Resource Management (Enhancement of Iwi Management Plans) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Resource Management (Enhancement of Iwi Management Plans) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 21 July 2010. Volume:665;Page:12593. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Resource Management (Enhancement of Iwi Management Plans) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 I move  
That the Resource Management (Enhancement of Iwi Management Plans) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 I am pleased to introduce this bill to the House to affirm greater recognition of tangata whenua interests in the resource management and local government planning process. As stated in the explanatory note “The purpose of this bill is to strengthen the provisions by which iwi management plans influence regional and district plans and policies”. Clause 5 of the bill introduces an amendment that would mean iwi management plans would be elevated in the planning hierarchy recognising and providing for the interests of tangata whenua when it comes to developments in their rohe. The intention is that the cultural environmental and heritage interests of tangata whenua are considered more effectively at the front end of the planning process rather than at adversarial often lengthy resource consent hearings. 
I believe that this bill strengthens the intent of sections 6 7(a) and 8 of the Resource Management Act by setting out the priorities of iwi in their management plans. This bill also promotes in a practical way the intent of section 5 of the Resource Management Act to achieve an integrated response that footnotes the whole notion of sustainable management. Maori have a huge contribution to make in this space and too often they have been left on the periphery rather than being critical to the outcome. I am optimistic that given the National-led Government’s new-found relationship with iwi and Maori this bill may get to select committee. Indeed if the Maori Party can see the value of this bill then I would hope the Government would endorse its judgment as the bill is progressive in its intention. 
Not so long ago the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu (Claims) Waikato River Settlement Act passed its third and final reading in this House with a significant majority. That settlement provided for a co-governance and co-management framework to address a longstanding concern amongst Waikato iwi that the degradation of the Waikato River be addressed. That settlement makes provision for statutory recognition of a vision and strategy that seeks to create an integrated management approach to cleaning up the river and more important forging a common ambition amongst iwi local government landowners Government agencies industry and the community. 
Some of the mechanisms to achieve change require accords joint management agreements and a broader context for considering land-based activity and its effects on waterways. I expect several more settlements will look to this model as a means of defining a unique approach to catchment management of waterways and engaging effectively with iwi and central and local government. 
The bill seeks to normalise a way of doing things that has been achieved to date only as a result of Treaty settlements. I have heard numerous examples throughout my electorate where negative encounters with the Resource Management Act have led iwi to oppose resource consents because of a lack of engagement with tangata whenua or any recognition of their concerns. Iwi management plans are just part of the picture and should be integrated across council planning and policy processes. In order for them to be effective they must be developed as planning documents that preserve the integrity of tangata whenua aspirations but are able to be utilised by regional councils and territorial authorities in the planning process. 
To achieve this a dedicated work stream for iwi councils and the Ministry for the Environment would be necessary. Undoubtedly this will signal a new way of doing things with some councils having to engage the participation of iwi through their regional policy statement consultation processes. I believe this bill sets a uniform approach to achieving best practice. This change will result in the setting of better planning and policy-making decisions rules and internal operational practices for council and more effective outcomes. I have thought about the issue of cost and foreshadowed that there will be a fiscal impact that might be better considered in full by the select committee process as it will involve iwi and local and central government. 
I want to highlight just a few examples from my electorate Hauraki-Waikato as there is a problem that needs to be fixed. Ngati Te Ata is situated in the south of Tamaki Makaurau the Auckland isthmus. Their interest to protect ancient burial sites at Maioro in Waiuku and historical sites at Matukutureia in Wiri are well documented in the Manukau claim yet their representation to protect their heritage and special landscapes have been fraught with conflict frustrated by process and delayed by inaction. A long period of time has passed since their interests were brought to light substantially in the 1980s. But that has been a long and drawn-out process. Against the backdrop of the Auckland super-city reform this amendment would give greater assurance to iwi who want to protect their natural heritage and historical sites. 
