Parker David: New Zealand Bill of Rights (Private Property Rights) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Parker David: New Zealand Bill of Rights (Private Property Rights) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20504] 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 I rise to speak in the first reading debate on the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Private Property Rights) Amendment Bill. In doing so I note that the Labour Government is supporting the passage of this bill to a select committee. I also note that it is timely that we have this debate about the extent of private property rights. There are some problems with the bill however. 
The bill at present states: “No person is to be deprived of the use or enjoyment of that person’s property without just compensation.” We already have provisions in law such as the Public Works Act which state that the Government cannot take land from people without compensating them for their loss and that is as it should be. But the provision in this legislation goes substantially further than that. I read it again: “No person is to be deprived of the use or enjoyment of that person’s property without just compensation.” 
The Hon Dr Michael Cullen recently made the point that that goes far further than the provisions that are found in the Canadian or United States’ constitutions. Let us consider a couple of the reasons why the bill may go too far. First let us consider the case of a person who owns a piece of land the maximum value of which could be extracted by having a significant heavy industry on it—say a factory— and that land is in the middle of a residential area— 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: Or a burial ground. 
DAVID PARKER 
: —or in the middle of a burial ground. So of course under the wording of the bill at present the individual would be deprived of some use or enjoyment of that property by not being able to build a factory in the middle of a residential suburb or in the middle of a cemetery Yet we all agree—or I think most of us agree—that that is perfectly proper for councils to control the adverse effects of factories. 
I give members another example marginal strips. In earlier speeches we heard some suggestion that the provisions that the Finance and Expenditure Committee inserted in relation to marginal strip provisions were in some way undermining a property right. I challenge that logic which I think is flawed. The idea that a property right of an owner of land includes the unrestricted right of an owner to sell land to someone overseas is wrong and has always been wrong in New Zealand law. The Land Settlement Promotion and Land Acquisitions Act 1952 always had very significant controls preventing and often almost banning the sale of land to overseas persons. That legislation was in place until 1996 so until 1996 there were very very restricted circumstances in which one could sell land of 5 acres or more—it changed to 2 hectares or more—to an overseas person. 
Similarly under that legislation controls on sales between New Zealanders were quite strict as well so as to prevent the undue aggregation of land. The 1952 Act was repealed on the passing of the Overseas Investment Act. That Act still had controls on the sale of land to overseas persons. So it has always been clear that under New Zealand law a private property right to own land did not include the unrestricted right to sell it to overseas people. 
The logic behind the Overseas Investment Act means that we are not going back to the old days of the Land Settlement Promotion and Land Acquisitions Act—from 1952 through to 1996—when in many cases people were effectively stopped from selling land to overseas people; we are saying that as a precondition of people selling to an overseas person we ask them to lay off a marginal strip. They are not being forced to lay off a marginal strip; they can sell to a New Zealander without creating a marginal strip. Given that we have increasing incidence of sales on international global markets to people who are able to outbid New Zealanders it is quite right and proper that we protect the birthright of all New Zealanders to access waterways. 
I find it hypocritical that some parties like National oppose that when it was so vehement that the public should retain access rights to the foreshore and seabed. Yet it now says—hypocritically—that private property rights include the unrestricted right to sell land to overseas people and denies the Crown the ability to say that marginal strips must be retained as a prerequisite if that land is adjacent to waterways. That is why this bill although worthy of going to a select committee needs some attention to the detail.