The four members’ bills

June 29th, 2012 at 2:00 pm by David Farrar

My column in the Herald (now published Thursdays) was on the members’ bill ballot. This was timed with four bills being drawn from the ballot. They are:

50 Overseas Investment (Restriction on Foreign Ownership of Land) Amendment Bill Dr
24 Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill
35 Local Government (Salary Moderation) Amendment Bill Hon
52 Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill

Dr Norman’s bill would ban foreign ownership of “sensitive land”. This is any non-urban land greater than 0.05 square kilometers!

Chris Auchinvole’s bill implements some recommendations from the Law Commission on  habeas corpus applications. Mainly seems to be giving Judges slightly more discretion in dealing with them.

Annette King’s would require the State Services Commissioner to approve local authority CEO remuneration packages, as they do for government departments. Technically a bit of a breach of the independence of local bodies, but worth supporting at least for first reading as may be a useful tool for keeping relativity between central and local government.

Todd McClay’s would ban gang insignia being displayed within government (central and local) premises.

Tags: , , , ,

23 Responses to “The four members’ bills”

  1. tas (644 comments) says:

    Would Russel Norman’s bill prevent his family in Australia from buying NZ land? or does it only apply to the Chinese and any other ethnicity that excites his xenophobia?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. virtualmark (1,536 comments) says:

    For us old fashioned people … 0.05 square kilometers = 12.35 acres in the old Christian units

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Pete George (23,681 comments) says:

    Toddy McClay’s bill seems a an odd one. Normans bill is just more of the anti-everything but us approach of the Greens.

    The other two should be worth progressing to committee.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. graham (2,346 comments) says:

    virtualmark – I’m trying to get my head around the maths. 0.05 square kilometers to me would be say a patch of land 100 metres by 500 metres. Sound right?

    Just thinking of my 5 acre block – about 100 metres end-to-end … um, not sure about side-to-side … yeah okay, I can see that.

    0.05 square kilometres sounds tiny – a vege patch – until you work it out!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Pete George (23,681 comments) says:

    sounds tiny – a vege patch

    Isn’t that the ultimate aim of the Greens, for everyone to have their own tiny vege patch? As long as they’re not foreign of course, they should live off imported.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. anonymouse (721 comments) says:

    This is any non-urban land greater than 0.05 square kilometers

    It is actually more restrictive than that..

    If the land adjoins the foreshore, (urban or non-uraban) it cannot be larger than 1/2 acre (0.2 ha)
    or if it is across the road from the foreshore it can be no larger than 1 acre (0.4 ha).

    If the land adjoins pretty much any sort of park or reserve and is more than 1 acre, this act would ban its overseas sale.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. graham (2,346 comments) says:

    Anyone have a link to some facts and figures? All I’ve been able to find is the Amendment Bill, which only sets out the amendments to the original bill, and hence doesn’t include this sort of detail.

    The Green website simply talks about “not rubber stamping large scale purchases of our farmland by overseas buyers” and “the public was very much against the Government allowing the sale of the Crafar farms to Chinese company Shanghai Pengxin”. But it doesn’t mention the details. If the figures we’re hearing so far are correct, then they’re taking aim not just at large farms, nor even small farms – they’re aiming at lifestyle blocks in private ownership.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Graeme Edgeler (3,289 comments) says:

    virtualmark – I’m trying to get my head around the maths. 0.05 square kilometers to me would be say a patch of land 100 metres by 500 metres. Sound right?

    Yes. 0.05 sq km is 5 hectares, or 50,000 sq m. One hectare is 100m x 100m (10,000 sq m).

    1 sq km is 100 hectares.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. David Garrett (7,523 comments) says:

    PG: Why, pray, is Todd McClay’s Bill ” an odd one” ?? This is exactly what we should be doing…making these bastards lives’ as difficult as possible, and more importantly, allowing ordinary citizens to go about their business – at the offices of WINZ for example – without living in fear of violence between group of scum breaking out with a different group of patch wearing scum.