Across the Hauraki Gulf I think about Whangamata. Hapu and iwi there lodged objections to the Whangamata marina on the basis that their traditional fishing and harvesting grounds would be detrimentally affected. Even though the Resource Management Act provided for recognition of kaitiakitanga and the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi those hapu presented their information to the Environment Court to Ministers to local MPs and to anyone who would listen but their interests were secondary to the economic potential of the marina. The chairperson of the Hauraki Maori Trust Board even declared that they were not anti-development but their customary interests in the area had been totally ignored. 
If this amendment were to proceed iwi could have had a proactive discussion about a development proposal with their priorities clearly outlined in the council planning documents and relevant policies and rules applying to consents in sensitive spaces. There would also be a clear point of engagement for developers wanting to meet with iwi. Out on the west coast in the small community called Marokopa the efforts of one woman on behalf of her hapu Ngati Tupoho has led to the preservation and protection of sand dunes and a sandspit in the area. Her dogged determination has at times seen her efforts conflict with those of the community wanting to enjoy access to this coastal area but her intent to be a kaitiaki in a very real way cannot be faulted. 
The benefit of this amendment would provide greater protection for her to continue the good work that has been done and it would also provide better access to information and points of engagement for the larger community in terms of recognising this special and historically significant place. 
I come back to the Waikato. Near the river at Horotiu archaeological sites had been excavated in the past. This is the case throughout this stretch of the river as the sand was particularly useful for lining kumara pits and preserving the kumara over winter. Although these sites are protected there is an application to build approximately 5 metres from the pits. The applicant argues that although the site is preserved and protected it is not damaged by this development. This site is on private land. The benefit of the amendment that I am putting to the House today would be that whether on private or public land Maori or general land all would be subject to clause 6 which amends section 75(2) “to allow territorial authorities to state resource management issues of particular interest to local iwi in their district plans.” 
There are other examples too numerous and equally important to outline in the House. But whether the issue is discharge in waterways dirty dairying practices sewage effluent being discharged into harbours developments in small coastal villages a change in land use intensification of farming practices or mining practices out in the exclusive economic zone or on conservation land tangata whenua have been involved in consenting processes and too often at the back end. The Resource Management Act can and should work better and we should not have to wait for a Treaty settlement. There is simply a better way of doing things by including at the front end of the planning process engaging council and territorial authorities more positively with the aspirations of iwi. After all there is a dearth of Maori representation on councils and a legislative imperative would ensure proactive engagement with tangata whenua in the planning and policy-making process. 
I am a firmly believer that if something needs fixing then do it. Since its inception the Resource Management Act has undergone a number of iterations. Some changes were driven by sheer political ideology; others were technical changes resulting from the practical experience of implementing the intention of the Resource Management Act. This amendment seeks to rebalance the interest of tangata whenua in the planning environment to have greater regard to the cultural spiritual historical and environmental values of iwi. I am hopeful that during the debate today members may consider the positive contribution that this bill can make to the resource management and planning decisions of local government. In many ways it will simplify and streamline more effective engagement with Maori. Kia ora. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 I am very pleased to speak on the Resource Management (Enhancement of Iwi Management Plans) Amendment Bill in the name of the Hon Nanaia Mahuta. As the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee which considered the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill I am very cognisant of the issues raised by this bill and the fact that we keep visiting the Resource Management Act to change it yet again. But let us step back for a moment and consider the progress that has already been made in the area of resource management. 
Stage one of our reforms saw this Government streamline and simplify the Resource Management Act to ensure a better balance of environmental protection with economic growth. That has achieved good positive outcomes for all concerned without incurring unnecessary delays and excessive costs. 
We removed the pervasive presence of the Resource Management Act in matters of low-level environmental significance by defining the activities that should not require consent and that means they will have a smoother pathway to approval. For example a great deal of time and money was wasted in issuing 4500 consents annually for trimming pruning and removing non-scheduled trees in a number of urban councils. 
