Jones Dail: Overseas Investment (Queen’s Chain Extension) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Jones Dail: Overseas Investment (Queen’s Chain Extension) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:619;Page:14648] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 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! 
DAIL JONES 
: 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 $300000 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.