Overseas Investment (Queen’s Chain Extension)Amendment Bill

I move, That the Overseas Investment (Queen’s Chain Extension) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. This bill tackles the difficult issue of public access to our coast, rivers, and lakes, in the context of increased foreign ownership of land in New Zealand. The bill enables the area of land immediately adjacent to a river, a lake, or the sea to become an esplanade reserve, and therefore guarantees public access to those public resources when a property is sold to an overseas person. This bill reinforces a unique part of New Zealand’s heritage and culture—the right of all citizens to have access to our magnificent coast and beaches, our stunning lakes, and our bountiful rivers. This bill is about ensuring that these resources are public assets for the enjoyment of all New Zealanders, and that they are not to be monopolised by a privileged few.

The history of our land laws is unique, and it is worth reciting that background and the foundation of this bill. In 1840, Queen Victoria’s instructions to Governor Hobson included a quite specific direction to set aside reserves along the coast and navigable streams, for the recreation and enjoyment of inhabitants and as sites for quays and landing places. The direction was not popular, and it was greatly resisted by settlers and land speculators in the 1840s. An attempt to overturn the ordinance was made in 1842 with a new ordinance that excluded the need for such reserves, but Queen Victoria declined to give her assent, so the foundation of a unique part of our land law was established.

The principle on which those land laws were based was that rivers, lakes, and the sea were public assets, and that for the public to use them practically they needed to have access. The principle is as valid today as it was then. District surveyors were under enormous local pressure to resist the requirement, and the application of what became known as the Queen’s Chain was quite inconsistent. The practice varied from one province to another, and today we find that 70 percent of the margins of our coast, rivers, and lakes have the so-called Queen’s Chain, and about 30 percent, or 6,000 kilometres, do not.

In 1892, Minister of Lands Sir John McKenzie gave full legal effect to the Queen's Chain, and subsequent Governments through strips, esplanade reserves, and road reserves, and even other general public reserves have reinforced that tradition. The Resource Management Act requires that when land is subdivided, an esplanade reserve or strip be relinquished if it does not already exist, so gradually further areas are being added—but, I think if we are honest, it is at a pretty glacial pace.

This bill needs to be considered in the context of New Zealand today. Our population has grown and has topped 4 million, and our tourism industry brings another 2 million visitors to our country annually. More people add to the pressure on our natural resources and inevitably that puts pressures, particularly commercial pressures, on concepts like the Queen's Chain. The New Zealand Fish and Game Council has become quite concerned about a number of exclusive lodges offering exclusive use of particular rivers. The problem is that the lodge owners do not own the rivers, nor do they own the fish, but by controlling access they are able to derive an income from something that is not theirs.

One of the impacts of globalisation is that people are able to own property all over the world. That is not something I am inherently opposed to; it is a fact of life. Just as many New Zealanders own holiday homes on the Gold Coast, many citizens of other countries have chosen to purchase properties in New Zealand for both holidays and investment. This bill is about responding to those pressures. It is about ensuring that although foreign persons can come here, and can own property, they have to respect our unique way of life. Many of these people come from Europe or America, where private beaches, rivers, and lakes are the norm, and we need to make it plain that it is our law we want to have followed, and not their tradition. Quite simply, this bill is about saying: when in Rome, do as the Romans do.

As Nelson’s MP, I have had several personal experiences that have reinforced my desire for this law change. The first was at Pepin Island, which was purchased in 1996 by a Mrs Hallman, a very wealthy German and owner of steel mills.

The island has no Queen's Chain around its perimeter, despite it being a very popular area for public recreation and being only a few kilometres north of Nelson. At the time, I discussed the issue with the then Minister Bill Birch, and expressed concern about the lack of the Queen's Chain. I was advised there was no legislative mechanism for providing it. Interestingly though, by putting a condition on the consent that a particular development was to occur that would require resource consent, I was satisfied that, providing the Overseas Investment Commission’s approval process involved a requirement for that subdivision to go ahead, the Queen's Chain would indeed be taken and public access would be secured. As it turned out, that did not occur, and the lack of enforcement by the commission meant, effectively, that that word was broken.

A more recent example is Waitai Station on D’Urville Island, which has been subject to considerable controversy and public media coverage after it was purchased by the Powell family, a very wealthy American family. This property has no Queen's Chain, and a riparian right down to the high-tide mark.

