Pillay Lynne: New Zealand Bill of Rights (Private Property Rights) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Pillay Lynne: New Zealand Bill of Rights (Private Property Rights) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:12915] 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 Although sadly it is not in support of this bill I am happy to stand to speak and perhaps talk about the process of dealing with the bill in the Justice and Electoral Committee in probably happier times than we are in at the moment. Although there were some differences I think the select committee worked quite constructively on the bill. I would say to Gordon Copeland that the committee spent some time giving the bill really good consideration and exploring a number of avenues that we could move forward on but sadly at the end of the day that was not possible. As Gordon Copeland has said the purpose of the bill was to provide for the protection of private property rights in New Zealand within the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Labour certainly acknowledges that there is considerable public support for the further protection of property rights and certainly as Mr Copeland has said in other jurisdictions there is such legislation with that purpose in place. 
The first of the two new sections inserted by clause 4 new section 11A was to provide that everyone had the right to own property whether alone or in association with others. New section 11B was to provide that no person would be deprived of the use or enjoyment of his or her property without just compensation. I acknowledge that Mr Copeland amended his position on that issue in trying to find a way through for the bill but in the end the majority of the voting members of the select committee voted unanimously against the bill proceeding. That is because we found problems with the bill in its current form. I have to acknowledge here the advisers from the Ministry of Justice who gave a very comprehensive report on the bill and the select committee staff who worked very diligently. As I said before I want to acknowledge all of the committee members who listened intently to the submissions and gave careful consideration to the bill. 
From the perspective of the Labour members there was a definite concern that more work needed to be done on such words as “property” and “deprived” and the right to “just compensation”. This indeed was a concern of mine—that outcomes could be created and costs incurred that were perhaps not necessarily intended. As well the National members on the select committee did not support the bill. Sadly in their minority report which I know they will speak to they acknowledged as did members from other parties that there was support for property rights but they could not support the amendment. Given the support that Mr Copeland has given the National Party in terms of exercising his vote in the House I can understand his disappointment that the National members did not until very late in the piece advise that they would not be supporting the bill. I really do empathise with Mr Copeland on their decision. I think that the purpose of the bill as I acknowledged before is a very worthy purpose and I commend Mr Copeland for his intent and goodwill. 
Some of the concerns that I had which I know a number of members shared were perhaps—if I can use the term—unintended consequences of the bill in terms of the effect it could have on local bodies. I think there was very much a degree of uncertainty around the consequences should the bill come into force in its current form around certainly its relationship to the Resource Management Act and its effect on that. As I said before the bill’s effect on local authorities and the potential costs would remain pretty unknown until—and I think I heard Mr Copeland say this—such issues were tested in court. That certainly for many of us was something we did not see as a tremendous right—the ability or the possibility of substantial litigation around this bill because of uncertainty. 
Despite as I said before Mr Copeland’s stating that he was willing to remove the words “the use or enjoyment” from the new section 11B in clause 4 we still felt that that did not go far enough to resolve the concerns of the committee. Given the possible consequences of the bill’s enactment in its current form it was just not possible for the bill to proceed. I note that perhaps sometime in the future there may be more work done and it may be possible to address the concerns that Mr Copeland attempted to address in the bill that he put before the House which was supported to select committee so we could hear from submitters. I commend the submitters. We had submitters who obviously supported the bill in terms of property rights and we also had a number of submitters who like members of the committee shared concerns about some of the impact and unintended consequences should the bill proceed. 
I cannot add much more to that except to say that I congratulate Mr Copeland. I know it was with very good intentions that he brought this bill to this House. I hope he recognises that parties supported the bill to go to the select committee to enable a greater scrutiny to enable submitters to have a say on the bill and to look at any aspects that were raised during the submission process. I believe all members can put their hand on their heart and say that process happened—due consideration was given. But unfortunately I am standing in this House to speak in support of this bill not proceeding. Thank you.