The whole process was undertaken in order to simplify and streamline the Resource Management Act so as to make better progress without compromising the ideals of environmental protection. The reforms reinforce National’s blue-green message that being pro-environment does not equate to being pro - red tape. We have already achieved much in reforming the Resource Management Act so let us not look backwards but let us take a step forward together. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave for the member to have his full allotment of time restored if he cares to pick up the research notes for the bill currently being debated by the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: That was not a point of order. I say to the member that points of order are made about the order of the House. Points of order are not to be used to break up a member’s speech. That was in my opinion a deliberate tactic to break up the member’s speech. I warn the member against it. Please let the speech flow. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: I can appreciate what this bill is trying to achieve. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Which bill? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: The bill that we are speaking about and that I have been speaking about throughout. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Are you sure? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: I cannot be responsible for the lack of comprehension on the part of members opposite—they will catch up in due course. 
The bill aims to strengthen the provisions by which iwi management plans or IMPs influence regional and district plans and policies and elevate their status in the planning hierarchy. Under this bill regional councils will be required to recognise and provide for iwi management plans as opposed to taking into account these plans as is legislated now. However I believe it would be a retrograde step to introduce this legislation because there will be ample opportunity to debate these issues in phase two of the reforms of the Resource Management Act. 
One of the four objectives of the phase two reforms is achieving efficient and improved participation of Maori in the resource management process so I think it would be unhelpful to pre-empt these discussions or indeed limit the possibilities. I am certainly not unsympathetic towards the proposal of the bill; I am looking just at the process. 
I am confident that through the process of the phase two reforms we will ultimately have legislation that will ensure that Maori and iwi can be sufficiently involved in participating in the resource management process. In fact I understand that the Ministry for the Environment is working on means to improve iwi involvement through iwi management plans in the Resource Management Act processes. There are three options on the table. 
Option one is to change the statutory weight of iwi management plans. Increasing the policy weighting means that the key content of and outcomes sought by iwi management plans can be given more consideration in Resource Management Act planning processes. Option two is the definition and minimum requirements for iwi management plans. The option proposes identifying a list of matters that must be considered as a minimum requirement of an iwi management plan. The matters should be identified during consultation with iwi Maori and ideally could include environmental outcomes sought resource management issues of significance Maori customary values and processes for meaningful engagement with local authorities. 
Option three is the lodgement and the register of iwi management plans. The lodgement process would require the chief executive of the relevant authority to send a copy of a lodged iwi management plan to the Ministry for the Environment or to Te Puni Kokiri. There would be a new corresponding obligation on central government to keep and to maintain a central register of iwi management plans. The register could be made publicly available to promote the sharing of information among iwi and hapu and assist local authorities and resource consent applicants in locating iwi management plans. 
I am looking forward to the cost-benefit analysis of each of the options as I am sure that we will all be open to discussions on these options as we work through the process of finding the best solution to the situation. 
I point out that there are some fundamental problems with this bill. Elevating the status of iwi management plans to the level proposed in the bill would represent a significant step change in how non-statutory plans are considered under the Resource Management Act. The bill would elevate iwi management plans to a status similar to that of nationally important projects which are dealt with in section 6 of the Resource Management Act. I do not think that that is the way forward. It would mean that iwi would have the power to influence or bring to a standstill district plans if they varied from iwi management plans. I think that would be unhelpful and it would hinder progress. 
These provisions were amended in 2004. It is a matter of balance. Previous decision makers were required to have regard to iwi management plans. In 2004 that changed to “take into account.” I believe this was and still is a sensible approach and a balanced approach but I am sure we can further discussions during phase two of the reforms. 
I say in conclusion that the National-led Government is making fantastic progress on Resource Management Act reforms. Phase one went a long way to reducing costs uncertainty and delays which have frustrated New Zealand homeowners small businesses and farmers for years. Phase two will address aquaculture the new structure of the Environmental Protection Authority freshwater management urban design and infrastructure issues. 
