Mahuta Nanaia: Resource Management (Enhancement of Iwi Management Plans) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Mahuta Nanaia: Resource Management (Enhancement of Iwi Management Plans) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:665;Page:13001] 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 I have listened to all the contributions in the House on the Resource Management (Enhancement of Iwi Management Plans) Amendment Bill. I thank my Labour colleagues for their contributions and practical experience in terms of the information we have heard as to the positive impact that this bill could have. I am disappointed that National in particular is not supporting the bill but I am not surprised. In the preceding debate Government members stood and said: “But wait. The second tranche of Resource Management Act amendments are issues affecting Maori and will be well dealt with then.” The difficulty with that is they failed to clarify how that would be done and in what way. If the response is just to retain sections 6 7(a) and 8 then frankly that is not good enough. This bill seeks to normalise practices that have arisen as a result of Treaty settlements and as a result of moving towards best practice and placed towards the landscape that we are going to which is beyond Treaty settlements and towards better co-governance co-management practices in relation to resource management. I think that in time on reflection National will see that these small amendments are progressive and a positive way forward. 
I am concerned that many iwi are not able to learn from the experiences of the iwi who have settled earlier. Ngai Tahu was a very good example which was raised by Stevie Chadwick. They have iwi management plans that are more than aspirational high-level statements. They are planning documents that have and can be integrated into the policy plan and rule-making process which in effect will lead to better decision-making about developments protection of areas natural spaces and heritage reserves. 
The bill acts as a carrot not a stick to lift the responsiveness of regional councils to recognise and provide for priorities set out in iwi management plans in the regional policy statement in local authority district plans and to ensure that policies and rules followed by the council give greater recognition in the planning regime to what has been expressed by iwi in their plans. It is a progressive and positive step as I have said. If anyone wants to talk about a step change in working with hapu and iwi in the planning landscape then I think this is it. I regret that members on the other side of the House failed to recognise that in taking this step forward the community and the public at large will have a better opportunity to understand how Maori perceive their natural environment and the planning challenges that result from trying to provide for that perspective because it is difficult. 
I want to point briefly to the legal advice I received from the Office of the Attorney-General in relation to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act test. In particular I am quoting from paragraphs 9 and 10: “Arguably and placing greater weight on IMPs clause 5 of the bill draws a distinction indirectly on the basis of race. This is because it distinguishes between planning documents generated by groups that are predominantly Maori and those that include non-Maori. Nevertheless in our view the provision does not give rise to discrimination because it does not create any substantive disadvantage. In reaching this view we have noticed that section 6(e) of the Act already requires all persons exercising functions and powers under the Act to recognise and provide for the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with the ancestral lands water sites wahi tapu and other taonga. This provision needs to be read with section 7(a) and 8 of the Act. Section 7(a) requires decision makers to pay particular regard to kaitiakitanga or Maori stewardship. Section 8 requires decision makers to take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.” 
So the bill passes the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act test. By virtue of including iwi management plans into the planning regime we know that the process is better. In my first reading speech I cited a small number of examples in my electorate that have frustrated hapu and led to this particular bill. It is about bringing the interests of hapu and iwi to the front end of the planning regime towards a more integrated response to deal with planning challenges so that communities and iwi can deal with it at a practical level. Maori just like anyone else want to preserve their natural environment and their cultural and historical heritage as they want to be a partner to the development of their lands and coastal spaces. The bill is about finding a practical solution to a shared future in integrated resource management. They are largely aspirational statements but they can be much more than that. The bill will set a pathway for greater recognition that they should and can be integrated into the planning process at a local government level. I commend the bill to the House.