O'Rourke DenisPart 2 Land title and registrationDENIS O'ROURKE (NZ First): This is the second time but I will start again. I was saying that it is a very good bill and I too want to commend the Law Commission for producing it. New Zealand First will vote in favour but we do want to make some constructive suggestions for improvement. Irrespective of whether they pass or not we will be supporting the bill.The first is Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 325 which would insert new clause 9A for a requirement for the registrar to maintain a register of foreign land ownership. The reason for that is that it is a very important issue for us. It is very important for New Zealand First to understand foreign land ownership in New Zealand and in particular how much land is owned by foreigners and who they are. We think that is a matter that the public should be able to discover easily and that will never happen unless there is a register of foreign land ownership.There is actually currently no easy or accurate way to measure the amount of land under the control of foreign nationals and that is the point. Unlike other jurisdictions there is no official database of foreign land in New Zealand. As I understand it the estimates that some have made about foreign ownership vary from 1 percent to over 3 percent but even if it is 1 percent that is still quite a lot of land. There are many people in the community who would have an interest in knowing and understanding that—not just political parties; many others as well.The Overseas Investment Office as you know collects data and it decides on foreign ownership but its data is not broad enough not accurate enough and not complete enough to provide the information that people need. So this SOP would ensure that a comprehensive register of foreign-owned land in New Zealand is available for anyone who needs that information.The proposed register would record names and nationalities the amount and value of land involved and the regions in which the land is situated. Purchasers would actually be obligated under this provision upon registering land dealings to provide information for the register. It would apply to all dealings in land as that term is defined in section 2 of the Land Transfer Act 1952 including: messages tenements hereditaments corporeal and incorporeal of every kind and description". There is a substantial penalty also provided for in the bill for deliberate non-compliance being a fine of up to 25 percent of the value of the land concerned. So there would be quite a heavy penalty and therefore we think that that would ensure that compliance is achieved.The register is intended to be a resource for policy makers as well as the general public who would be able to accurately assess foreign land holdings across New Zealand as well as within particular areas of the country. The register would provide transparency for concerned New Zealanders. Although it would not cover existing foreign land holdings it would over time provide a valuable resource of information without actually incurring any significant costs.I want to move on now to my second SOP which is No. 313 and that would delete clause 57(3). When you look at clause 57 57(1) provides for the cancellation of a registration where it would be manifestly unjust to maintain it and that along with clause 57(2) are we think good provisions. "Manifestly unjust" is an appropriately high bar and we approve of that. But clause 57(3) we believe is wrong and should be deleted. It prevents an order for cancellation unless the court finds in the negative—that compensation could not properly address the injustice. If the high standard of the term "manifest injustice" in clause 57(1) is met then the applicant should be able to get cancellation in our view unless the court finds that it would be unjust to do so for some very good reason that it would judge to be the case. That would mean that a defendant would have the burden of proof to show that resort to cancellation would be unjust and that is the way it should be.It should not be necessary for an applicant for such an order to show that compensation would not properly address the injustice. After all there is another clause clause 59 that already exists to provide for compensation where that is applied for. It is pretty obvious that if a person is applying on just grounds and meets that high bar for cancellation then they should be able to get that unless a defendant can prove that they should not. I think that is the fair and proper way that it should be and that is why we in New Zealand First believe that clause 57(3) needs to be deleted—because it actually works against the whole intent of the clause.I want to move on now finally to my third SOP which is No. 314. That would reinsert clause 54. It is not a hugely important matter in the great scheme of things but it is important enough in its own right. What clause 54 provided for and should still provide for is imposing new requirements on mortgagees to take reasonable steps—and I want to emphasise the term "reasonable"—to verify the identity of the mortgagor and the authority of the person executing on behalf of the mortgagor. That is a very sensible and basic requirement that would assist in avoiding both fraud and mistake and particularly mistake I believe. That can occur in situations for example where a trustee or an agent acts without authority or when one or more than one interested proprietors purport to sign on behalf of all. In my experience those are the kinds of situations where this would apply. It is not necessarily deliberate cases of fraud because they are few and far between but there are many other cases that this SOP and this clause would cover. The best time to avoid those improprieties or mistakes is at the time the mortgage is signed—right at the coalface in other words. Clause 54(1) would require only an ordinary best practice procedure by requiring verification of a mortgagor's identity and their authority to sign. It is not expensive. It is not difficult to do. It is something you would expect banks for example to do anyway. The reasons given for deletion in my view are inadequate and unconvincing. They were firstly that sufficient protections already exist—well where and how; I do not believe they do—and secondly that mortgage fraud is unlikely given the Landonline system now used. Well maybe that is the case but that does not mean there will never be a fraud and it certainly does not mean that there will not be any mistakes. The third reason is that the cost of compliance is too high and disproportionate. I take that with a huge grain of salt. I do not believe for a moment that the cost of compliance of this would be high or disproportionate. So for those reasons I think that it would be best on the balance of all those considerations for clause 54 to be reinstated. It is not a big deal but it is actually just good common-sense stuff. It does not impose huge or expensive or difficult obligations on people dealing with mortgages. It is the sort of stuff as I said that is just best practice and they should be doing it.I commend all three SOPs to the Committee for the reasons I have given and I hope all parties will sincerely consider them and help us to make it a better bill. Thank you."