The Powells have erected signs on the beach prohibiting any person from setting foot on that area. These signs are an affront to New Zealanders’ way of life, and will become more common if this bill is not advanced.

Some puritans will argue that whether or not the land is foreign owned makes no difference. The fact is if the title includes a riparian right, the holder has rights under the Trespass Act to exclude people. But I think that is too simplistic. New Zealanders, and particularly New Zealand farmers, have long taken a very cooperative approach to public access. Providing their farming operations are not disturbed, farmers have taken a very New Zealand view of public access to our lakes, rivers, and seas. Foreign owners come from a very different culture. Private beaches, rivers, and lakes are the norm overseas, so they see nothing wrong with excluding people. The key issue here is that it is a privilege, not a right, to be able to sell one’s land to a foreigner. That principle is already reflected in the law, in that one requires the approval of the Overseas Investment Commission for such a purchase to go ahead. This bill simply extends that principle, and provides public access by way of a Queen’s Chain being set aside.

I want to summarise briefly the key mechanisms that are provided for in this bill. The bill does not extend those land sales that already need to go to the Overseas Investment Commission. They include coastal properties, properties over 10 hectares, or properties adjacent to lakes of over 0.4 hectares. It simply requires that if the property includes riparian rights, then the commission would notify the local territorial authority, which shall within 20 days consider whether a new esplanade reserve or strip should be created, having regard to the potential recreational use, the benefits, the public access, the impact on water quality, and the cost of compensation.

The process for setting aside the reserve is set down as identical to the process for subdivision in the Resource Management Act, but no fee for subdivision may be charged. This is because the esplanade reserve is required for public purpose. The Crown Law Office has said that this bill is consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and has provided the appropriate certification. I also indicate to the House my intention to move that the bill be referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee. I note that after this bill was drawn in the ballot, the Government announced changes that would see responsibilities transferred from the Overseas Investment Commission to Land Information New Zealand. I do not have a strong view about which is the more appropriate agency, but the bill would still be relevant. It is a very sensible and practical bill. It carefully balances the rights of landowners wishing to sell to foreign people, with the wider public good of extending the Queen’s Chain and protecting the New Zealand ethos of rivers, lakes, and the coast being public property. I urge members to support the bill, so our children and grandchildren may inherit and enjoy all the benefits of access that are part of this wonderful country of New Zealand.

The Government will be supporting the referral of the bill to a select committee, but after listening to that speech I am not quite sure what Federated Farmers, the Business Roundtable, and various others would have made of it, in terms of its fairly sustained assault on some aspects of property rights. I have a suspicion that once the submissions come in, there may be something of a change of heart within the National Party on the nature of this bill. Indeed, I wonder how much, for example, Dr Brash supports this particular legislation coming into the House, because it denies almost everything he has ever written or said on these kinds of subjects. So I assume it is a kind of Lone Ranger effort, even though the collective vote will be cast in its favour when we come to the voting. But I suspect also that as the submission process proceeds, the member might find himself a bit like the Lone Ranger in terms of Tonto’s famous remark: “What do you mean ‘we’, white man?”.

I have to say also that the bill is peculiarly badly drafted in all kinds of respects. First of all, it refers to something called the Queen’s Chain. It is useful to have common language for common usage, but unfortunately, legally, there is no such thing as the Queen’s Chain.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: John Blincoe had his bill in the name of the Queen’s Chain.

Yes, well, Mr Blincoe has lots of other things that I have often disagreed with, but that does not matter.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Did you vote for him?

No, I have never voted for him. I have voted for me, but I have never voted for Mr Blincoe. So all I can say in that respect is that there is a huge amount of technical tidying-up required in this bill to make it even remotely effective.

There is a reference to something called the Reserves Fund, and we have tried as hard as we can but we cannot find anything called the Reserves Fund that looks like this. There are a number of things that might be a reserves fund, but none of them certainly have the kind of money in them that would be capable of performing the job allocated within this particular bill. There is a fair old kind of Budget bid being made within this particular bill, without thinking it through too much.

It is not clear whether the existing landowner or the purchaser receives compensation for a strip or reserve that is created, because the fact the strip is to be created will affect the value of the land on transfer. Should there therefore be compensation for the person selling the land? I suspect Federated Farmers will have particularly strong views around that particular issue. That is why, for example, the Government’s announcement in terms of foreshore and seabed land in private hands was that when it was being offered for sale to a foreign owner, the Crown would have right of first refusal in terms of purchasing. That mechanism does not affect the value of the land, from the perspective of the seller of the land, and I do believe there are property rights there that legitimately should be taken into account.

