Smith Nick: Overseas Investment (Queen’s Chain Extension) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Smith Nick: Overseas Investment (Queen’s Chain Extension) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:14653] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 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.