Shirley Ken: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Shirley Ken: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5517] 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I would like to indicate that I will need a number of calls given the complexity of this bill. Speaking to Part 1 I would firstly like to rebut some of the comments just made by Jill Pettis. She clearly does not understand what this bill is all about. Her plea for an “inclusive” and “holistic” way forward sounds wonderful but it is bumper stickers. We are talking about the Resource Management Act here. It is meant to cover the sustainable management of natural and physical resources and therein lies one of the fundamental flaws in this legislation. It has been captured by interest groups over the last 10 years and its scope has been broadened to such an extent that it means whatever you want it to mean. It is something out of  
Alice in Wonderland 
. Things like kaitiakitanga are undefined and the question we should be asking ourselves is whether this amendment bill before us tonight will improve the situation or compound the problem? I put it to you that it will compound the problem. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member must not bring me into the debate. He should put it to the members. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I put it to “you” in the collective sense. That is not addressing you in the second person Mr Chairman. OK I put it to you once more—all of you; I put it to you all. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can you say that you will put it to members? That would be more appropriate. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I put it to all of you members—not “you” in the second person. I put it to you that— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Members. “I put it to you members” if you must Mr Shirley. If you just use the word “you” it is referring to me. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The Standing Orders make quite clear that you cannot use the second person. The word “you” can be used in the third person. It is not confined to the second person. 
What we have in this bill is the introduction—under the definition of historic heritage—of terms like “spiritual and cultural”. How do they fit with basic legislation that is meant to cover the sustainable management of natural and physical resources? Spiritual by definition is metaphysical. How on earth does that belong here? That will just compound the problems we already have with the Resource Management Act. Then we clip on further definitions in clause 3(7) such as “cultural landscapes”. What on earth is that? We do not have it in the definitions so that does not help. Then we have “ancestral landscapes”. What on earth is an ancestral landscape? I have forebears who were here before the treaty but does that help me? Not a lot. It is nonsense; it is gobbledygook. 
The member for Whanganui had a lot to say about how we should be “inclusive” and “holistic” as we move forward. When we are producing legislation that is just gobbledygook. 
Jill Pettis 
: I am at least trying to be forward-looking. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: What does it actually mean though? When we are acting as legislators as we are in this House we have to be very careful how we use words. How will our legal frameworks interpret that? We know that we have had 10 years of agony with the Resource Management Act—given the lack of case history and case law and the litigationassociated with that—and here we are tonight throwing in a whole lot more ill-defined nebulous concepts. Fine they have their own merits but they do not belong in this legislation; they belong somewhere else. I would actually be critical of the last Government. I believe that it was a mistake in public policy to clip “heritage” on to the Resource Management Act. That was not a smart thing to do and that is really what triggered us down this path. 
We then come to “biological diversity”—another bumper sticker. What on earth does it mean? I was part of a United Nations process culminating in the Rio process which signed up to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. It started out as a country report and it was meant to protect macro-fauna like the Bengal tiger and the white rhino but now we are applying it to property rights. That is a nonsense.