The bill does not really address the interaction with existing access along the foreshore or the implications of the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. It might create lots of little bits and pieces, but one probably cannot get to them if they are not connected up, one with the other. I would also point out that setting aside an esplanade strip or reserve is often required for reasons other than access. Often access is not the primary reason. For example, there are reasons that may involve the restriction of public access in terms of land with particular conservation value, or where riparian planting is required to improve water quality—alongside rivers, for example. Not always does one want lots of extra access in every case.

On the general access issue, I do note that despite the claim of the member, general access in New Zealand is not larger than in a number of overseas jurisdictions. Some in fact have stronger general access provisions than New Zealand does, and Federated Farmers have not been exactly warm towards the idea of providing for general access provisions. So again, it seems to me the member is out of tune with one of his more important support bases within the National Party.

In terms of the Overseas Investment Commission, there seems to be a certain level of contradiction within the bill. While at one point the bill seems to imply the commission can require a local authority to acquire or set aside such a strip, as stated in the explanatory note, in another part of the bill there seems to be a provision that a local authority may or may not use—not one that it is ordered by the commission to use. While I certainly support the notion that in the sale of land to foreign buyers it is appropriate for the commission to take account of access issues, and that is part of the Government policy statement that was made, I have some degree of queasiness around the idea that the commission, or its replacement regulator within Land Information New Zealand, has the capacity to order a local authority to purchase and set aside an esplanade reserve or a similar kind of reserve for the future.

So I think it is useful for the issues to be explored by the select committee, as there are important issues underlying this bill. I do note, as I said before, the irony that in practice, sale of land to an overseas purchaser enables better provision for access, protection, and various other things than sale of land to a New Zealand buyer. As a first-generation New Zealander who does not claim to be indigenous in any shape or form, as if one was not born here it would be really impossible to claim that one is indigenous, I have to point out very gently the irony of Pākehā farmers—if I can use the term without offending Dr Brash—getting very upset about foreign farmers buying land to come here and farm. I am not quite sure how they thought they got here in the first place, because their ancestors certainly came here. But, of course, some of them did not actually buy the land; it was confiscated for them before they acquired it. So they got it on the cheap in that respect, and it has been passed on from generation to generation, from that particular point on. But I will not explore further my latte urban view of those kinds of issues.

The member does raise some important points, and they are worth thinking through. The bill as it stands will probably go down in a hail of bullets in terms of the submissions made on it, both from a technical perspective and on some of the issues of principle that are contained within it. The Government’s announcement more adequately and comprehensively, and more fairly to landowners, deals with the issues that have been raised. Again, there are some further matters to be thought through there, and I look forward to some further discussion on this bill.

New Zealand First will oppose this socialist-type legislation. Mike Moore brought a similar bill to the House in the 1972-75 Labour Government to nationalise the coastline and rivers, and that left-leaning National Party opposed it, both when in Opposition and in Government. But here we have a modern National Party supporting something that Sir Robert Muldoon opposed. It is a worry. An even bigger worry is that the National Party and the Labour Party seem to be agreeing on the issue. We in New Zealand First are very concerned that the National Party and the Labour Party should be working together on this proposal.

The first point I make, as a matter of interest, is that there is no such thing as a “Queen’s Chain” around the coastline of New Zealand. The only Queen’s chain that might apply to New Zealand is the chain that Elizabeth pulls at Buckingham Palace. Otherwise, there is no Queen’s chain.

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: A royal flush!

I expect that the member who is moving the bill should be very flushed.

Foreign buyers will support this bill with great excitement and delight. It provides that a foreign buyer of part of the New Zealand coastline will be able to receive a contribution—from the local authority’s reserves fund, I presume—to assist that buyer to purchase the relevant piece of land. That is how I read it. What type of policy is that for a National Party to dream up and support? No thought has been given to this legislation.

If this bill were the law of the land, then foreign buyers of coastline land would seek out territorial local authorities that would require esplanade reserves or strips of 20 metres or so to be created on the coastline, because the bill states in section 9A(7), inserted by clause 3: “Compensation must be paid from the Reserves Fund to the landowner”—the foreign buyer—“where an esplanade reserve or strip is required, at the level of compensation as set out in section 62 of the Public Works Act 1981.” That is what the bill states.

