Smith Stuart; Parker DavidSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Mr Chair. I want to focus on clause 55 Matters relevant to setting management units" and in clause 55(1)(a) it says "sufficient to enable environmental limits and their mandatory targets to meet the purposes set out in section 37 and 47 respectively" and in clause 55(1)(b) "are determined by reference to scientific knowledge and mātauranga Māori." I would like to say that if a particular iwi or hapū are in their area is it their view of mātauranga Māori or is it a view of someone else? So it goes back to some areas we traversed a little yesterday about secret knowledge and the view of a constitutional lawyer that these things are often untestable but just saying "mātauranga Māori" doesn't actually define whose view that could be based on. I think as we go back to the principle in the law that the law should be able to be known by everyone—and I know the Minister is a legal professional as well as now a legislator. Is it his view that this can be known and meet that principle of being able to know the law? Because I seriously doubt that that could be the case. So therefore in say a resource consent application in Marlborough for example it wouldn't be that appropriate you would think to have a view from a cultural expert who doesn't whakapapa back to that area but that's not defined here. As we heard in the Environment Committee last week that isn't good law and so that actually offends the principle of being able to know the law unless the Minister has got contrary evidence which I'd really like to hear because we don't want to be in a position where we've already got a very complicated—and just even looking at the size of this bill says it all really. There's a lot in here. And if it's not clear given that it's over 900 pages you'd think that all these things would be nailed down but to me this is not nailed down and so I'd really like the Minister's view on that please.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I've gone through some details on how this new system overall is faster cheaper and better than the status quo: 100 plans down to 16; instead of 10 years to take a plan down to four; a lot more permitted activities; clearer delineation between what we are actually trying to protect which is natural environment values not nimbyism supported by matters of personal taste—within those limits enabling development.Now in respect to the specific question that the member raises in respect of clause 55 the management unit is set by the Minister or a regional planning committee. They've got to listen to evidence including Māori knowledge as well as science. Some Māori knowledge meets the definition of science; some doesn't. It's also true of non-Māori knowledge.In respect of the things that have to be taken into account to satisfy the Minister or the planning committee they're set out in subclause (2). It says there that you focus on the biophysical state of the natural environment the pressures on the environment and the losses or gains of health in the natural environment. Then I would draw the committee's attention to subclause (3) which is the most important subclause there: "the size and location of a management unit should be set to provide flexibility and to maximise opportunities for offsetting and other management approaches to be applied." That was a concern of the Treasury. They said that if you set management units too narrowly you actually do not have enough flexibility in the system. That interacts with the provision that says that not all outcomes that are prescribed by the legislation can be met in any one place. If you have too narrow a management unit then effectively you can't achieve that broader purpose of the Act."