Copeland Gordon: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
Copeland Gordon: Overseas Investment Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:626;Page:21568] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I want to speak a little further to the substance of the Supplementary Order Paper amendment that withdraws the marginal strips provision. I think it is very important to explain to the Committee that the Supplementary Order Paper amendment will not bring to an end the possibility that marginal strips alongside rivers and lakes will be set aside when a New Zealander decides to sell land adjoining lakes and rivers to non-residents. 
 I say that because in clause 18 “Factors for assessing benefit of overseas investments in sensitive land” subclause (2)(ba)(ii) states that one of the things the Minister will do in deciding whether to approve such a sale is to look at “providing protecting and improving walking access to those habitats” of indigenous vegetation and indigenous fauna. Paragraph (d) of the same subclause states that the Minister will also ensure that adequate mechanisms are in place for walking access over the relevant land or a relevant part of the land by the public or any section of the public. Notwithstanding the Supplementary Order Paper amendment the Minister will still in deciding whether to approve the sale of sensitive land to an overseas buyer take into account the whole question of walking access along rivers and lakes. 
Here is what will happen. If the New Zealand seller decides that he or she can get a better price for the land by selling it to an overseas person and both the seller and the purchaser know that that is a condition of the sale then of course the New Zealand owner will agree to allow access. On the other hand if the overseas buyer would not pay any more than a New Zealand buyer would then the question will not even arise and walking access will not be given. In substance notwithstanding the Supplementary Order Paper amendment I believe that marginal strips will still be created in the great majority of cases and it will all be done without breaching the important principle that compensation should be paid when land is confiscated. We have a win-win situation. 
I go back for a moment to a remark that Rod Donald made about the Ruby Bay cliffs. I am very familiar with the situation of the Ruby Bay cliffs. For those who do not know Ruby Bay it is on Tasman Bay in the province of Nelson. It involves a piece of land known as the Copeland block because it is the place where I was blessed to grow up when I was kid and a beautiful piece of land it is. That block has now been sold to a family who have built a multimillion-dollar house on the land and it is now the subject of great controversy. Why is it controversial? It is controversial only to a group of Greens really. It is controversial because the people who now live there who are New Zealand residents were born in California. Guess what they have had the audacity to do? They have cut down a whole lot of  
Pinus radiata 
 trees that were growing along the top of the cliff.  
Pinus radiata 
 happens to be a native of California but this particular Californian family who have come here who have decided to quit California and want to become Kiwis are cutting the pine trees down and are spending thousands of dollars on planting thousands of native plants on those cliffs. There will be indigenous plants on the cliffs. 
Rod Donald 
: The cliffs are falling down. 
GORDON COPELAND 
: They will not fall down once the growth starts I say to the member. When I look at that with any objectivity I conclude—as any reasonable person has to—that there are two things happening. One of them is xenophobia because the people happened to be born outside this country and the other one is just sheer envy. End of story.