The piece of land fronting the water, the esplanade reserve, would clearly be the most valuable part of the land being purchased. If the long, narrow strip of land along the water were, say, 1 kilometre long by 400 metres wide, then the foreign buyer would receive a credit for the value of a strip that was 1 kilometre long by 20 metres wide of the most expensive portion of the land—namely, that fronting the high water mark. It is conceivable that the foreign buyer would receive a refund from the ratepayer of anything from 15 percent to 50 percent of the value of the land. On a value of, say, $2 million, that would amount to a refund to the foreign buyer of anywhere between $300,000 and $1 million.

In addition, the foreign buyer would have the advantage of an esplanade reserve fronting the land he or she had just acquired, which could not be accessed over any part of that land, because this bill does not provide for an access strip. If there was no access before it was bought, there would not be any access after it was bought, either. Section 237B of the Resource Management Act, “Access strips”, would not apply. In other words, the public would not be able to get to the esplanade reserve over the foreign buyer’s land, and possibly not get to it at all, if the only access to the beach or the esplanade were over that land.

What does this bill do, then, for a New Zealand buyer? How can a New Zealand buyer ever buy that land, given that he or she will be bidding against a foreign buyer who will get a discount? What sort of business is that from the National Party?

What is happening with the National Party? It is proposing a rort. That would be the biggest rort ever exercised on the New Zealand ratepayer, and the National Party wishes to give effect to it. Is that what is meant by the National Party leader, Don Brash, when he refers to “guided capitalism”—guided into the hands of the foreign buyer but certainly not into the pocket of any New Zealand owner?

That policy would favour a foreign buyer over a New Zealand buyer. A New Zealand buyer would have to pay more to buy a coastline property than a foreigner, because a foreign buyer would get a refund. For God’s sake—I beg your pardon, Mr Speaker—can the member not read the bill! That is what he is proposing—that the foreign buyer must get a refund. [Interruption] Exactly! It is sale by discount, in the style of a car dealer. The National Party is offering the foreign buyer a discount; I quoted the clause to the House.

This bill would encourage foreign buyers to come to New Zealand to buy New Zealand land, knowing that they would get a refund from the ratepayer, thanks to the National Party. We have to oppose this nonsensical type of legislation.

I rise on behalf of United Future, which will also support this bill going to the select committee. I believe that the principle Nick Smith deals with in this bill of his is worthy of going through the select committee process.

I have heard tonight that the Queen’s Chain is not in actual fact the Queen’s Chain, but let us be realistic—most New Zealanders appreciate what is known as the Queen’s Chain. The process of taking some land for the Queen’s Chain when land that has riparian rights is subdivided, has been a fair one in many cases. I even know that many 10-acre blocks in my home area of Long Bay currently have riparian rights, yet many members of the Auckland Regional Council and the community look forward to the day when those blocks are cut up, so that a walkway can go right around that beautiful piece of coastline. But, of course, that will not be able to happen until that land is subdivided.

I agree that there are issues of personal property rights in the bill that need to be seriously looked at by the select committee. We do not have enough legislation currently in New Zealand to deal with personal property rights, and I believe that even our local authorities, when they get involved in subdivisions and that type of thing, have far too much power over land owned by private individuals. Local authorities can make people covenant pieces of their land and prohibit people from building on parts of it, so I like the provision in Nick Smith’s legislation that any land that is taken must be paid for. I do not have a problem with that.

I know that when a reserve contribution was assessed on a piece of land I had, its value was ascertained by the Government valuation of the total piece of land, divided by the square metreage of the area of the whole block, and then multiplied by the square metreage of the area of the block being taken. Therefore, the argument that the piece of land fronting the coastline is necessarily of a higher value does not stand, although I appreciate the point that has been made by other members. I believe that that matter could be easily dealt with in the select committee process.

Most New Zealanders would be supportive of this type of legislation, because I appreciate, as the Hon Michael Cullen says, that many New Zealanders have purchased land within New Zealand. With the changes that are currently happening in the country, a lot of people who come to buy land here are caught up by our beautiful scenery and the magnificence of our coastlines and waterways, yet they possibly do not have an understanding of the New Zealand culture. As people come here, we need to do more to explain to them what that culture is.

To me, the fact that people may not have access to a particular river or piece of coastline through the property involved is secondary, because many New Zealanders—for example, on the island that we have just heard about—like to be able just to pull their boats up, have a picnic on the beach, and then go back out to their fishing. So they do not need access across the land, but they do need access to the land from the waterway.

