don’t you think of that?”. I regret that despite me having a commitment by the Minister that that would be done she unfortunately went to the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority—not a highly recommended strategy for anyone who has had to deal with that organisation—and it recommended going to CanCERN. CanCERN is an advocacy organisation; it does not have the technical expertise or the background in this particular area. It has been a very valuable organisation for a lot of things but it does not have the expertise in this area.This is a legal matter about boundaries and the impact on homeowners—individual property owners or their neighbours—of what is going to happen now that we are going to clarify—actually change—the law. Instead of what we have always done traditionally since the start of property boundaries which is say that boundaries do not move with the land we are going to turn that law on its head and say that in Canterbury they do. I do not know what that means for other parts of New Zealand. What about when there are huge floods; what about when there are cliff collapses; what about when there are other significant land movements? Will this just apply to Canterbury and how will people who are negatively impacted in other parts of the country feel about that? I do not know.In Canterbury we have 124000 people who have had small land movements of less than 20 centimetres. We have got 10000 people who have had land movement of between 20 centimetres and 50 centimetres—that is not insignificant; that could have quite an impact on the boundaries. And we have got over 1000 people who have had land movement of more than 50 centimetres—so that is 132000 people. In the briefing that the Minister gave us today she said that there are about 300 people who Land Information New Zealand know of for whom land movement and boundaries staying fixed—for instance not moving with the land—are in dispute. That is a significant amount and this legislation does not make it clear if there is a fair speedy process about how those disputes are going to be resolved if we change the law in the manner that is proposed in this bill.So those are pretty significant questions and they are layered upon a population who has been through a lot of stress. People went through a lot of stress through the quakes—I know some members are a bit over hearing about that but tragically it is a reality for people living in Canterbury. We have also had significant floods of a different nature than we have had for many years; we have had thousands of homes identified as being on potentially contaminated land; we have recently had the coastal hazards notification by the Christchurch City Council talking about the increase in sea level and the increase in vulnerability as a result; and because of the earthquake sequence we have increased liquefaction vulnerability and increased flooding vulnerability caused not by sea-level change but by the land height.The point of raising this is that these changes cannot just be imposed on a population. They need to be worked through sensitively and carefully and with particular attention to detail about what impact this will have perhaps on individual property rights—I was hoping that the ACT member might take a call and raise that very point but he has not had an opportunity to do that so far—and also on the potential impact when people are currently planning either a repair or a rebuild of their earthquake damaged or destroyed property or perhaps are looking to make an extension. What difference will this make in practical terms to people’s property rights?I think that people need to know the answer to those questions before we progress to the final stages of the legislation and that is the point of the select committee. I am sure that the select committee will be meeting in Christchurch. We need to remember that this is not Christchurch-specific; it affects our neighbours in Waimakariri and Selwyn District Council areas as well and it certainly needs careful and sensitive thought.I just want to conclude by acknowledging Adrian Cowie. Adrian Cowie is a licensed cadastral surveyor. He said—I think right back from 2013 but certainly consistently throughout 2014—that the incorrect legal boundaries that we were operating under were causing catastrophic consequences for Cantabrians. Those were the issues that were raised in personal letters to Gerry Brownlee and the Prime Minister John Key. They have taken over 2 years to be responded to. I do not want us to now rush the outcome; I want us to get it right—