The Resource Management (Enhancement of Iwi Management Plans) Amendment Bill would in fact be an awkward distraction from this progress. Regardless of the fact that it has fundamental problems we must remember that one of the four objectives of phase two reforms is achieving efficient and improved participation of Maori in the resource management process. I look forward to being part of those discussions. We will therefore be voting against this bill. Thank you. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 Our Resource Management Act can and should work better when it comes to involving iwi in the planning and consent process. As a House we should be proactive in creating good legislation that strengthens the constructive relationship between Maori and consent authorities. I would like to take this call firstly to congratulate my colleague the Hon Nanaia Mahuta on putting forward a bill that does just that and secondly—despite the speech we have just heard from Mr Auchinvole—to encourage all parties in the House to support the legislation. 
Currently the law provides that those exercising power are required to have regard for kaitiakitanga which has been translated as guardianship over our natural environment and for the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Consent authorities are therefore required to consult iwi and to give consideration to any relevant documents prepared by them. However the way things are currently structured iwi input may be poorly integrated into the plans of local authorities. 
Maori have no real way as of right to participate in planning except to object through the consents process causing delays and resulting in a few positive outcomes while at the same time being potentially divisive because of the adversarial nature of the objections process. Partnership and good faith which are both Treaty principles that suggest working together are not fulfilled by this process. Instead we take an unconstructive and adversarial approach to these matters. It is not the right way to do things. 
Nanaia Mahuta’s bill seeks to remedy this by ensuring that more weight will be given to iwi concerns early in the planning and consenting process. It encourages a greater level of engagement between iwi authorities and resource management stakeholders. This would shift iwi to a position of front-end participation providing better outcomes for all involved and having more public support than has been garnered in previous situations because of the front-end rather than post hoc nature of the input that the bill would provide for. 
As Nanaia Mahuta said the bill also seeks to normalise a way of doing things as opposed to the current situation where those involved often have to wait for a Treaty settlement to have the way in which they want things to be done formalised. A recent example is where provision has been made for statutory recognition of the vision and strategy in the Waikato River settlement legislation. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Yeah and that’s costing a million bucks a year. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: I am sorry to disagree with the learned view being shouted across the House by Sandra Goudie but that legislation looks to create an integrated management approach to cleaning up the Waikato River and developing a goal common to iwi local government landowners Government agencies industry and the wider community— 
Sandra Goudie 
: It’s a big costly bureaucracy.  
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: —and no shouted voice from the 1960s across the House can negate that. 
It is a strongly held belief in the Labour Party that things get done better faster and to the benefit of everyone when people work with rather than against each other. This bill would extend that value to an area of the law where it is sadly lacking at the moment. I listened carefully to Chris Auchinvole’s speech setting out the reasons why the National Party will not be supporting this legislation. Basically he told us not to worry because these matters would be dealt with in phase two of the review of the Resource Management Act. Well we will see; maybe they will and maybe they will not. 
Why not vote to send this legislation to the Local Government and Environment Committee? That is what I say to National members—and I see that the Minister for the Environment as well as the chair of the select committee are present in the House tonight. When submissions are heard on the second phase of the Resource Management Act reforms submissions could be heard on this legislation too and the House will perhaps gain some assurance that the matters referred to in Nanaia Mahuta’s bill are being dealt with in an adequate way. I commend that course of action and I commend Nanaia Mahuta’s bill to the House. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the Resource Management (Enhancement of Iwi Management Plans) Amendment Bill. I thank the Hon Nanaia Mahuta for this bill and for raising the issue of iwi management plans. 
This bill aims to strengthen the provisions by which iwi management plans influence regional and district plans and policies and elevate their status in the planning hierarchy. Under this bill regional councils would be required to “recognise and provide for” iwi management plans as opposed to what is legislated now which is to “take into account” those plans. Charles Chauvel has spoken eloquently of Maori being involved in the front end of Resource Management Act issues. This bill does nothing to change the process; it merely elevates the status. It would be another change to the status of iwi management plans because this bill’s provisions were amended in 2004. Previously decision makers were required to “have regard to” iwi management plans and in 2004 this was changed to “take into account”. 
