Baldock Larry: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Baldock Larry: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5519] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the issues in clause 3 and the matters surrounding the definition of “historic heritage”. I wish to draw members’ attention to the amendment I have put on the Table to deal with some of the things that have been discussed. We have heard a great deal of concern regarding these definitions and they also refer to clause 4 where the matters of historic heritage are given national importance. This also relates to the debate. We have received a number of comments from people and letters about the possible ramifications of this. 
I want to begin by making something very clear. Simon Upton’s original bill contained the concept of elevating historic heritage to matters of national importance. The wording was slightly different and it was amended by the select committee but the concept was the same. I agree with Simon Upton. I believe that matters of historic heritage have to be of national significance and national importance to us as a nation. If we agree that these sites of historic heritage are of national importance then it does lead to the next question as to the issue of private property rights who pays for compensation and the cost of protecting those sites and that will be a matter for further discussion and perhaps another amendment bill. But let us be clear: there has been no substantive change to the concept of elevating historic heritage to matters of national importance. 
The second issue that has caused concern is the definition of historic heritage. The words “spiritual” “cultural landscapes” and “ancestral landscapes” have really stirred up the concerns of many. These words were added by the select committee in the last Parliament. That select committee was entirely entitled to do that and it happened after the select committee had listened to the submitters and made amendments. This happens all the time in the parliamentary process. Select committees are entitled to make changes to the bill after having listened to submitters. It does mean though that the public did not have a chance to say what they thought about those definitions. I do not even know whether any of the original submitters requested those definitions but the select committee put them in. 
To be entirely clear here though I point out that by the rewriting of the bill from the No 1 version to the No 2 version and sending it back to the select committee without public submissions no rights were being denied to the public of New Zealand. It would have been exactly the same if the No 1 bill had been presented to the committee in its 18 parts. The only opportunity for the public to comment would be via their elected MP as he or she spoke on their behalf during the Committee stage which is what we are doing right now. 
But people’s concerns are always important and that is why I have moved this amendment. There does need to be a distinction however between genuine concerns and frivolous nonsensical ones like the ones that Dr Smith raises when he pretends that he cannot distinguish between protecting sites of spiritual significance and protecting spirits. The definition in clause 3(7)(a) makes it very clear that this means those natural and physical resources that contribute to an understanding and an appreciation of New Zealand’s history and cultures. It is dealing with natural and physical resources and to begin to suggest that the bill would be protecting taniwha is frivolous. In fact it goes as far as scaremongering which was what the reporter from the  
New Zealand Herald 
 said they were about when they had their rebel select committee in Auckland. I would hate to have that member as my neighbour if I was applying for resource consent because he would raise all kinds of frivolous objections to anything I proposed to do and he would be part of the problem of the resource management process not part of the answer. 
The truth is that there are places that have spiritual significance like sites in the Middle East: Jerusalem Mount Zion and Mecca. Here in New Zealand there will be similar places. The idea that this bill was going to be used to protect taniwha is ridiculous and should be discarded. My purpose however in moving this amendment is not to ignore the relevance of spiritual places cultural landscapes and ancestral landscapes. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: A war memorial would be one. 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: That is right. War memorials would fall into that category. My purpose in moving this amendment is to remove any confusion over the use of these terms and to recognise the fact that these categories are adequately covered by other definitions already included. For example I have had difficulty in thinking of a spiritual site that is not also an historic site and of course that would be the case in the international examples.