United Future agrees that there are various aspects that need to be closely looked at in the select committee process, but we are supporting the legislation going to the committee.

The ACT party will not support this legislation. Indeed, we are somewhat shocked—but, I regret to say, not surprised—that the National Party has brought this bill to the House.

Some people have been telling us recently, with Dr Brash’s election as leader of the National Party, that ACT’s job is done. Clearly, with legislation like this, it is not done. This is a gross reversion to socialism, and I am surprised the National Party caucus allowed this bill to slip through and get caucus approval.

There are some redeeming features, and certainly I recognise the redeeming feature of compensation, because what we are talking about here are public takings. Unfortunately, the provisions in the Resource Management Act for marginal strips and esplanade reserves have no compensation. Anyone who wants to subdivide—and sometimes one has to subdivide; one is forced into it—loses his or her 20-metre marginal strip on a freshwater lake or river, or 20-metres above mean high-water spring esplanade reserve on coastal areas, without compensation.

If the public says that there is a public good for the benefit of everyone, and it is taking private property, then the basic principle is that property should be compensated for at market rates. One of the most despicable aspects of the Resource Management Act is that it is a tool for creeping socialisation of private property by using the rule book. That is wrong in principle, and I regret to say that what I see in this bill—brought to the House by the National Party—is the same concept, with the redeeming feature that it does have compensation. But nevertheless, it is still a taking.

I listened to Dail Jones, who made a very good point. Often there is no need for the taking. There are vast areas of the coastline where the local owner adjacent to the coast or waterway is actually a good steward. The traditional Kiwi culture, through grace and favour, means that access is often allowed—but not always—and it is a concern when some foreigners, who do not appreciate our culture and the grace and favour traditions, want to lock up prime spots, but the point is that taking an esplanade reserve does not guarantee access at all. Often we will find it could be several miles across private property to physically access that spot.

So in effect all one is doing is giving an incentive, and a comparative advantage, to a foreign buyer over a competing New Zealand purchaser, because one effectively gets this public agency out of the reserve fund—and there are a few question marks about where that fund exists; whether it is in local government or some part of central government—paying for what will inevitably and increasingly be the prime value sliver of that property. The point is made that in some instances that could carry a value of up to 50 percent of the total value. So the public of New Zealand would effectively be giving a 50 percent discount, out of the public purse, for a foreign buyer to come and buy this so-called prime asset. Therefore, that would be likely to encourage and favour foreign purchasers over New Zealand purchasers, which is the antithesis of the intent and object of the bill that the Hon Nick Smith has brought to the House this evening. So we in the ACT party are certainly opposed to this bill. We do not believe it has been thought through at all.

I did notice Dr Cullen’s explanation, and he started his speech by saying that the Queen’s Chain does not exist. He is absolutely right. It is one of those myths and mantras that are so dominant in New Zealand. Everyone believes it exists, but it does not; we have esplanade reserves and marginal strips. Let us think back to the 1999 election campaign when Labour actually campaigned on the marginal strip. I tried to explain in speech after speech, up and down the country, that it was a myth and did not exist, but Labour candidates—and I think Darren Hughes in Horowhenua might have been one—said: “Oh no, we support the Queen’s Chain. We are in favour of the Queen’s Chain.” The Deputy Prime Minister has finally admitted that what the Labour Party campaigned on in 1999 was a fictitious lie.

That was an interesting contribution from the ACT member, and we take stock of a lot of what he said. But the reason that I am willing to support the bill to select committee tonight is simply that for months and months now, since before Christmas last year, we have heard from the Labour Party how it was going to have a working committee that would come back to this Parliament with a report on land access in general across private property. We were promised that that would happen in February of this year.

Members opposite look like stunned mullets. If they are wondering what I am talking about, it is the Acland committee that was set up under their Minister, Jim Sutton. We were then promised that the report would come back in March. Now we have been promised that it will be some time in August. We are into August now but there is still no sign of it. I note with some interest that the Government is supporting the bill to a select committee, even though Government members are sitting over there with strange looks on their faces. If nothing else, sending this bill to a select committee will pull out submitters and it will force the Government to make a decision on where it is going with this whole process.