National does not support this bill. We are already involved in a process of updating and reforming the Resource Management Act which includes reforms to increase Maori participation in the Resource Management Act process. Phase one of the reforms was the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Act and that Act went a long way towards reducing costs uncertainties and delays that had frustrated New Zealand homeowners small businesses and farmers for many years. During that process we heard a lot about iwi management plans and learnt that although some iwi have detailed plans and have used the process very effectively others have not. Ngai Tahu the South Island iwi and the iwi of my home town Christchurch have a comprehensive set of iwi management plans. They have found that their plans have been taken into consideration and have been very useful. However there is a lack of consistency on the number and quality of iwi plans across the country. As a first step all iwi should be encouraged to develop iwi plans and this bill would do nothing for iwi if they did not have plans in place. 
National’s reform of the Resource Management Act is continuing. We are now on to our second phase of reforms which will address aquaculture the new structure of the Environmental Protection Authority freshwater management urban design and infrastructure issues. National has already identified the need for more Maori participation in the Resource Management Act process. One of the four objectives of the second phase of reforms is “providing for efficient and improved participation of Maori in resource management processes.” We believe that will be a better way to ensure iwi plans are recognised and provided for without additional legislative complexity. 
We therefore conclude that concerns of Maori will be more effectively considered through phase two of the Resource Management Act reforms than under the Resource Management (Enhancement of Iwi Management Plans) Amendment Bill. 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora koutou. The Resource Management (Enhancement of Iwi Management Plans) Amendment Bill that we are discussing clearly seeks to enhance the status of iwi management plans in developing district plans and regional policy statements. It does this through a very simple mechanism of changing some language within the Resource Management Act from “take into account” to “recognise and provide for”. As politicians—and for some indeed as lawyers—we know the power of language. Language matters. This is a very simple but very appropriate change to make in the context of the wider legislation. 
As a party committed to te Tiriti and to recognising Maori as tangata whenua the Greens are very happy to support this bill and the intention underpinning it which is to enhance the role mana whenua play in the management and development of the rohe. It is a very small step towards more comprehensive acknowledgment of rangatiratanga. 
It seems that much of the opposition to this bill—in particular to the notion of enhancing iwi management plans and more generally to a deeper level of Maori engagement in resource management—comes from a fear I think of conflict between Maori activity ideas and developments and environmental protection or indeed economic development. For many people these things cannot coexist. Clearly this is an ill-founded fear and it is simply not true. There are numerous examples of why it is not true. 
In a technical sense this particular bill’s giving a stronger foundation and a higher status to iwi management plans would not elevate the plans to a level where they could in any way compromise or threaten the overarching primary criterion of the Resource Management Act which is the promotion of sustainable management. Section 6(e) of the Act already recognises and provides for iwi concerns. The sky has not fallen. This is not a veto right; it is simply a means of adding more weight to Maori issues Maori concerns and Maori aspirations. 
I studied resource management at Lincoln University in 1993-94 only a couple of years after the Resource Management Act had come into force. At that time there was considerable optimism within Maoridom that this very new radically different regime would give Maori greater opportunities to be actively involved and to affect the management of our natural and physical resources. Some very high-quality analysis and review were done through the resource management law review process of the late 1980s; again this was cause for optimism. I had the good fortune to be influenced by some of the people at the centre for Maori studies at Lincoln University as it was then not least one Hirini Matunga who had some extraordinarily innovative and creative ideas about how Maori and non-Maori planning processes could run in parallel in tandem and give us richer and deeper outcomes. Sadly a lot of that early promise has not been fulfilled largely because Maori have constantly found themselves struggling to find that point of entry to get real influence and some traction in terms of creating these high-level documents—the district plans the policy statements. They are constantly forced into a position of reaction and objection which is not helpful. 
