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:20508] 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 First of all I thank those members who have spoken in support of the bill for their contributions. It is very gratifying for me having worked on the issue for a long time to think that the bill will get through its first reading tonight. In my right of reply I will mention a few points in a somewhat pot-pourri way. I begin with a quote from Lord Camden. In 1765 he said: “By the laws of England every invasion of private property be it ever so minute is a trespass. No man can set his foot upon my ground without my licence”. It is very important to remember that what I propose tonight builds on the common law tradition. These property rights have been defined in that common law tradition for a long time and some who have spoken tonight—particularly Dr Cullen and Russell Fairbrother—spoke as if this bill had come from left field. It has not. It exists within the context of that great long common law tradition. 
I was delighted when the Prime Minister mentioned “the ownership society” in her speech in Parliament at the beginning of the year. I ask all members tonight to think about what an ownership society means. It means surely that people have the right to own property. There cannot be an ownership society without proper protection for property rights. The two go together. 
I also mention briefly that there has been some misunderstanding—particularly from the Attorney-General surprisingly enough—about how the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act works. He talked about due process of law and so forth as if that needed to be within the clauses I am proposing. But that overlooks the fact that the whole New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is governed by section 5 “Justified limitations” which states: “the rights and freedoms contained in this Bill of Rights may be subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” It would be quite stupid for me to put equivalent words in the bill because they are already within the framework of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in its entirety. 
Likewise the Attorney-General made the surprising comment that there was no definition of “property” which was repeated by Russell Fairbrother. I tell those members that the common law and our courts have been working for hundreds of years in defining what property is and they have long since decided that it is fair and just to raise taxation because through due process of law Parliament has determined to collect taxation. So to come along tonight with the novel idea that somehow the bill I am proposing would prevent the collection of taxation is really quite nonsensical and ignores the tradition. The same thing was true of some of the other definitions that Russell Fairbrother raised. That is for the courts to determine. That is not the role of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act itself. 
The other thing I want to mention is that in preparing for this speech tonight I did quite a bit of research on overseas jurisdictions. I can tell the House that the constitution of Malaysia protects property rights. The European Convention on Human Rights protects property rights. The Australian constitution protects property rights as do the constitutions of Ireland India and South Africa. Perhaps most surprising of all the constitution of China a communist nation is now evolving in the direction of recognising private property rights within a communist country. Why? Well the Chinese Government has decided that it needs to go further in this area the area of the legality of private property because it has a rising middle class that wants protection of its property rights. That is a very positive sign in China because it means that it will eventually be headed towards democracy. The two things do go together. In any decent society on the face of the earth there has always been the protection of property rights. 
I would also like to say that our own Parliamentary Library in putting together the Bills Digest on my bill gave it this summary: “In summary the protections for private property in New Zealand are not very great and property rights can be expropriated under statute without compensation.” That is the Bills Digest statement and I agree with it. My bill proposes to bring that situation to an end so that although Parliament can continue to override property rights at least in future there will be a clear signal whenever we go anywhere near that issue that we are deliberately setting out to breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I think that is a very important constraint on the unbridled power of a unicameral Parliament where we can remove such important rights which have endured for hundreds of years by one single vote. We do need the protection that my private property bill will give this nation.