Submission

Below is my submission on Gordon Copeland's New Zealand Bill of Rights (Private Property Rights) Amendment Bill. It is based heavily on this post.

1. I support the general thrust of the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Private Property Rights) Amendment Bill, but not some of its specifics.
2. I am not a propertarian absolutist. I do not believe that “taxation is slavery” or that the Resource Management Act is a fundamental infringement on the rights of property owners. The institution of private property is a useful tool, not a natural right in a Lockean sense. However it is an important tool, and its usefulness is enhanced by strong legal protection. Furthermore, a broad right of property ownership is affirmed in the UN’s 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. A similar broad statement in support of the institution of private property should therefore be included in our Bill of Rights Act.
3. I support the insertion of clause 11A into the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. This mirrors Article 17(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and should be uncontentious. While some would consider it vague, our Bill of Rights is by its nature a statement of general principles, with the specifics elaborated as necessary, through interplay with the “reasonable limits” clause in section 5.
4. I oppose the insertion of clause 11B into the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 as written for the following reasons:
5. While New Zealand society has a high regard for the institution of private property, it has never been absolute. The right of the government to regulate what people do with their property for the public good - and thus deprive owners of full "use or enjoyment" - has long been recognised.
6. The express purpose of this clause is to overturn that balance, and gut the Resource Management Act and a host of other regulation and legislation, not by legally overturning them, but by imposing essentially arbitrary costs on government and local bodies so that they cannot be enforced. It cannot be stressed enough that any regulation can be viewed as interfering with the “use or enjoyment” of property, and thus give rise to a claim for compensation. Building standards, workplace safety standards, food standards, even standard weights and measures could be argued to interfere with “use or enjoyment”. While such claims may very well be resolved in favour of the government under the “reasonable limits” clause, the risk of a challenge (and the associated legal costs) may be enough to deter enforcement, and thus have an adverse effect on public welfare.
7. However, I believe that a concrete right not to be arbitrarily deprived of property is worthy of inclusion in the Bill of Rights. This should follow the form of Article 17(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and focus on “arbitrary deprivation” rather than the “use or enjoyment” language used in the bill. Furthermore, there is a strong consensus in New Zealand that the government should not expropriate or compulsorily acquire property without fair compensation, and this should also be included. I therefore suggest that clause 11B be amended to read

   “No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of their property without just compensation”.

8. I do not wish to make an oral submission to the Select Committee.