Worth Richard: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Worth Richard: Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) — Instruction to CommitteeCWH In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:608;Page:5523] 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 I would like to cover a number of issues as a result of what I hope will be Mr Chairman’s generosity in allowing me multiple calls. But first I commend the Minister for being present in the Chamber during the Committee stage of the bill. Certainly National has high aspirations in respect of this Minister. We hope that she will be able to remain for the entire Committee stage and that she will be able to contribute at various parts of the debating process with regard to the issues that arise in the multiple subparts of Part 1. 
If I may for a moment I would like to traverse the history of the town planning and resource management legislation that we have had in this country because it is relevant to the issue that speakers have spoken about to date in connection with Part 1. The history of town planning legislation in New Zealand has been chequered; there is no doubt about that. We had the first Act in 1926 and it had a very curious feature. When land was down-zoned the citizen whose land had been blighted was entitled to make a claim for compensation. When as a result of up-zoning a property had an increase in its inherent value then the landowner came under an obligation to pay compensation. Those provisions were not continued through in the legislation but they are relevant as we look at this bill and reflect that in the argument that is taking place on historic heritage we are seeing the potential for there to be significant blight on a number of private properties. 
I know that the Resource Management Act is all about striking balances in pursuit of the purposes of the legislation. But one thing that this Government will not grasp is the critical importance of striking that balance in a way that protects private property rights to the greatest extent possible. Georgina te Heuheu has made a very valuable contribution to this debate and I hope that Government members will not overlook what she has said about the definition of historic heritage. I am alarmed by the Minister expressing doubt about the wisdom of including reference to the word “spiritual” in the definition of historic heritage. In entering that reservation she identifies what will be a fundamental problem for those who are tasked with interpreting this legislation. Whether that will be a burden on lawyers on the Government on the Minister in the discharge of her responsibilities or on the Environment Court which is similarly tasked with interpreting this legislation we will see. But it is an appalling start as we commence the debate on Part 1 to have such a significant reservation entered by the Minister. I can only echo her concern as to what the word “spiritual” means. 
Georgina te Heuheu has wisely identified that the provisions that touch the definition of historic heritage will give a real opportunity for those who take the view in this community that Maori are privileged. When Parliament is involved in defining terms in legislation of this type it is really important for it to erect signposts and to give indicators about what words like “spiritual” mean.