Roy Heather: New Zealand Bill of Rights (Private Property Rights) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Roy Heather: New Zealand Bill of Rights (Private Property Rights) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:13347] 
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of ACT New Zealand to support the second reading of the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Private Property Rights) Amendment Bill. Like other members I congratulate the member whose name is attached to this bill Gordon Copeland. I congratulate him on bringing this issue to Parliament and I congratulate him on his stand on property rights. I am sorry that tonight we will not be seeing this bill go further. 
ACT New Zealand has a very strong commitment to property rights and therefore we will be supporting this second reading. This bill’s progress through the House has been long and as Mr Copeland might say tortuous. It was first introduced in May 2005 and I note that the person who gave the first reading speech for ACT on this bill was Stephen Franks who spoke strongly at that time in favour of the bill as I will do tonight. He noted in that first reading speech something that most members of this House are probably unaware of—that 7 years prior to that point ACT MP Owen Jennings had submitted an almost identical bill to this House. So this issue of the importance of property rights has been around for some time and has been discussed. I say to the member Gordon Copeland “Good on you for raising this issue again so that it could be debated as it should be in this House.” 
The purpose of the bill of course is to protect private property rights in New Zealand within the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and it is long overdue that this should happen. I will make a comment about that before I go on. This bill as Mr Gordon Copeland noted in his second reading speech simply aligns the position in New Zealand with the position adopted by a majority of the world’s nations. It should be emphasised as he emphasised that the continued omission of property rights from the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act actually puts New Zealand well and truly out of step with most of the developed world. He noted in his speech that even China today has private property rights in its constitution and it is a sad indictment on this Parliament particularly in respect of the two large parties that it has not taken note of this and will not be supporting this bill tonight. 
I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is actually very difficult to concentrate on my speech—and I note that the previous speaker had to raise the same point of order—and be heard when many members are standing and talking amongst themselves while we have empty lobbies. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: You are quite right although the leader of a party is entitled to wander around the Chamber as much as he or she likes to consult with members. But I note that there were more members involved than just the leader. I am sorry you were interrupted. 
HEATHER ROY 
: Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a sad indictment on this Parliament tonight that this bill is not being pursued further. It took some time for this bill to go through the Justice and Electoral Committee and very strong submissions were given by many groups that are widely regarded and respected in this country. The Property Council of New Zealand had strong things to say. Federated Farmers launched quite a campaign and its members I know are very disappointed too that this bill will not proceed tonight. The Treaty Tribes Coalition also made a submission so we had submissions from a wide range of groups. We heard from Business New Zealand and from the Human Rights Commission. We had a few quotes from them. The Human Rights Commission spoke very strongly in favour of property rights and their importance in this country. 
The select committee also had input from the Law Commission. The Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Palmer made a presentation to the committee. He put forward a speech in which he made some strong comments. He of course was responsible for the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. He said in commenting much further down the track about that Act that he had taken a deliberate action in the 1980s to exclude property rights from that bill but on reflection today he believes they should have been included. 
Mr Copeland as I have already said should be congratulated on bringing this matter to the attention of the House but I do not think that this discussion should be finished tonight. It should be pursued; although sadly that will perhaps have to be done in a different forum. 
I want to make a few comments on the issue of individual property rights. 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. Property rights not democracy actually protect the weak against the strong in our society. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Ha ha! 
HEATHER ROY 
: Mr Fairbrother might like to listen because he might learn something here. Democracy if we think about it logically actually puts power in the hands of the majority but property rights—individual property rights or private property rights—are fundamental to the liberty of the individual. People who cannot hold their property inviolate against their neighbours or the State simply do not have the practical security to exercise any liberty such as free speech freedom of religion freedom of association or the like. My Maori Party colleague who spoke before me explored this issue in a great deal of detail and I agree with the comments he made. 
Individual property rights actually save environments. In the “tragedy of the commons” we have seen so many instances of communally owned assets simply being destroyed and at some points being turned into deserts. How often have we seen that in this country with regard to fishing? Property rights create incentives that allow people to plan and to work towards the long term towards the future. 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. The concept of ownership—because this is what this is about—is extraordinarily important in any free society. Tonight this concept of property rights that are consistent with a society that works hard for the long term is being largely ignored by the parties voting against this bill. 
I proudly stand here tonight on behalf of the ACT party and support this bill. I congratulate the member once more on bringing the issue to the attention of this House. It is an important issue one that our society is founded on and one that I personally and the ACT party will continue to campaign for not just in this election but well into the future. It is a fundamental on which our society is based but something that sadly the National Party will vote against tonight. I thought that National members like others supporting this bill were champions of property rights but sadly New Zealanders are being let down in this regard tonight. ACT will be supporting this bill. Our two votes will go towards it and we will not let this matter rest here.