Shirley Ken: Overseas Investment (Queen’s Chain Extension) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Shirley Ken: Overseas Investment (Queen’s Chain Extension) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:14650] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 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.