As a farmer myself, I have looked at the bill and I see nothing in it that would threaten most farmers. In fact, the point made by the Hon Nick Smith about farmers giving access to the public as a part of our culture in New Zealand is absolutely so. In my own farm at home in Taranaki I have 12 hectares of river bank running right through the centre of the farm. I have had many requests for access, from trout fishermen and the like, and I have never, ever turned one down. They have always, always obeyed the rules as far as I was concerned, but there has always been some concern about what would happen if I were to say to one of them, for whatever reason: “No, you cannot come across my farm at this time of the year or at any other time of the year.’’, because they were not obeying the rules or playing by what would be seen to be a fair right of access.

That is a fear that most rural people—most farmers and landowners—have. So it is high time that the Government came out of the closet, as it were, with this approach and told us exactly what it is intending to do with its land access working-party. I think, if nothing else, this bill is a good vehicle for that process to take place. It is also a very good idea in the sense that there is a major concern, particularly in the area where my colleague the Hon Nick Smith comes from, where major investment has been made in one of New Zealand’s most pristine areas. Around the sounds and the Nelson area people have been denied access because of a difference of culture or a difference of approach by foreign investors or people who have come in here and denied access. I have not heard anyone who has contributed to this debate tonight tell us what will be done about that or how the Government would get around that problem.

This bill looks like a sensible approach. As the Hon Ken Shirley said, it does not put any further restriction on people over and above what happens under the Resource Management Act when a subdivision takes place. If I were to subdivide my farm at home I would end up with 20 metres on both sides of a 12-hectare river flat being taken off me, supposedly for the public good, with no compensation whatsoever. In fact, I have experienced that situation in relation to a property that I have bought. Not only is that land taken, but one is required to fence it and to keep the weeds under control. Now if members go to a river bank somewhere and notice that it is clean and grazed to within a sensible distance from the river, where there will probably be a riparian margin planted, and step out 20 metres, they will find out how big a piece of land it is that would be there for weeds to grow, for no good whatsoever, and there would be no access to it whatsoever because it is landlocked. Members should go and do that. They should try it in practice, then come back to this Parliament and tell me how it was that that nonsensical piece of academic work was allowed to pass through this place.

At the end of the day, that is about as mad as it gets, and this legislation does not provide for that to happen. I cannot understand the concerns that have been raised by members such as Dail Jones or Ken Shirley, because we are asking only that the bill go to a select committee, where it can be properly discussed.

It is helpful that Nick Smith has brought this issue to the House, because it certainly needs addressing. Whether the bill is the best way to address it is a matter that can be dealt with at a select committee, and I hope that will happen.

As New Zealand’s population grows and town settlements spread, increased tension is arising over lack of access to places that we have all traditionally believed were the public’s right to enjoy. Landowners do not actually own the lakes, rivers, seashore, and wildlife that border their land, but they do control access to them, and that is what leads to the problems. New Zealand has a long tradition that rural people have typically allowed access under reasonable conditions to enjoy those places, and that is how we have got by for more than a century and a half, with relatively little friction over those things. However, changes are happening both with overseas people who do not respect those traditions coming in and acquiring land, and also, I have to say, I have observed that some city people acquiring land in the country are not familiar with those traditions, either. So there is a need to address those matters.

Of some of the particular examples I know there is a place in the Coromandel called New Chums Beach, which is one of the most superb, totally undeveloped beaches remaining in the country, with nothing but bush, cliffs, a bit of farmland, and the beach. Part of that land, which has riparian rights as far as the mean high water. The landis owned by a landowner who has put up signs denying the public the right even to walk along the sand. It is all quite illegal, of course. As it happens, he is not an overseas person, but he has put up signs trying to persuade the public that they do not have the right even to walk along the beach from outside his property, and to walk along the beach in front of his property. The locals keep pulling the signs down, because they know quite well that he is wrong. So those frictions are starting to happen.

When the Crown Pastoral Land Bill went through—one of the earlier bills on which I sat on the select committee after I came to Parliament—I urged for better provision to be made for public access when those lands were privatised. In fact, that was not done in the bill, and we are feeling some effects from that now.

So there is a need to address those issues. However, we do have some concerns about the matters in Dr Smith’s bill, and we do think that they will need to be considered carefully at the select committee. I did not know what he meant by the reserves fund, so I asked the Minister of Finance. I thought that he would be able to tell me. He was sitting in the House so I went over and I said to Michael Cullen: “Hey Michael, what’s the reserves fund?”, and he said: “I don’t know.” I was hoping that the answer was not going to be the Nature Heritage Fund, which is a Department of Conservation fund set up specifically for biodiversity protection for acquiring land in order to protect biodiversity values.

