English Bill: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
English Bill: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5562] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 In case the—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I suggest that the Government whip should sort that out. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Will people have their disagreement outside the Chamber please. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We are looking at Part 1 of the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) which forms pretty much the whole of the substantial provisions of the bill. The Parliament and those listening may not realise that the progress of this bill through the House has been a constitutional outrage. This bill is very significant legislation which the Parliament has waited on for 4 years and the Government decided there should be no public hearings. I will give one example of why there should be public hearings. 
This bill introduces the concept of ancestral landscapes into the Resource Management Act. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: What? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It introduces the concept of ancestral landscapes. No one knows what that is. We do know that it is land that was owned by one’s ancestors. But according to the commentary on the bill unless one is Maori one does not have ancestors. If one is Maori then the whole of New Zealand could justifiably be called an “ancestral landscape”. Of course the Government will say that no one will see it that way. 
I visited the wahi tapu site that Tony Ryall is talking about. I have no problem with showing respect for the places of the dead; I believe in that. But I do not believe that the cemetery on the top of that hill is 800 acres. I do not believe that anyone ever meant the provision for wahi tapu to do more than protect burial areas. In fact what has happened is that a designation is being used to curtail the rights of owners of whole farms whole hillsides. What will happen to ancestral landscapes? The whole of the area one can see from the top of the hill at Welcome Bay must therefore be an ancestral landscape—and it includes the Mount the beautiful area of Tauranga which is deeply culturally significant to its local people. How could one argue it is not an ancestral landscape? 
Those issues have not been discussed in the Local Government and Environment Committee at all let alone by people who know anything about this. It has been hatched behind closed doors. As my colleague pointed out when the Prime Minister was on television saying “Wahi tapu makes no difference; the council is still in control.” she had come from a Cabinet meeting where legislation was written making ancestral landscapes and wahi tapu one of the highest priorities in the Resource Management Act; making wahi tapu a matter of national importance. 
I say to the Government that this is not how to progress sound cross-cultural understanding in New Zealand. This is pushing it too far; this is pushing against the rights that every New Zealander might have in order to privilege the spiritual values of a few. It is overbalancing the equation. That is why the public and the Parliament deserve the opportunity to discuss the bill; and that is just one provision of the 18 provisions we are talking about—just one. 
This bill removes the capacity of a court to order security for costs from objectors. Whoever asked for that apart from the Greens and Labour? Nobody did. The precise reason people want the Resource Management Act changed is to speed up the processes and to make them less expensive. This bill opens the door wide to every spurious objector imaginable because objectors do not have to offer security for costs. That is a significant step backwards. Has that been discussed by anybody? 
Opposition Members 
: No. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It has not been discussed. The Minister tried to tell the Parliament that this bill was like the No. 1 amendment bill. How many differences are there? 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: There are 18 significant differences. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: But do members know what Marian Hobbs cannot tell the difference. That is the problem. She cannot tell the difference between the original bill and this one. She knows she is supervising a process that is profoundly anti-democratic and the results will be visited on her head. All those people who have sought change in the Resource Management Act for over half a decade have been told to “Get lost!”.