Legislation introduced in New Zealand last year effectively prevents non-resident foreigners from purchasing property in New Zealand and although the full details of the implementation are still to be confirmed, it is expected that in future a house or land purchase will only be possible for someone who holds a permanent resident visa and who lived in the country for more than 183 days in the previous year.  New Zealand has seen a rise in property prices recently, and in an attempt to halt the housing crisis non-resident foreigners are being prevented from purchasing land and houses – although it would seem that this does not apply to non-resident New Zealanders (just foreigners)…  Not only is this move most evidently discriminatory (applying different standards to New Zealandars and non-New Zealanders but it seems that it is a move which is gaining support  from otherwise liberal fronts.  There are several questions which arise from this, of which one is why the New Zealand government thinks that preventing sales of houses to non-resident foreigners will help their housing problems – especially seeing as some analysis show that only 3% of house purchases would fall into this category?

New Zealand is not the only country where non-resident foreigners can be found to be purchasing property, London has seen a similar trend recently with regards to the purchase of opulent properties for the mega-rich.  However, preventing the mega-rich from buying exorbitantly priced houses is unlikely to solve the housing problem – since the people who are struggling to find home are not looking for luxury apartments!!  Surely, if there is a housing problem, it is likely to be found amongst the poorer rather than the richer strata of society – in which case banning non-resident foreigners is unlikely to prove anything more than a sop to populist nationalist feeling.

Perhaps the real issue here is not the question of whether or not a nation should limit the purchasing of a house to current residents or citizens; perhaps the real issue here is the conceit of allowing anyone to ‘own’ land.

The planet currently comprises some 7 billion inhabitants, all of whom (I believe), should be possessed of an equal right to live on the earth.  Life on the earth (as far as humans go) requires basic needs; water, food and typically also some form of shelter.  It follows then, that an acceptance of these ‘basic needs’, means that an equal right to life can only be exercised if every individual has equal access to the planet’s resources that can provide those three things.  Yet, equal access to the basic needs for life is inherently incompatible with the ownership of land…

Ownership of something, grants control over that thing – including control over the access to that thing.  Such control therefore provides the owner with the ability to deny that thing to others.  When this concept is applied to land, the owner of a parcel of land is enabled to prevent others from using or accessing that land.  It follows then that in locations where land also provides access to natural resources (everywhere), these resources then also ultimately fall under the control of the owner.  In this way the ownership of land equates to the ownership of natural resources or the production/ renewal of natural resources: after all it is only possible to grow trees if you have land on which trees can be grown.

An additional consideration of the ‘right of control’ is the right to refuse sale: which results in the fact that even someone has has enough money to purchase land, may find themselves unable to do so because the ‘owner’ of that land does not wish to sell.  Combined with the rights of inheritance and succession it is clear that a bias is firmly established in favour of those who were ‘here’ first: meaning that every generation is disadvantaged when compared to any previous generation.

All of which means that humans do not (under the present regime) have an equal right to life.  For as long as we perpetuate the concept of ownership, we perpetuate inequality.   If humans truly wish to be able to hope to create an environment in which there can be real equality, then one of the essential building blocks for that society must be to ensure that all humans have equal access to the basic needs of survival.  In accepting that we have an equal right to life, it seems logical that what should follow is the consideration that we are all equal – be we born in New Zealand or born in any other part of the world.  Policies which treat people differently because of the country of their birth are as discriminatory as those which treat people differently because of the colour of their skin or their gender.

Here is a version of the 17th Century British folk song which was used to protest about the fencing-off of ‘common land’ for personal gain.  For me, it sums up the problem of the ownership of land quite succinctly:

The law locks up the man or woman
Who steals the goose from off the common
But leaves the greater villain loose
Who steals the common from off the goose

The law demands that we atone
When we take things we do not own
But leaves the lords and ladies fine
Who take things that are yours and mine

The poor and wretched don’t escape
If they conspire the law to break
This must be so but they endure
Those who conspire to make the law

The law locks up the man or woman
Who steals the goose from off the common
And geese will still a common lack
Till they go and steal it back