Turei Metiria: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
Turei Metiria: Foreshore and Seabed Bill — In Committee Speaker Recalled In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:17118] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I am very pleased that we have managed to get a call on Part 5 since the Greens have a large number of amendments to it—and I am sure members are all pleased to hear that. I want to describe those amendments to members so that they can be clear about the changes the Greens want to see in Part 5. We are making an amendment to the new clause 79 which concerns section 33 of the Resource Management Act. That deals with the transfer of powers and effectively it allows local government to delegate decision-making authority to a variety of organisations including iwi authorities. The power contained in section 33 to delegate authority has never in the history of the Resource Management Act ever been used to delegate any authority of any description to any Maori organisation—not one single local authority has ever used that provision to delegate decision-making authority to Maori. That is an absolute disgrace. There are many Maori organisations that have expertise and that know and understand the locality to which a variety of decisions could be delegated but never has a local authority used that delegating power.  
We have made amendments to make sure that not just iwi authorities but the holders of customary rights orders the holders of territorial customary rights orders iwi and hapu are able to have any delegated authority given to them from the local authority. Really it is about trying to encourage a cultural change in local government in order to recognise that Maori can be trusted—although of course this Government fails to provide any kind of good model for that because this whole bill is about how Maori cannot be trusted. The Maori MPs in Labour and in New Zealand First clearly understand that this bill is about the failure to trust Maori to do the right thing and to share their resources with the rest of the country. Even given the fact that Maori have been sharing their resources with the whole of the country for the last 150 years—so many of our national parks our national heritage of maunga and lakes directly benefit the community and the nation as a whole because of Maori generosity—this Government fails to provide any kind of model of trust. Local authorities I guess can be excused to a very minor extent for not having any guidance certainly from central government as to how to trust Maori to make decisions about those issues for themselves.  
We have suggested an amendment to clause 86 which concerns the coastal occupation charges. Our amendment would ensure that a territorial customary rights holder would take a share of any coastal occupation charges over any area to which that order applies. It is perfectly reasonable for customary rights holders to have a share in those resources given the limited capacity that any Maori will have to exercise any kind of control over those areas under the new provisions for a territorial customary rights order. Our amendments to clause 89 through to clause 104 will ensure that the holders of customary rights orders and territorial customary rights orders will be taken into account if for example there is a plan change or a resource consent application. Our amendments remove the requirement that it is the council that has the discretion to determine whether a resource consent or plan change will have a significant adverse effect on customary rights. We have taken out that discretion and made it a matter of fact. We have taken out the requirement that it be a significant adverse effect; rather it can simply be an adverse effect. That will ensure that the apparent protection in this bill for customary rights—which are being traded for the customary rights that Maori will get in the courts—actually do have some kind of effect in the Resource Management Act and that councils have to advise the holders of those customary rights orders.  
They should have to tell them if things are happening in the areas to which those orders apply and that does not have to be a significant effect. A significant adverse effect is actually a very high threshold especially if it is left to the local authority to make that decision. If councils are failing to transfer powers under section 33—