Adams Paul: Overseas Investment (Queen’s Chain Extension) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Adams Paul: Overseas Investment (Queen’s Chain Extension) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:14649] 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 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.