Mapp Wayne: New Zealand Bill of Rights (Private Property Rights) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Mapp Wayne: New Zealand Bill of Rights (Private Property Rights) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:625;Page:20497] 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I thank the House for the opportunity to speak on this quite important bill. I have listened with particular care to Mr Gordon Copeland and perhaps the thing that resonated with me most was his reflection that property rights are an inherent part of democracy. He perhaps needed to develop that idea a little more because there is a reason why that is true and it is this. The right to property is an inherent part of democratic societies because it reflects the individuals’ rights against the State—civil and political rights which the Labour Party quite properly has great attachment to—and when divorced from property rights they are ultimately no protection against the power of the State. It is no accident that democratic societies also defend property and that speaks enormous volumes about the relationship between the individual and the State. So that is why in article 5 of the US Bill of Rights property is such an important component. It is also noteworthy that it is protected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 
I wrote on this subject some years ago in academic journals and I noted the fact that during the 1950s and the 1960s when socialism was advancing in Western States it was really only in the United States which had the specific legal protection for property that the values of freedom were most rigorously protected and only in more recent years has the importance of that been recognised. It was a failing in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act promoted by the then Minister of Justice and Deputy Prime Minister Geoffrey Palmer it was an oversight and that was unfortunate. We could not even reflect the values of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which did give protection and which is a direct derivation in that particular instance of the US Constitution’s Bill of Rights. So here is an opportunity to fix up that error. 
National because this issue is so fundamental to our values will be supporting this legislation. Now I know that the Government is likely to also do so and it will say: “Well at least it’s worthy of a debate before a select committee.” It is more than that. It is actually about the values for society. It is not just a left-right debate; it is about the values of the nation of New Zealand irrespective of which political party might happen to hold the reins of power at the time. So parties will be actually judged irrespective of who is the Government down the track as to whether this is a founding value for our country. I think that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act does need strengthening. The Constitutional Arrangements Committee which is chaired by Mr Dunne will have to deeply reflect on this issue. One cannot help but reflect on the fact that only this week there has been a report-back of a bill in relation to riparian rights and the Government is saying there should be no compensation. My understanding is that the United Future Party—and I am happy to be corrected on this if I am erroneous—actually supported that legislation. If that is true—[ 
Interruption 
] and I am happy to take an interjection from Mr Copeland—did the party actually support that legislation? 
Gordon Copeland 
: We filed a minority report opposing the no-compensation clause. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Will you vote for the legislation? 
Gordon Copeland 
: As others have said in this House all will be revealed. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Sometimes particularly when we promote legislation like this we are required to stand on principle. I think that on a piece of legislation like that it might be true that in 1991 certain Governments voted a particular way. Time has moved on I might say to the Deputy Prime Minister and we do recognise that property rights are fundamental. Perhaps there has not been enough recognition of this in the past. When property rights are taken for the common good—and in the case of riparian rights I recognise that that can be the case—there must be compensation. At least I acknowledge Mr Copeland’s recognition of that reality. 
I add this point also—and it is really a statement to Transpower. Sometimes when opposing a provocative move a controversial move additional compensation should be offered. That is apparently what occurs in Europe. The Deputy Prime Minister might be interested to know that that is one of the reasons why in France there is relatively little controversy about these kinds of issues. It is because adequate compensation is fully offered. In that instance “adequate” means more than generous; more than we might say one for one. People have to have a sense that they are restored not just in a financial sense in the case of Transpower but in a sense of their equilibrium. I invite the Government when it is voting for this legislation as I understand it might to think also of the adequacy of the compensation provisions in the Public Works Act. 
In reality I think the public mood has changed. We have a greater recognition in this nation these days of the importance of property rights. I think that is generally true. There is a much greater defence of that than in the past. Why is that the case? One of the reasons is that the old left-right battle of the past the classic socialist-capitalist battle is in a sense in the past. I think the Deputy Prime Minister would recognise the truth of that fact. Certainly third wayism is all about saying that that particular battle is in the past. One of the consequences of that reality is a much deeper and greater focus on the importance of property rights and the need when they are taken for them to be properly compensated for. 
National is proud to support this legislation. We are saying that when one supports this proposition in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act it has other consequences. It has consequences in relation to the Public Works Act consequences in takings by the Crown on behalf of the public—that private citizens will be properly and adequately compensated for those takings. 
I know that Georgina te Heuheu will talk about this and the significance of this to Maori. Frankly she has a point. Let us be honest. Successive Governments are compensating Maori today—maybe in a not entirely adequate way—for wrongs in the past. One of the reasons for that is that we have a deeper recognition of the importance of property rights. One of the ironies I might add is that one of the foundations of the Maori Party is its belief—and I think the Deputy Prime Minister would recognise this—that its views have a wellspring in property rights and I guess we saw that when reading the  
Listener 
 article. 
So from a wide variety of perspectives in this country there is a much deeper recognition of the importance of property rights. The old shibboleths of the past the left-right debates are to some extent in the past. and one of the consequences is a deeper recognition of property rights. That means that legislation that was passed in 1990 the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act needs to recognise that quite fundamental shift in our society. I note in closing that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act although an ordinary statute now has huge and tremendous significance. I think that the Deputy Prime Minister in his office as Attorney-General will recognise the reality of that particular fact. Although it may be an ordinary statute it has deeper moral force than in the past and as a consequence this is part of the perfection of that statute.