Copeland Gordon: New Zealand Bill of Rights (Private Property Rights) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Copeland Gordon: New Zealand Bill of Rights (Private Property Rights) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:643;Page:12913] 
GORDON COPELAND (Independent) 
: 
 I move  
That the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Private Property Rights) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. My bill the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Private Property Rights) Amendment Bill received its first reading with the support of all parties of the House except the Greens way back on 11 May 2005—now almost 2½ years ago. It has therefore had a long gestation period including detailed examination by the Justice and Electoral Committee. I take this opportunity to thank the officials from the Ministry of Justice for the several reports they provided to the select committee during those deliberations. 
Private property rights have their origin in the Judaean commandment “You shall not steal.” and have come down to us in 2007 from that source via the Magna Carta and the common law tradition. In particular I want to draw reference tonight to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which was adopted and proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly on 19 December 1948. New Zealand was an active participant in the development of the declaration and it was enthusiastically endorsed by the then Labour Prime Minister Peter Fraser. Article 17 of the declaration deals with property rights in two short sentences: “Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.” and “No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.” 
My bill with the amended words now proposed is expressed in virtually identical terms in new sections 11A and 11B inserted by clause 4: “Everyone has the right to own property whether alone or in association with others.” and “No person is to be deprived of that person’s property without just compensation.” I would like the House to note that on the advice received from officials I have dropped the words “use or enjoyment” from new section 11B. 
Essentially all my bill therefore does is specifically include in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 the universal property rights that should be available to all members of the human race—they are after all human rights. Similarly my bill simply aligns the position in New Zealand with the position adopted by a majority of the world’s nations. Let me list just some of them. The documents of all the existing regional human rights instruments—which include the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and American Convention on Human Rights—specifically incorporate property rights. So too do the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution the Australian Constitution and in the officials’ words “the constitutions of most Commonwealth countries” including India South Africa Malaysia and many others. Therefore it needs to be emphasised here tonight that the continued omission of private property rights from the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act puts us out of step with most of the developed world. Even China today has private property rights in its constitution. 
In these circumstances it is a vast understatement to say that I am staggered to find that both Labour and National have decided not to support this bill. Significant and well-researched submissions were made to the select committee in support of my bill by many organisations and individuals including the Property Council of New Zealand Federated Farmers the Treaty Tribes Coalition Business New Zealand the New Zealand Business Roundtable and the Human Rights Commission. 
The only significant naysayer in relation to the bill was the New Zealand Law Society. However its submission tended to lack credibility when for example it questioned whether a person’s entitlement to a State pension could be included within the word “property”—a matter long since determined by the courts in the negative. For that reason the submission has pretty much been condemned by other lawyers who have taken the trouble to contact me. 
The Justice and Electoral Committee also sought input from the Law Commission. A response was received from the Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Palmer who is President of the Law Commission. His submission has special significance as he is regarded as the father of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and is of course a former Labour Prime Minister. Sir Geoffrey’s response was to forward to the committee a copy of the keynote speech he delivered to the Ministry of Justice symposium in February 2006—that is 9 months after the first reading of this bill. The speech contained a clear and unambiguous sentence: “I took a deliberate action to exclude this”—that is property rights—“in the 1980s but on reflection I believe it should be included.” 
It is relevant to note that the Attorney-General Dr Michael Cullen recently told the House that Sir Geoffrey Palmer has since advised him that before private property rights are added to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act a great deal of additional work needs to occur. I note that comment but I would like to make the point that Sir Geoffrey did not communicate those views to either the select committee or me as the member in charge of the bill. 
I want to turn now to the comments of the Justice and Electoral Committee in relation to this bill. I must say that from the beginning I always harboured doubts about whether Labour would support the bill. Nevertheless I remain disappointed with its decision not to support the bill and with the illogicalities that accompany that decision. For example Labour members state that my bill gives little guidance on legal interpretation. But that is the case with every single provision in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Very deep texts have been written— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: How deep? 
GORDON COPELAND 
: —they are at least 4 inches deep—on the interpretation of the rights that were already in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and on every single one of those rights that had to go to the court for interpretation and it will be no different with this bill. So the bill’s lack of guidance on legal interpretation is not really a very valid excuse for not supporting it. 
Labour has also overlooked the common law tradition involving a vast number of cases and spanning several centuries all of which are available to assist the court in determining the application of the rights contained in my bill. For example the question of compensation has long since been settled in the common law tradition as being “full and adequate”. I am surprised that both Labour and National have acted as if that common law tradition simply does not exist. 
Particularly troubling is the committee’s concern that the enactment of my bill might have compensation implications under the Resource Management Act. Surely that simply illustrates that without the protection of property rights in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act Parliament can continue even unknowingly to pass laws undermining those human rights—rights that belong to the citizens of New Zealand based simply on their humanity. The whole point of including these rights in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is in fact to ensure that Parliament is constrained and that it will receive a clear statement from the Attorney-General should a future bill seek to undermine those human rights. Without the protection I am seeking through the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act we may continue to see the property rights of the citizens of New Zealand being undermined by Parliament. I do not believe we should take that risk. 
I want also to turn to the issue of the Treaty of Waitangi. As is well known the Treaty in both Article the Second and Third establishes the right of Maori to their lands and protects that right. For about 150 years after the Treaty was signed the Government in New Zealand constantly and continuously breached the property rights of Maori. Nobody in this House would argue with that statement. Given that shameful legacy I had hoped that Parliament given this opportunity would enshrine Maori property rights in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act once and for all. Sadly tonight it will fail to do so. 
I want to say that my new political party Future New Zealand has a commitment to adding property rights to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I will be watching to see whether a similar commitment will be contained in the manifesto of the National Party in 2008 given their professed strong support for property rights. After all the National Party in its minority report states: “We have a strong commitment to private property rights.” Given that statement surely the National Party should follow through but it is not supporting this bill. Again National says there is more work to be done. There is always more work to be done. National members go to the officials time after time and they produce report after report. They ask the select committee whether there is any more information. Then there is silence from the National Party members and after all that has happened they say there is more work to be done. 
If National is to have any remaining credibility on the issue of property rights—and I know National has had submissions on this issue from those people I have talked about who made submissions since it decided to oppose the bill—then I challenge National tonight to make a clear commitment in its manifesto for the 2008 general election that it will add these important rights to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. I will not hold my breath but I hope I am proved wrong. Thank you.