King Annette: New Zealand Bill of Rights (Private Property Rights) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
King Annette: New Zealand Bill of Rights (Private Property Rights) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:12918] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I too congratulate Mr Copeland on getting his bill the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Private Property Rights) Amendment Bill to this stage. For an MP to get a member’s bill out of the ballot and to have it debated and considered is an achievement in itself. We have heard tonight how patient Mr Copeland has been and how cooperative he has been in terms of attempting to get this bill through this House. 
We have heard that the purpose of this bill is the protection of private property rights in New Zealand within the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Labour acknowledges that there is significant public support for further legal protection of property rights and that other foreign jurisdictions enshrine property rights in legislation. Having said that I say that Labour does not support this bill and we do not support it for the following reasons. The bill seeks to add the right of property as I said to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act as has been recognised in various international human rights treaties and national constitutions. However the language used in this bill would result in the right to property being given a broader meaning in New Zealand than it has been given or is given under these instruments. 
Four areas of potential concern arise from the terminology used in the bill. One has been identified in the terms of property itself: the words “deprived” “use or enjoyment” and “just compensation”. Because of the vagueness of the terminology used in the bill it appears to encompass a wide array of Government activities and therefore its potential impact is far-reaching—more far-reaching than we can know at this stage. We have already heard from Mr Finlayson that further work ought to be done in that area. The uncertainty around the effect of the bill’s terminology and what would constitute a justified limit on the right of property combined with the requirement to pay compensation are believed to be likely to cause administrative difficulties and to increase transaction costs for both Government and property owners. They could also lead to complex and costly litigation against the Crown and local authorities. 
It is also questionable as to whether the bill raises a problem that requires a legislative response particularly one that encompasses a wide array of Government policies and practices that impact on property use. My understanding is that the Justice and Electoral Committee recommended that the bill not be passed but in its report the committee acknowledges there is significant public backing for further legal protection of property rights in New Zealand. It noted that the notion of a right to compensation for the loss of property has wide support. Nevertheless the committee considered that the bill is not an appropriate way by which to protect private property rights in New Zealand or to establish an equitable compensation regime for the loss of property. The committee agreed with the concerns about the bill’s terminology and considered that further work needed to be done. 
In Mr Copeland’s contribution this evening he mentioned Sir Geoffrey Palmer the chair of the Law Commission. Given Sir Geoffrey’s support for the inclusion of the right of property within the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act justice officials consulted with Sir Geoffrey Palmer on the desirability of including property rights within that Act and the possible changes to reduce the uncertainty around the effects that the bill’s terminology may have on Government activities. 
Although Sir Geoffrey reiterated his view that property rights should be better protected in New Zealand he advised that the bill was not the best means to do so. In particular Sir Geoffrey was concerned about the terminology used in the bill. He considered that without undertaking a comprehensive policy analysis of the issue it was impossible to determine the exact impact the bill would have on Government activities and it was dangerous not to do such an analysis. So I think if Mr Copeland is looking to Sir Geoffrey to support his bill it is quite obvious from Sir Geoffrey’s discussion with justice officials that that is not the case. He does not believe that this is the bill that property rights ought to be included in and that is probably a pretty comprehensive summary of Sir Geoffrey’s opinion. 
 As I said we heard from Mr Finlayson this evening; he has given the National Party’s view. National has been urged by Mr Copeland tonight to vote where its principles are and to support property rights. Although one could argue that I would have to say to Mr Copeland without wanting to put a sour note into the debate that supporting one’s principles was something that I would suggest he should have done as well. I am sure that Peter Dunne has not forgotten to this day that it was only hours before Mr Copeland set up his own political party that he was promising he would not do so though he came into this Parliament supporting the principles of a particular party— 
Gordon Copeland 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take personal offence at those remarks. Peter Dunne and I were present in the room when that conversation occurred—no one else was there. I did not give such assurances and I think it is wrong therefore for the member to repeat that accusation. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No it is a debating matter. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I certainly agree with your ruling Mr Deputy Speaker because I have heard the comments from the leader of United Future and he would dispute the point of order just taken by Mr Copeland. I would have to say to Mr Copeland that I have had my own experience in terms of keeping one’s word. As I said I do not wish to put a sour note into the debate but when one berates parties about sticking to their principles—and I am in support of the National Party on this occasion—then one is expected to stick to one’s principles as well. 
In conclusion Labour will not be supporting this bill. We acknowledge the work that has been done in the preparation of this bill. We acknowledge that Mr Copeland has laboured hard and that he has gone through the process and endeavoured to get agreement on it but at the end of the day it has to stack up and it has to be workable. From the evidence that was received at the Justice and Electoral Committee and from the deliberation of the select committee itself I can say that the bill is not believed to be workable and we ought not pass legislation that would lead to problems further down the track that we would have to fix—problems that could be costly to the Government and local government but also to private property owners. 
Labour will not be supporting this bill. That does not mean that we do not acknowledge that there is significant public support for further legal protection of property rights. That issue will no doubt be addressed in another form and perhaps in a more appropriate form than this bill.