Another of our concerns is that none of the criteria set out in the bill for setting up such Queen’s Chains—and I do not see why we should not use the term, even if it is not provided for in legislation—include ecological protection, biodiversity, or environmental reasons. It is all about public interest, access, and good will. That is fine. It is a recreational approach, rather than a biodiversity protection approach. The very last thing we would want to do is to use money that is set aside for biodiversity protection to provide that compensation. In fact, I still do not know what the reserves fund is, whether it is a Department of Conservation fund but it is not the Nature Heritage Fund—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: It’s in the Reserves Act.

Under the Reserves Act it is very unlikely it will be able to fund the level of access strips that are envisaged under this bill, but that is another matter that can be considered in the select committee. The whole principle of compensation is a somewhat vexed one.

I thank members for their contributions to the debate, and I shall respond to a few of the points in reply. Firstly, there has been the point that the term “Queen’s Chain” does not exist in law. Technically, that is quite correct. It is esplanade reserve, esplanade strips, some of it is public road, and some of it takes the form of marginal strips. I am one of those who believes that the law should use the language of New Zealanders. I know that Dail Jones and some of those who are lawyers want to mystify the legal process by using complex terms. It is more sensible for this Parliament, as much as possible, to use the language of New Zealanders. In the text of the bill I do use the term “esplanade reserve”, because that is what is provided.

Secondly, I have found a huge contradiction here. On the one hand, those who oppose the bill say that it is an awful attack on property rights—that we cannot do that, because it attacks property rights. In the next breath they say that the bill is an absolute have for the taxpayer and ratepayer, who will have to pay all the compensation. Opponents of the bill cannot have their cake and eat it; those are contradictory views. Opponents of the bill can have one argument or the other; they cannot have them both. I particularly thought that Dail Jones’ contribution on behalf of New Zealand First would have to be the most flaky contribution I have heard from that party in the 9 years it has existed. For 9 years New Zealand First has gone around the country saying it opposes foreign ownership, foreign ownership is a bad thing, and it would oppose foreign ownership all the time. Despite having been in Government for 3 years, and despite being in this Parliament for another 6 years, have we seen any attempt by any New Zealand First member to do anything about that? There was neither a bill nor anything else on that issue from New Zealand First when it was in Government. This is a difficult area of the law, and this bill is an honest attempt to deal with a very real, practical issue in my constituency, where foreign ownership has resulted in extra restrictions on public access. I thought that if New Zealand First had an iota of integrity, given all the rhetoric we hear from its leader it would at least support this bill being referred to a select committee.

The third issue concerns the reserves fund. There have been questions in respect of new section 9A(7), inserted by clause 3, as to the fund that is being referred to. Under the Reserves Act, if any reserves are sold the funds from the sale go into a reserves fund that is managed by the Department of Conservation. In just the same way as that applies under other provisions of the Conservation Act and the Reserves Act, my preliminary view is that that fund would be the best place for the compensation to be paid from.

The last point I wish to make relates to the dramatic speech given by Mr Dail Jones. Quite simply, I ask him to look at the word that he failed to read—that is, the territorial authority “may” require. He has the great idea that that is a compulsory provision, when I am trusting a sensible local council to decide whether there is an area where it would like to have the Queen’s Chain taken for public purposes in order to restore public access, and to provide compensation. The bill provides that in making such a decision, the council will give due regard to present and potential recreational use, to the present and potential benefits to public access, to the potential benefits to water quality—to respond to the point that has been raised, quite rightly, by Jeanette Fitzsimmons—and also to the issue of the cost. If the cost of an area is far too much, I have great faith that councils will quite sensibly decide that that is not an area where they think the Queen’s Chain is worthwhile. That is why common sense will prevail, as it has in this bill.

It is interesting to reflect on history. In 1840, when the Queen’s Chain was first proposed in an instruction to Captain Hobson, there were those who came from a property right perspective who said that it was outrageous, that it was an attack on property rights, and that we should never have it. I think that most members of every single party in this House would acknowledge that the instruction from Queen Victoria that gives us a unique right of access around our water bodies was incredibly wise and showed great foresight. I ask this House to show some foresight today by recognising that there is increased foreign ownership of our coastline and our precious areas, and that this Parliament should make endeavours to ensure that in future people can gain access to those areas of New Zealand.