3. GORDON COPELAND (Independent) Link to this
to the Attorney-General
Will the Government support my New Zealand Bill of Rights (Private Property Rights) Amendment Bill, given that former Labour Prime Minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer has said publicly that “I took a deliberate decision to exclude this in the 1980s but on reflection I believe it should be included” in reference to the protection of property rights by the Bill of Rights?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Attorney-General) Link to this
No. My understanding is that the Law Commission, which is headed by Sir Geoffrey Palmer, has taken the view that before any such change should occur, there would need to be a great deal of work on what the legal implications of it might be. That work simply has not been done.
Is the Attorney-General aware that my bill simply adds to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act the property rights contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was enthusiastically supported by Labour Prime Minister Peter Fraser when adopted by the United Nations in 1948; if so, why does the Government want to signal now a contrary intent by opposing this important addition to New Zealand law?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
The language of things like the universal declaration is not necessarily the language one would use in legislation that is enforceable within New Zealand. I think the member has not dealt with those issues. I do notice further, however, that Mr Copeland has an arrangement with National whereby his vote is cast with National in all matters, and that National is opposed to this bill. It appears he may have sold his rights rather too cheaply in that respect.
Russell Fairbrother Link to this
Is he aware of any unintended consequences that may arise from the bill as currently drafted?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
One of the problems I have had drawn to my attention is the use of the word “property”. The courts here and overseas have consistently given the term a very wide and liberal meaning, and the mind boggles at some of the legislative proposals that could fall within the ambit of the bill in that regard.
Is he concerned that my bill would complicate the legal interpretation of property rights in New Zealand in relation to the Resource Management Act and the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill, thus exposing the Crown to possible legal challenges; if so, is it therefore now the position of the Government that it is more important to protect the Crown than to protect the private property rights of the citizens of New Zealand?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN Link to this
No. Of course, if specific legislation passes, then in the context of making certain statements around property rights that would override any bill that the member might have passed by the House in any case.
Madam SPEAKER