Wagner Nicky: New Zealand Bill of Rights (Private Property Rights) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Wagner Nicky: New Zealand Bill of Rights (Private Property Rights) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:13349] 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I rise to oppose the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Private Property Rights) Amendment Bill. 
Gordon Copeland said he sponsored this bill because he believes that New Zealanders firmly support private property rights. Without a doubt they do. He said that New Zealanders identified with the idea that a man’s or a woman’s house and home is his or her castle and that there should be no confiscation without compensation. Mr Copeland went on to add that the right to peaceful ownership and enjoyment of property rights is a foundation value of our legal tradition but he also said that common law has therefore always protected property rights carefully. 
National agrees with all that he said. But although we very firmly support the principle behind this bill we do not believe that it is the right way to go about protecting property rights or the right way to establish an equitable compensation regime for loss of property. The bill looks straightforward enough—there are only two clauses—but it is fraught with difficulty. We in National are troubled that its passage may have huge implications many of which have not been fully appreciated. 
The bill is a good example of a member’s bill that looks simple on the surface but amends important legislation in a way that could have far-ranging consequences. As a member’s bill it has not been subjected to the rigorous analysis we expect of a Government bill—although I must say that my colleague Chris Auchinvole was concerned about the rigorousness applied to some of the latest Government bills that have come forward. There has been no in-depth consideration of the possible impacts that this bill could have on existing legislation or even an estimate—not even an estimate—of the potential costs of passing this legislation. Without this work being done and a full understanding of the consequences of this amendment it would be foolish indeed to pass this bill. 
Mr Copeland argued that this bill takes its lead from article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 and that many other countries such as the US Canada and the UK have similar legislation. He said he was disappointed that property rights were not included in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act passed in 1990. Interestingly enough property rights had been included in the early drafting of that bill along with some other clauses involving other economic and social rights but they were dropped during the select committee process with the comment: “This does not mean that those rights are of lesser importance but rather that they should be protected in a different way.” Our Justice and Electoral Committee once again debating this legislation agrees. 
Other countries also seem to agree because although some have included property rights in their bills of rights protection is often limited. In the United States the Fifth Amendment prohibits the deprivation of property without due process of law and the taking of private property for public lease without just compensation. The provisions are limited to the taking or deprivation of property and do not protect the right of private property as such. Property is not treated as a fundamental right in US constitutional law. In the UK until 1998 the protection of property rights was left to common law—a similar position to where New Zealand is at present—but in 1998 the UK Human Rights Act was passed and it does include private property rights. But it also incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights which includes an article that provides: “No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law”. The article goes on to say that these provisions “shall not however in any way impair the right of the State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of the property in accordance with general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.” In Canada property rights are included in the Canadian Bill of Rights but it is not part of the Canadian constitutions. Its powers are mitigated by a due process clause and have been overshadowed by new legislation passed in 1982 called the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The charter deliberately makes no mention of property rights or the deprivation of property apparently as a result of further consideration of United States experiences. 
Even the New Zealand Human Rights Commission which was in favour of including property rights into legislation recommends that amendments be made to this bill. The commission is particularly concerned that the drafting of the bill might give rise to unnecessary legal argument. 
National does not support this bill. It is poorly drafted and it has not had sufficient or robust analysis. Furthermore we believe that New Zealand property rights are sufficiently protected under common law without the need for the express protection of New Zealand constitutional documents.