SpeechPAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): It is an absolute delight to take a call in this third reading debate on the Land Transfer Bill in the name of my fine and very virtuous colleague the Minister for Land Information the Hon Mark Mitchell who I have to say is doing such a magnificent job in this area. I welcome the contribution made by the speaker who resumed his seat Raymond Huo. He is far more expert than I am as a practising lawyer prior to coming into this House but I do want to just I think clarify a couple of points that the member did bring up but perhaps he couched them in language that people such as myself with only a rudimentary and unsophisticated understanding of land transfer law might be able to understand.As has been mentioned the Land Transfer Act from 1952 is over 60 years old and it has to be read in concert with the 1963 amendment Act but also a 2002 computer registration Act two of which are administered by the Ministry of Justice and Land Information New Zealand (LINZ)—the latter of which the 2002 computer registry Act is administered only by LINZ. So in consolidating these Acts and putting them into one piece of law it certainly makes it much more efficient and streamlined for people who are dealing in the very important matter of transferring land. This is because of course we have to remember that the principal source of wealth in this country is the land. I think this Government has done an excellent job on taking aboard the constructive suggestions made by groups such as the Bankers' Association and the Law Society in ensuring that this bill is fit for purpose. I particularly want to congratulate the Minister for Land Information the Hon Mark Mitchell on outlining in his Supplementary Order Paper (SOP)—that is SOP 323—a couple of very important changes that did amend well-intentioned but slightly problematic clauses in the original draft of the legislation. The areas that I think are particularly important are those around identity verification—so we have seen clauses 54 and 55 of the original bill deleted. This is important as that had the potential as we were informed on the select committee to add several thousand dollars of additional and unnecessary legal expenses to the cost of conveyancing a land transfer. Similarly I welcome the clarification of the intention of Parliament in terms of manifest injustice provisions. It is very clear now to the courts—and I hope that it is recorded on the record tonight—that our intention as a Parliament is that the discretion to set aside a registration of land is something that is to be used only in exceptional circumstances and very very rarely. Why is this important? Well indefeasibility—that is the surety we have that once land is registered in the Torrens system it is properly registered and it is owned by the person who is registered as owning it—is important for us as a country where many people go and take out mortgages and want to get their mortgages at a reasonable rate. If those who lend us money can have no surety that their loan is going to be protected and that registration is watertight then we are at risk of paying a lot more for that credit than otherwise we would. So I think it is very important to ordinary New Zealanders who have been enjoying very low interest rates under this National Government that we do not add on extra administration costs for registering land and that we certainly do not do anything to make the cost of securing credit—that is the cost of people's mortgages—any higher than it needs to be. This is something that has certainly been taken on board by this Government which I have to say is a Government that does listen to the concerns brought to it and this Government this National-led Government certainly has a concern for those who are paying their mortgages doing the right thing trying to own a home on behalf of themselves a place to bring their families up—the vast majority of ordinary New Zealanders—and we are I think doing an excellent job of meeting the needs of those ordinary New Zealanders.A couple of other slightly obscure points. The member mentioned that the bill will allow covenants in gross to be noted on the title. Just to clarify what that precisely means a covenant in gross is an enforceable agreement related to land use. We can think of lots of examples around covenants or easements. But the new mechanism that has been introduced will allow a much cheaper and quicker alternative than the current practice of registering the encumbrances on a separate register because we know that this can slow down land developments. So if someone is interested in acquiring a piece of land and they look up the title they will be able to find any enforceable agreements and encumbrances on that land very clearly registered. That will make for a far easier more efficient process for land development.The bill also introduces for the first time a definition of fraud which was not defined in the 1952 Act. As a number of eminent people including my colleague the Hon Judith Collins have pointed out New Zealand has probably one of the finest land registry systems in the world. There are almost no cases of mortgage fraud; that is what we were told by the banks in New Zealand. But the Torrens system that we have in New Zealand—it is derived actually as others have pointed out from the system devised by Sir Robert Richard Torrens GCMG the third Premier of South Australia. It is a system devised in our part of the world and it is infinitely superior to the old system of actually having titles and deeds locked up in little wooden boxes at home to prove your ownership. It is title by registration not the registration of title. It is a very secure system and this bill makes it even better—it futureproofs it makes it more efficient and gives people greater surety.We have had a select committee the Government Administration Committee that has worked very hard on this and I welcome Matt Doocey from Waimakariri to the committee but I also would note that Brett Hudson my colleague the list MP from Ōhāriu was on the committee throughout the hearings and made ample and fulsome contributions. It is a very good bill and I commend it fully to the House.