Cullen Michael: Overseas Investment (Queen’s Chain Extension) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Cullen Michael: Overseas Investment (Queen’s Chain Extension) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:14646] 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 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. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: 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? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: 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 Pakeha 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.