The Maori world view is naturally integrative. The Resource Management Act was intended to enhance integrated management at an ecosystem level a regional level and a catchment level. Maori do this almost intuitively. But we are not seeking to rely simply on some spiritual or cultural value. I have personally witnessed some extremely good work done by young Maori students of mine their peers and their own teachers who are looking for creative ways of blending Western science and Western economic and cultural norms and practices with matauranga Maori with Maori knowledge and with Maori aspirations. These models exist; they could be applied. This bill in raising the status of iwi management plans would be a useful step towards encouraging much better outcomes for Maori and non-Maori alike. Kia ora koutou. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Kia ora ano tatau katoa. E te tuahine ka mihi ra ki a koe mo te ahuatanga o to pire e wanangatia nei e te Whare i tenei po. Kia mohio mai koe ka tautoko te Pati Maori i tou na hiahia ahakoa tera pea ko te ahua nei ka kore e eke. Hoi ano me mihi ra ki a koe ka tika. E tika ana kia korerohia tenei pire i tenei wa tonu nei i te taenga mai o te tangata me ki te kaituhi mo nga take iwi taketake o te Runanga Whakakotahi i te Ao ara the United Nations special 
rapporteur on indigenous peoples’ rights 
  
a 
Professor James Anaya 
kua tae mai ki Aotearoa nei ki te ata titiro i te ahuatanga o te noho o te Ao Maori nga iwi taketake ki konei. E tiakina ana ae ranei kaore ranei ka mutu ki te kimi rongoa. 
[ 
Greetings once again to us all. I acknowledge you sister parliamentarian in respect of your bill being debated by the House tonight. I want you to know that the Maori Party endorses your desire even though it seems likely that it will not succeed. But we must congratulate you all the same. That is the least we can do. How timely it is that this bill is being debated at this very moment with the arrival of the special rapporteur of the United Nations Professor James Anaya who has arrived in New Zealand to take a close look at how Maoridom the indigenous people exist here— whether they are they protected yes or no and further to that to seek remedies. 
] 
Kua hara mai na runga i te ahuatanga o te whakaputanga o te Runanga Whakakotahi i nga Iwi o te Ao mo nga Tika o nga Iwi Taketake. Professor James Anaya has arrived on New Zealand shores. He does so in the context of the New Zealand Government’s support for the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. 
Ko taku e pirangi nei ko te whakatakoto i tetahi wahanga o tera Whakataunga ara ko te article 25. Article 25 of that document states: “Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinctive spiritual relationship with their traditionally owned or otherwise occupied and used lands territories waters and coastal seas and other resources and to uphold their responsibilities to future generations in this regard.” 
No reira kei reira tonu te tuara o taku korero he tautoko he mihi tonu ki te Honore Nanaia Mahuta mo tana hiahia ki te whakatakoto i tenei pire ki mua i te aroaro o te Whare Paremata. We congratulate the Hon Nanaia Mahuta on taking the initiative to put the Resource Management (Enhancement of Iwi Management Plans) Amendment Bill into the ballot—an initiative that we believe serves the intent of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to keep our natural resources and environment healthy safe and intact for future generations. 
The Maori Party will certainly support the initiative taken by this bill to elevate the status of iwi management plans as they relate to the setting of regional policy statements and district plans. It is a bill that has been a long time coming. It responds to the poor integration of iwi management plans into local authority plans and policies by strengthening the provisions that enable iwi management plans to influence planning and policy. In doing so it fits with the key policy position of the Maori Party which is to promote whanau hapu and iwi as kaitiaki and support moves to restore this role to them. 
So we are even more determined to acknowledge the initiative of this bill in putting into legislation aspirations and commitments that will ensure that the intent of the Resource Management Act is honoured. We would go so far as to make a suggestion to the Hon Nanaia Mahuta if by chance the bill was lucky enough to go through. It would be that she strengthen the provision in clause 6 that allows councils to state issues of significance to the iwi. There is no specific or compulsory requirement to include issues of significance to iwi but merely a provision for councils to act only if they want to. We know how the notion of “voluntary” works in relation to compliance especially compliance with the Treaty. The opportunity for mana whenua to be involved is a key ingredient that we would say needed to be put into the bill. 