    In Wanganui, until the gang patch ban, violence at and outside the WINZ office was common between rival groups of patched up scum. To hell with the poor children and their mothers who had to witness it…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. mikenmild (11,664 comments) says:

    Well, it’ll give the opportunity for the Attorney-General to submit another BORA report for his government to ignore.
    BTW, do government MPs need to submit private member’s bills? Couldn’t they just take their ideas through the government caucus and on to the legislative programme that way?

    [DPF: They can, but the Government legislative programme is rather busy, and this allows them to short-cut the process]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Mr Gronk (45 comments) says:

    mike,

    BTW, do government MPs need to submit private member’s bills? Couldn’t they just take their ideas through the government caucus and on to the legislative programme that way?

    I think that a Government bill has to be approved by Cabinet and a minister has to take the lead on it. Government backbenchers can use the private members bill process to propose laws that are of interest to themselves or their constituents but not priorities for the Government.

    It has two other benefits to the Government. It means that Members’ Bills time isn’t taken up exclusively by opposition concerns, and it gives them a way to advance controversial law changes without having to come out and say, “The Government is officially backing this.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. anonymouse (721 comments) says:

    @ graham,

    Rusty’s amendment uses the existing definition of sensitive land from the current act, it is here,
    http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2005/0082/latest/whole.html#DLM358552

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. davidp (3,587 comments) says:

    >Dr Norman’s bill would ban foreign ownership of “sensitive land”. This is any non-urban land greater than 0.05 square kilometers!

    Everyone knows that this is aimed at Chinese people. It’s like the poll tax all over again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Keeping Stock (10,407 comments) says:

    Will Russel Norman’s Bill prevent the latest sale of land to James Cameron, as approved by the Overseas Investment Office this week? Or is he only interested in the sale of land to REAL foreigners such as the Chinese?

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10816340

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Daigotsu (465 comments) says:

    Fuck that conniving lefty witch Annette King who the fuck does she think she is… maybe she didn’t get the memo that her fucking party of loser commies LOST the last election. Seems she is so fucking arrogant she just keeps trying to govern like the people weren’t disgusted at her. Bitch.

    [DPF: 30 demerits]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Viking2 (11,557 comments) says:

    Daigotsu, its about ratcheting up Local Body Salaries to Govt. level. after all doesn’t she and her CHCH mate want to be Mayors shortly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. MikeG (425 comments) says:

    “… a breach of the independence of local bodies”
    Given the imposition by Central Govt on local govt in the last 4 years I don’t know how you can say that. National has imposed on Auckland their own appointments on many of the Super City boards, which is way more than a technical breach of the independence of local bodies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. mister nui (1,030 comments) says:

    Not a single fucking bill here that goes any way to making NZ more productive.

    All these bills are about is banning this, regulating that and restricting our lives evermore. A bunch of communist cunts.

    We didn’t elect these fuckers to restrict, ban and regulate, (well nobody elected Norman in any sense of the word), we elected them to advance our economy and make New Zealand more prosperous for all of us. Fat lot of good any of these bills are going to do to help anybody on struggle street one iota – in fact the ginger australians will only make the country poorer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. KH (695 comments) says:

    Annette Kings move to be a mayor now seems confirmed. If her bill passes local government CEO salaries will escalate to even more lofty levels. And mayoral salaries as well she hopes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. KH (695 comments) says:

    New Zealand land for New Zealanders. Go Russell.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Pete George (23,681 comments) says:

    Why, pray, is Todd McClay’s Bill ” an odd one” ?

    It’s odd that anyone would consider selective banning of access to “Government (central and local) premises”. It smacks of “conform or you’re excluded”.

    How far will it go? Tattoos? Slippers? Goth? Warriors?

    Anyone the government doesn’t want to deal with? Should the ban be extended to voting?

    Government should be open to all, shouldn’t it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Michael (910 comments) says:

    Go Russell. [sic]

    Russel Norman has actually drafted a bill that the Government will use to highlight his Australian birth and accuse him of xenophobic motives. Might not be the smartest move he’s made.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Michael (910 comments) says:

    Labour have a form submission for the current Local Government bill, it says:

    “I also oppose the measures to restrict local government`s ability to make decisions about their spending and use of debt. I expect my council to act in a responsible manner but I also expect them to look out for the long-term needs of our community.”

    Perhaps this should be continually quoted while the bill is debated.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote