Franks Stephen: New Zealand Bill of Rights (Private Property Rights) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Franks Stephen: New Zealand Bill of Rights (Private Property Rights) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20502] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I am very pleased to have an opportunity to speak for the ACT party on Gordon Copeland’s bill the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Private Property Rights) Amendment Bill. It was a very pleasant surprise to see this coming across the desk. I do not know whether Dr Michael Cullen National Party members or even New Zealand First members who have just spoken on this legislation realise that Owen Jennings had a bill that was almost identical about 7 years ago. As I recall only one person other than his colleagues voted for it and that was Peter Dunne. I give credit to United Future and to Peter Dunne for being consistent in supporting property rights in that respect. The next speakers for the National Party and New Zealand First have a little explaining to do given that they now think that this is so self-evident. 
We have constantly in this country problems arising from the complete ignorance or in fact the wilful trashing of property rights. This week the SILNA forest owners in Southland who were deprived in the first place of proper compensation when their property was taken were then given forest land deep in the south as compensation only to have the Labour Government steal it again when it decided that they could not market their trees. That was a classic case of a Western country simply regarding the natives’ property as free to be expropriated because they could not protect it. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Didn’t Nick Smith organise that one? 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Did Nick Smith organise it? All I can say is that under this Labour Government John Blincoe as negotiator has not been prepared to recognise the property rights of those people who had their property stolen. We have the foothills of the western ranges in Auckland of course quite properly mentioned now as another proposed expropriation. 
This is not simply shifting assets from one group to another without worrying about compensation. It is not simply a loss to them. It is a loss to everyone. It devalues integrity in almost every institution. Equality of opportunity needs potential for mobility in society to transcend inherited status. It needs the ability to decide how one uses one’s land without upsetting the status quo. The existing authorities in any community the political and religious authorities will always kick for the status quo because change tends to undermine them. 
Individual property rights and the rule of law together were England’s greatest gift to this country. Article 2 of the treaty should have been embodied in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. In fact it is the measure of the cowardice of the Parliament that passed the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act if it knew that it was omitting something almost every other civilised country had. It was not prepared to stand for property rights. It makes so much of the rhetoric around the treaty industry the reparations the noble statements about the wrongs done and the remedying of wrongs—rhetoric that has come from politicians who did not move at the very first opportunity to ensure that article 2 of the treaty was upheld for every New Zealander. 
It is property rights that protect the weak against the strong not democracy. Democracy actually puts power in the hands of the majority. It is property rights that are fundamental to liberty. People who cannot hold their property inviolate against the neighbours or the State simply do not have the practical security to exercise any liberty such as that of free speech or religion. 
Individual property rights save environments. Since Hardin wrote “The Tragedy of the Commons” we have seen so many instances of communally owned assets simply being turned into deserts. We have seen it in fishing and we have seen it with the foraging of goats in desert lands. It is a pattern that is repeated time and time again and we have seen it in New Zealand where the land that is owned by everyone is cared for by no one. 
Property rights create incentives to plan and work for the long term. When occupiers cannot expect to get the residual they do not have any incentive to stop the property being degraded and they do not have any incentive to improve it. So property rights are consistent with a society that works for the long term. Property rights secure owners against neighbours’ abuse through common law doctrines such as nuisance and the rules for compensation. They shield innovators. Coercion to maintain the status quo is the hallmark of political—[ 
Interruption 
] That is it? 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Yes. The member’s time has expired.