< link rel="DCTERMS.isreplacedby" href="http://sirhumphreys.com" > Sir Humphrey's: Outright Lies #15

SIR HUMPHREY'S BLOG

SITE MOVED:Sir Humphrey's has moved

Please join us at our new site: www.sirhumphreys.com.

The RSS feed for sirhumphreys.com is now here.

Friday, September 09, 2005

Outright Lies #15

The Greens are claiming the EB brochures are filled with outright lies. I'm having a look at the claims, one by one, to see how the EB may have formed their opinion.

Outright lie #15: The Greens voted against protecting private property rights

NZ has a Bill of Rights. The only thing it doesn't cover is a person's right to own property. The fact that this is ommitted from the Bill of Rights is significant. You only need to look at history to see why. But before I get all philosophical, lets just stick to the issue. ACT put forward an amendment to the Bill Of Rights to include protection of property rights. It was knocked back. Gordon Copeland of United Future put it forward again. The amendment to the Bill of Rights with two very simple clauses:
11A Right to own property
Everyone has the right to own property, whether alone or in association with others.

11B Right not to be arbitrarily deprived of property
No person is to be deprived of the use or enjoyment of that person's property without just compensation."
Where does one start on such a huge topic? Suffice to say, there is a large body of work, the sum of many great minds, that believe property rights are an essential part of successful societies. Here is a brief submission that encapsulates the bare bones of this discussion, by our very own NZ experts in the field, the Libertarianz: NZ Bill of Rights, and a nice summary from the Property Council of NZ: Private Property Rights Should be Enshrined in the NZ Bill of Rights. The Greens voted against the ACT amendment and they have declared they will vote against the United Future Amendment. They remain convinced there is no need to enshrine protection of property in a Bill of Rights. I encourage all readers to consider deeply the value of clearly defined property rights. It might start to explain the mess we call the RMA.

Anyway, the Greens do not support enshrining the protection of property rights in the Bill of Rights. Their opinion is that a persons right to own property, and be compensated for their loss, is not "in the same category as the right to life or the right to vote." Maori take note. And the EB's are yet again correct.

Verdict: Guilty

Posted by ZenTiger | 9/09/2005 08:26:00 pm