Auchinvole Chris: New Zealand Bill of Rights (Private Property Rights) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Auchinvole Chris: New Zealand Bill of Rights (Private Property Rights) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:13343] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker and thank you for the acclamation from the other side of the House as well as from my colleagues here. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: In life or on the bill? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: I notice that I am already being interrupted by Darren Hughes who is interjecting not from his own seat in the House I note. But never mind—he applies that rule to others but not to himself. 
The first reading of this bill was on 11 May 2005 a couple of years ago. Members from all sides of the House of all political flavours on that particular occasion seemed to be very much in favour of the bill’s introduction with the noted exception of the Green Party. Dr Wayne Mapp Dr Michael Cullen Dail Jones Stephen Franks David Parker the Hon Georgina te Heuheu and Peter Dunne were all very supportive in their comments at the bill’s introduction and even though the party representation was diverse a common thread in many of the speeches was the link between the rights of private property and democracy itself—albeit that was qualified particularly during Dr Cullen’s speech. There were though a couple of warning shots across the bows of the bill and I mention this for Gordon Copeland’s benefit or memory. A couple of warning shots were fired across the bill during its first reading. There was a call for a definition of “property” and of the word “deprived”. I guess it was hoped that these things would be taken into account during the select committee considerations. 
I suggest that this bill fails not in the submissions we received and not necessarily in debate but in reality because for all it expresses currently it is an emotional response to a yet-to-be-determined and yet-to-be-defined reality. I can understand the apprehension associated with the thought processes that went into putting the bill together. If one has property then one has the right to use it and to enjoy it without being deprived of it without compensation. I guess that is a natural thing to feel. It is written into the constitutions of other legislation so why is it missing from ours? 
However it is not a simple matter to produce legislation just to fit a whim or an emotion. For instance my wife and I own property in what must be one of the most tranquil and beautiful parts of the South Island Lake Brunner the largest lake on the West Coast and a heavenly place to live. We use it— 
Kate Wilkinson 
: A beautiful place. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: It is a beautiful place. We use it and we enjoy it. 
Hon Member 
: Tell us more about it. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Would the member like to know more about it? We can do that. Are we deprived of our enjoyment of it at any stage? Well not during a normal week or during a normal weekend. There is a village population of 52. We all know one another; it is a very nice place to live. 
Bob Clarkson 
: Corner dairy? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Well no there is not a corner dairy. It has a service station a garage and a fire brigade. It is a honey of a community. But what about on the weekends especially the long weekends when we get visits from a couple of thousand to 3000 “bachees” who come to take full advantage of the lake? Actually we do not object at all my wife and I. We are not offended by it and we find it great that more and more people seize the opportunity to share our perceptions of the West Coast the place we consider to be the stuff of good living. But there are those I can assure members having been the chair of the local community association—particularly those who suffer from the “last settler” syndrome—who feel they have been deprived of the use and enjoyment of their property by such activities as those involving jet boats jet skis helicopters and the wonderful wild parties that occur often at weekends. They feel deprived. 
How would the bill fit those circumstances? Well the bill in fact would trap those circumstances and it does. I could be told no doubt—and I think we were told at the select committee—that those things would not apply. We were told—and I urge my colleagues to listen to this one carefully—that common sense would prevail. Have we heard that lately? Have we heard that from the other side of the House? “Never mind what the law says—common sense will prevail.” We can tell that to a clever lawyer then watch to see what he or she can do with it. 
Hon Member 
: A rare breed the clever lawyer. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Well yes but I am told they are around. 
Dr Richard Worth 
: It’s an oxymoron. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Oh no. How can I say that sort of thing speaking as I am from my colleague Chris Finlayson’s desk? He would be very deeply upset and offended. 
Colin King 
: Deeply wounded. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Deeply wounded. But they do say that when—no I digress; I will get back to the bill. 
National though strongly supports property rights and I can imagine the bill’s author Gordon Copeland being disappointed that the bill has not received a more natural fit with National thinking. What I can say for it Gordon is that I have rapidly come to realise being a member of the National caucus that we think through legislation very very carefully unlike those on the other side of the House. It is not the intention of the bill that presents the problem; it is the areas of uncertainty the areas that are not defined the areas of the bill that leave questions hanging unanswered—a bit like questions directed to Ministers on the other side of the House at question time really. It is those areas that cause caution. 
The reach of the bill as it is is extraordinarily unrestricted. It could be used as an instrument for a great deal of litigation—indeed for mischief—against the Crown and heaps of other entities simply because it is available as a legal instrument. Lord knows we have a surfeit of directional regulation at the moment that purposely penetrates private personal and public life without lighting another firework to go on a random damaging journey. 
Just looking at my notes which I wrote a couple of weeks ago I realise now the error of my ways. I said in them that this bill would benefit from being a Government bill. I thought that if the bill were a Government bill it would enable the Crown to bring the full extent of advice on the issues to all that is encompassed in the bill. But that was before I went through the structural charade of the Justice and Electoral Committee considering the Electoral Finance Bill—and what a charade it was! That is the only word for it. I never thought when I came to this august distinguished House that I would be obliged to sit through the low-level procedures that were engaged in during the consideration of that bill—but more on that later. 
I notice that National also considers there should be a statutory basis for compensation and that it should not simply be left to the courts. Perhaps the greatest benefit of this bill—and the thing that Gordon Copeland can be pleased about—is its alerting the rest of us to the need for a review of the Public Works Act 1981 and the Resource Management Act 1991. I know that National will fix the Resource Management Act. 
Finally there is the potential of this amendment to affect the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is something that was completely ignored in the consideration of the Electoral Finance Bill and this bill I say to Mr Copeland would affect that Act. It really requires an exhaustive consideration before the putting of it could occur and the exhaustive consideration has not occurred. One of the committee’s major concerns is that further work was required to ensure that the terms can be properly understood and interpreted correctly without confusion before any amendment is passed. We doubt that that work is within the scope of a member’s bill. The member simply does not have the resources to achieve that in our view. Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker.