I recently challenged National Party supporters who swear their party is principled to tell readers the top ten ways in which Labour-Lite will roll back the state and promote freedom. I received a predictably tepid response.
So what are their principles worth? Are there any they'll stand up for? Any at all?
You can now definitely rule out property rights.
Their response to Gordon Copeland, promoter of a private members bill to include property rights in the Bill of Rights, demonstrates that property rights are still of no interest whatsoever to the party that introduced the Resource Management Act: Under Don Brash National supported the bill on its first reading, but under the mealy-mouthed flip-flopper they've now told Copeland they've changed their mind. Says Copeland, whose stand on this is worthy of respect and support:
“Even Sir Geoffrey Palmer, known as the father of the New Zealand Bill of Rights, has publicly stated that the omission of private property rights from the NZBOR was a mistake.”Comfirming then that John Key is happy to lend his support to enact Sue Bradford's private member's bill to ban smacking, "would not oppose" Cindy Kiro's proposal that the state monitor all children, but is not interested in any way at all in offering to back a private member's bill asserting the importance of property rights protection.
“Until I was advised to the contrary this morning, I had repeatedly been assured by the National Party that they would be supporting the Bill. I am therefore very disappointed that they have whimped out in this way.”
“To rub salt into the wounds, they have the audacity to continue to claim that their Party ‘strongly support property rights’. Yeah right! Where is that Tui billboard ad?”
Roll back the state? Promote freedom? Don't make me laugh.
And how many of you reading this will still lend your support to the spineless, pink, pathetic Tory bastards. If you see a National MP today then spit in their face. It's all the bastards deserve.
REF: Copeland's original bill is here. The report from the Justice and Electoral select committee is here [pdf]. No friend of property rights, Idiot/Savant summarises what he somewhat broadly calls "Copeland's attempt to establish Libertarianism by stealth," and what Copeland calls more accurately "an issue of ... central important to the functioning of western civilisation":
The bill would have inserted two clauses into the BORA - one affirming a right to own property, and the other that no-one was to be deprived of the "use or enjoyment" of their property without just compensation. While being supportive of the idea behind the bill, the committee thought that it was vague, would have a profound impact on existing legislation, and impose unknown costs on central and local government. Which was of course the point...UPDATE: What respect is there for property rights from NZ's two leading parties? Answer: zero. The National Socialists' backdown shows they have none. And Copeland demonstrates that in refusing their support, neither does the Clark Government.
Some of the Government’s opposition to my Bill stems from the belief that it could complicate the legal interpretation of property rights in relation to the Resource Management Act 1991.” [He sure got that right]See Copeland's statement here at Scoop: Disappointment at Govt Stance on Property Rights - Copeland.
All of this represents a fundamental repositioning of the Labour Party which should concern all New Zealanders. Their interest now is in protecting the Crown against litigation rather than protecting the private property rights of the citizens of New Zealand against the intrusion of the State.