O'Rourke Denis: Land Transfer Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Rourke Denis: Land Transfer Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 15 March 2016. Volume:712;Page:9692. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): Before I heard David Cunliffe I thought this was a non-controversial and non-political bill. Actually I think that it is. I expect it will be supported by all parties and it will certainly be supported by New Zealand First. In fact it is a pleasure to see such an important and comprehensive piece of legislation begin the enactment process.I want to begin by acknowledging the long years of hard work on this bill by the Law Commission and others—in particular the late George Tanner QC of the commission and the late Warren Moyes of the Office of Registrar-General of Land. I think this bill is a fitting tribute to their effort their dedication and their professionalism.New Zealand has long been blessed with an efficient reliable and effective land registration system. It is still based on the Torrens system of title by registration which grants the high indefeasibility of State-registered proprietorship of land and it effectively guarantees title upon registration of a transfer or a transmission. The system was named after Sir Robert Richard Torrens the third Premier of South Australia and became the method adopted within the English law countries almost 100 years ago now. It progressively replaced the deeds system thus providing certainty and simplicity to land transactions by doing away with the need for proving a chain of title by searching through a whole chain of deeds and other documents.Before finishing my law degree as a very young law clerk—just a few years ago now—my job was to search titles. I would fill out things that were called search notes in pencil by searching through huge dusty books of titles which was a horrible job. But if that was bad enough where there was no registered title—and there was still land that was not within the system—you did have to search through the registered deeds that were available. That was very time-consuming not very rewarding and very archaic. However it had to be done.The system has improved and improved and improved over many years but even the current system has had its challenges. I remember appearing in the High Court in a number of cases concerning unclaimed land because of the informal transfers of land and I remember on the West Coast in one particular case a certificate of title was handed to me. It had written on it in pencil a number of memorials like “Last Saturday I sold this land to Joe Bloggs dated so-and-so. Bill Brown.” and there was a whole list of memorials like that. It had never been registered and nothing formal had ever been done but we found a way of getting around all that and rectifying the title with the cooperation of some very practically minded judges. I recall in particular the late Justice Roper who I thought had a particularly good and practical system of dealing with those sorts of situations.However the system basically worked very well and by the time I surrendered my practising certificate and gave up practice in 2002 the system had been computerised and was online. So over all those years it really travelled a long way.The Torrens system itself works on three fundamental principles. One is called the mirror principle which reflects accurately and completely the current facts about each title by way of a certified memorial on the face of the title document itself whether it be a transfer a transmission a mortgage or a discharge of a mortgage a lease an easement a registerable covenant or whatever. The second is the curtain principle. There is no need to go behind the certificate of title. Everything you need to know and everything affecting that title is recorded on the face of it. Thirdly and lastly is the indemnity principle: providing State compensation for loss caused by private fraud or by errors made by the registrar that causes a loss by the person who is claiming the title to the land.That stood the system well over many years and all of it was in the Land Transfer Act 1952 as amended in 1963 and later in 2002. By that time of course it had moved away from the paper system in favour of the current electronic one. But the old legislation is not well structured for that electronic system and so this bill is welcome because it modernises the law and brings it up to date with those systems as we now see them. It has great advantages for everybody. Lawyers and conveyancers can search titles and process transactions from their own offices—therefore costs are lower—survey information is better integrated and security is improved.The two main changes that I see incorporated in this bill are first of all judicial discretion to alter a title in cases of manifest injustice—that has always been needed. It is really good to see that finally arriving. And another one which has been long coming and is very welcome is the provision to avoid mortgage fraud by requiring a mortgagee or their lawyer or agent to verify the identity of the mortgagor thus ensuring that the mortgagor does in fact have the legal authority to mortgage the land. That has always been a serious flaw in the system and it is good to see that hole being plugged.State guarantee is preserved in the bill and compensation is still payable. Where for example loss occurs from a guaranteed search compensation is—as has always been the case—payable but now for a shorter period. That just reflects the speedier transaction processing now available and it is quite appropriate. Also land value will now be as at the date of the claim rather than as at the date of the loss because that was always not easy to fix. It also allows for consideration of improvements post-loss so that is another welcome change. Another one is to reduce compensation where there is some fault attributable to the claimant’s lawyer or conveyancer. That is very appropriate.There are many other changes to the bill which are far too numerous to mention here but I am glad to see that there is now a definition of “fraud” better protection of legal administrators from personal liability better ways of recording easements in gross and better control over the way statutory land charges are administered because they were always a bit of a mess—just to name a few. So the bill really takes some important leaps forward I believe and is a very welcome piece of legislation as I have said.Another thing that it does is make the land register subject to the Privacy Act and its principles thus permitting personal information to be protected in appropriate circumstances. I am glad to see that as well. And of course since last year tax statements have been required—and that is incorporated in the new legislation—as a prerequisite to the registration of a transaction. That clears the way for something that New Zealand First has wanted for a long time—that is control over who can actually own land. This is very important to New Zealand First because we want to put a stop to the sale of productive land and existing houses to overseas citizens—Hon David Cunliffe: Hear hear!DENIS O’ROURKE:—not resident in New Zealand. And I am glad to see that the Labour Party has caught up with that policy and adopted it as well and we are glad to provide a policy-making service to the Labour Party and other parties in that way. So it is good to see that happen.But overall this is a welcome piece of legislation and I look forward to studying it in a lot more detail as it progresses through the House. New Zealand First will be voting in favour.