O'Rourke Denis: Canterbury Property Boundaries and Related Matters Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Rourke Denis: Canterbury Property Boundaries and Related Matters Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 03 November 2015. Volume:709;Page:7589. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): I am going to take only a relatively short call on this matter because I think that most of what needs to be said has already been said and it is in the end a relatively simple issue even if it does have some quite significant impacts. As others have said the purpose of the bill is actually to clarify the law in particular circumstances which are those that relate to locating legal property boundaries of land affected by movement of that land as a result of the 2010 and 2011 earthquake sequences in Canterbury. In addition to that another purpose is to provide for guidelines to be issued about standards to assist with boundary determinations so that surveyors can do their jobs properly and people can rely on what they do.It has been very difficult for surveyors to actually do that job in the circumstances that Christchurch and other parts of Canterbury are in at the present time. It is very difficult to identify and interpret physical boundaries especially surveying pegs and the like in the circumstances that have occurred. This bill addresses the problem by attempting to provide people landowners and surveyors alike with some certainty about legal boundaries of land in Greater Christchurch that have moved because of the earthquake sequences. It does that by providing some flexibility. So what we are going to get is certainty from some flexibility around the general rules that usually apply to the location and identification of boundaries. That is very necessary in the circumstances that have occurred.So even though I am a lawyer who tends to want to stick by the rules let me be the first to say this: in the circumstances that have occurred in Christchurch there is a need to vary the usual legal rules relating to boundaries somewhat simply to provide for the practicalities of what has happened and to provide certainty for people whose boundaries have moved with the land. That is actually what this bill does—it is as simple as that. It is not incredibly difficult to understand and I was at a little bit of a loss when I heard some of the Labour speakers who tended to over-complicate what is actually a relatively simple issue.I am not saying that there will not be anomalies that will occur but those anomalies will happen whether we pass this legislation or not. The reason for that is that there is a whole array of different things that have happened in Christchurch and Canterbury that will affect property boundaries and their identification. So I agree that there does need to be some flexibility. It is not going to alter the long-term general rules about the location and identification of property boundaries so there is nothing to panic about. This is simply a bill to assist in practice with some sensible new legislation to assist people with their boundary identification in the particular circumstances of Christchurch and Canterbury. I welcome that kind of legislation because I approve of good practical sensible legislation and that is what New Zealand First stands for. It is not usually what the National Government stands for but in this case it has possibly by sheer coincidence got it right on this occasion. So I am going to support it and New Zealand First is going to support it with this particular piece of legislation for that reason.I do think that people need to look to Parliament when there are circumstances out of the ordinary with the expectation that we will not simply say: “Well sorry. That’s the law. That’s the way things are. Go away and deal with it.” I do think you need to have a practical approach and I want to say this: I spent a long time when I was in legal practice doing work on the West Coast. If there is one part of this country where you need a practical and sensible approach to the law and especially to property issues it is the West Coast. There are things that happen there that are actually very—well I can see Mr Hague nodding. He understands what I mean. What I am saying is that you do need in those sorts of places those parts of the country to take a practical approach. I appeared before many judges who took that approach because they knew that in places like the West Coast and possibly other places in this country—Hon Ruth Dyson: Chatham Islands.DENIS O’ROURKE: The Chatham Islands—yes Ms Dyson—is another place. Those judges know that the strict application of the law actually causes so much injustice that they have to take a more sensible approach. This is that kind of legislation and I commend it to the House simply because a Parliament needs to be responsive to a population that is under stress and needs a good practical solution to what has happened. This a good piece of legislation. We should all vote for it and just get on with it.