Copeland Gordon: New Zealand Bill of Rights (Private Property Rights) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Copeland Gordon: New Zealand Bill of Rights (Private Property Rights) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20495] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I move  
That the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Private Property Rights) Amendment Bill be now read a first time 
. At the appropriate time I will move that it be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee. The purpose of this bill is to provide for the protection of private property rights in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The right to the peaceful ownership and enjoyment of private property is a foundational value of our legal tradition and common law has therefore always protected private property rights carefully. The common law begins with a presumption against the dispossession of property by the State as well as upholding the principle that compensation must be given whenever private property is taken for a public purpose. 
This bill does those things by inserting in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act two additional short clauses under the heading “Private property rights”. Section 11A “Right to own property” inserted by clause 4 states: “Everyone has the right to own property whether alone or in association with others.” Section 11B “Right not to be arbitrarily deprived of property” inserted by clause 4 states: “No person is to be deprived of the use or enjoyment of that person’s property without just compensation.” 
Most New Zealanders are very familiar with two popular expressions of those realities. One is: “An Englishman’s home is his castle.” meaning that one has the right to defend use and enjoy one’s own property. The other is: “No confiscation without compensation.” Those two great private property rights reach right back in our legal tradition to the Magna Carta. Via the Treaty of Waitangi they were also explicitly introduced into the legal framework of this nation. Via the treaty the protection of the common law tradition was imparted to Maori when they were given all the rights and privileges of British subjects. Those rights were also extended to all the other people of New Zealand regardless of their race or ethnic background. 
As if that history were not enough in itself property rights were also made explicit in article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaimed in 1948 which provides that everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others and which prohibits the arbitrary deprivation of property—a prohibition that requires that no one’s property is to be confiscated without compensation. 
However in spite of those realities property rights were not included in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. In hindsight that is a surprising omission. Strong submissions were made to the select committee at the time that property rights should be included. John Fogarty QC for example advocated that course. My bill aims to rectify that omission and I believe not only that it is the right thing to do but also that this is the right time to do it. 
Our nation has now acknowledged the historical breach of the property rights of Maori. We are as quickly as we can seeking to settle treaty-based property claims. However in view of the grave past injustices in that regard the fragility of our property rights in spite of the common law tradition will not be lost on Maori and that should serve as a salutary lesson to all other New Zealand citizens. After all many of the historical treaty claims resulted from specific acts or omissions of the New Zealand Parliament. Just as in the late 19th century and in the 20th century Parliament overrode the property rights of Maori so there are now growing concerns that that trend continues into the early days of the 21st century. 
Let me mention some current examples. The first is the draft Waitakere Ranges Bill. That bill is opposed by United Future because it is silent on the question of whether compensation will be paid to affected private property owners. Then we have the question of public access to private property with some so-called right to roam being bandied about to the great unease of rural New Zealand. But perhaps most blatantly of all the Overseas Investment Bill reported back to the House just this week provides for 20-metre wide marginal strips to be taken from private owners along rivers and around lakes on the specific condition that no compensation will be paid. 
I believe that New Zealanders should be very worried about these developments. In these instances we see Parliament as it did in earlier times in relation to Maori land once again expressing an intention to take private land without compensation. In the case of marginal strips the Government may well say that it will do that only when New Zealanders wish to sell their land to non-residents. But I say that this is the thin end of the wedge. Every New Zealander should be deeply concerned that what is true for sales to non-residents today could unless we have a specific protection in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act be true tomorrow for the sale of both rural and urban land by one New Zealander to another. 
The importance of the erosion of the traditional “no confiscation without compensation” principle must not be underestimated. To quote Professor Jeremy Waldron of Columbia University: “The normative resilience of property means that an injustice in property arrangements is a bad thing to inflict on a people and a more permanent form of injustice than many others.” That is a sobering thought. The protection of private property is increasingly being recognised internationally as a pre-condition to the enjoyment of many other rights and as an indispensable basis for economic prosperity and social well-being. The taking of property without compensation is specifically protected against under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. It is one of the cornerstone rights that have allowed the people of that nation to enjoy a level of both economic prosperity and social well-being that is the envy of many other nations. 
Property rights create stability for families. They create order in communities. They eliminate a potential source of conflict thus establishing peaceful relationships within a society and indeed between nations. By contrast as the sad history of this country and many others shows the dispossession of people from their property without just compensation can be the cause of violence bloodshed and deep-seated intergenerational bitterness that unless rectified can continue over literally hundreds of years. We have to think only of the situation in Cyprus. We have to think only of the situation in the Middle East at the moment between Israel and Palestine. Those are just a couple of contemporary examples that make that point so abundantly clear. Those disputes are essentially about property. 
We cannot look at these historical and present realities without concluding that property rights are fundamental to a free and democratic society. Life liberty and property were the three foundations on which democracy itself was originally built. Therefore they should—and indeed must—be included in this nation’s bill of rights legislation if that legislation is to have any real meaning at all in terms of those fundamental human rights that in a democratic open and free society should be enshrined for everyone in such a way that they cannot arbitrarily be set aside just by a single majority vote in the unicameral New Zealand Parliament. With those words I rest my case and I challenge any member of this House who is so inclined to rebut the proposition I place before the Parliament this day.