We also would speak about the new models of negotiation and I would recommend that we consider the recent Te Atiawa Ngati Toa and Ngati Raukawa initiative to form a regional ropu to collectively liaise with all of the councils in their rohe. That is the sort of stuff that I am sure the Hon Nanaia Mahuta would be putting up and it should be supported by the rest of the House. 
Another well overdue amendment that might go a long way to assist in addressing some of the issues that she is after would be to elevate the Treaty of Waitangi section to a preamble in the Act similar to that in Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 or perhaps to move it to Part 2 of the Act and make it a matter of national importance. This is another suggestion that might be helpful. We are close to the vote now so we will know shortly whether the bill will progress. 
The idea of the changes I have just suggested is to give the Treaty greater status in the Act so that decision makers would be compelled to recognise and provide for hapu as the Treaty envisaged. All in all we support the initiative from the honourable member. I am happy to say that the Maori Party is pleased to support this bill and hopes that in the short space of time left the bill is voted on and supported. Kia ora tatou. 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 Kia ora tatou. I am very pleased to support this bill in the name of my colleague Nanaia Mahuta and commend her for it. This is a bill about creating the potential for front-end consultation with iwi without the need first for Treaty settlements such as happened in the Waikato. It will take some effort from councils to implement this bill if passed but the benefits of it are I think very very clear. We do not need to look very far into our history to see a graphic example of where a bill like this might have prevented a major issue that we are still as a Parliament and as a nation dealing with today. 
I think back to Marlborough 10 years ago when iwi in the Marlborough Sounds felt that they were being excluded from the growing race for water space in the Marlborough Sounds. They believed whether right or not that a councillor or councillors were precluding them from gaining any water space. What did that lead to? It led to the foreshore and seabed issue that this Parliament and indeed this Government are still trying to resolve today. Yet this Government is saying that it will oppose this very sensible bill. 
I also note that Nick Smith who has been in the House tonight has today announced a moratorium on the Hurunui River and further extraction of water in that catchment. That decision was recommended to him by the Environment Canterbury commissioners he installed by parliamentary majority just a few months ago. Included amongst the seven commissioners is one appointed iwi representative. Yet Dr Smith and this National Government say that they do not support this bill which facilitates iwi input into decision making and allows for some recognition of iwi management plans—some taking proper account of iwi management plans when councils are forming their own plans. It is very very much a bill that will allow Maori to be truly taken account of in their contributions to the future of a regional plan and of a region. 
I also note that the ACT leader Rodney Hide in talking about what I suppose in a sense is a precursor to this bill—the co-governance arrangements on the Waikato River which gave Tainui a right for some input into the decision making on the river they regard as so sacred and important—commented that it was an inappropriate decision because it was not democratic. He said that it was not giving the community the right to sack people—that people coming from iwi into those co-governance arrangements were only being appointed. Yet Rodney Hide along with Dr Smith was very pleased to be able to sack the Environment Canterbury councillors just a few months earlier and that supposedly did not contravene any democratic principle at that time. 
This is a bill that makes sense. It acknowledges that Maori through iwi management plans should be allowed to have some input into council plans. It acknowledges that they have in the past—and it was extraordinarily variable—not been able to have their views heard around council tables when important decisions are being made. The goal of the bill is to ensure that more weight is given to iwi concerns in planning and consenting processes and that there be a greater level of engagement between councils and iwi. That is a commendable principle. It should not have to require Treaty settlements and it should be something that this Parliament recognises and reflects in the adoption of this bill in the name of my colleague Nanaia Mahuta. The Opposition Labour Party supports this bill along with the Maori Party and the Green Party. We believe that the bill deserves to have a run and I think the Government should reconsider its position in respect of it. 
Debate interrupted.