Shirley Ken: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
Shirley Ken: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5589] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
:  
I would like to carry on that point because I think we are all pleased to see the removal of ancestral landscapes and cultural landscapes. That is a clear nonsense and what we have here is an admission from the Government that its thinking was astray and was awry. But the point has been made that we have not removed the reference to wahi tapu. In fact we learnt earlier today that the Government has just pumped a whole lot more money—$23 million—so that we can facilitate this process of establishing a wahi tapu over tracts of New Zealand land. But what is of real concern to me—I am not sure that members of the Committee are aware of the process or how it operates. Clearly the schedules in the bill do not address the problem that we are confronted with because there is no requirement. The wording specifically says in regard to wahi tapu that one does not have to specify the area it can be a general area and one does not have to specify the reason. That is just unbelievable. 
The Welcome Bay example is a classic. A group of Maori landowners adjacent to the site where these four property owners were applied through the process to have a wahi tapu declared. It was declared. In spite of what the Prime Minister said on television it was taken out of the local authority’s hands and under this bill it is now elevated to a matter of national importance. We know what that means under the Resource Management Act—the local body’s hands are tied. So this mystical designation—one does not have to specify what the wahi tapu is for or where specifically it might be—can now be imported on to private land in that case by a group of adjacent landowners. 
The interesting thing is that they were engaged in exactly the same activities on their land and did not want the potential for those four landowners to perhaps do a subdivision or development in what is essentially a prime near-coastal environment. It was an anti-competitive measure nothing more nothing less. Here we are right at the end of this debate addressing the schedules. Although the Government has been beaten into submission on the nonsense and nonsensical definitions that it had it was not prepared to go to a select committee because if it had the submitters would clearly have pointed out the appalling wording that the Government had. Finally the Government has backed down. 
It is a trophy for United Future; clearly its members have been working overtime because I read Mr Baldock’s press release yesterday. He obviously had it in the bag at that stage— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Two trophies this week! 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: That is right. And taxing sherry yesterday was a United Future little trophy—self-contained in the silo outside the Budget! But getting back to the wahi tapu we still have that term in this bill and under the procedures of how that is designated it is now “national importance”; one does not have to specify where it is. One does not have to specify what it is about and it can be imposed on private property. That is an outrageous provision. The nonsense of it all is that the Minister in the chair says that this bill is all about facilitating and streamlining the process of resource management. That is even stated in the introductory comment to the bill. Who in his or her right mind believes that that is the case? This measure will be abused up and down the country. So even at this late stage I implore the Minister. She backed down on the ancestral landscapes she backed down on the—what was the other one? 
Brian Connell 
: Heritage— 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Yes well they are both heritage provisions. But surely one can see the nonsense that is proposed to be imported into this legislation with the wahi tapu measure. 
I invite the Minister to perhaps take a call. If she will not then could she explain to the Committee why she is not prepared to do that. Perhaps the Minister could respond to the comments I have made in terms of the way wahi tapu can be declared with no specification ofwhat it is about or where it is. It can just be a general area and a general request. That is not good enough when we are dealing with other people’s property rights. It is just applied right across anywhere in this country and it will be used as a tool for non-competitive measures. That was the case at Welcome Bay in Tauranga. A group of landowners virtually wrote in and said: “We want to declare this a wahi tapu area.” Some of the depressions they claimed were in the land were actually an old fence line.