Chadwick Steve: Resource Management (Enhancement of Iwi Management Plans) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Chadwick Steve: Resource Management (Enhancement of Iwi Management Plans) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:665;Page:13000] 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to support the Resource Management (Enhancement of Iwi Management Plans) Amendment Bill. I was astonished to hear National’s position and to hear the previous speaker say that the Resource Management Act is working in terms of consultation and involvement with and the participation of Maori when this is an elegant little amendment to the 1991 Resource Management Act that will make consultation easier for Maori. Therefore the results will be a far improved model of hearings and consenting under the Resource Management Act in terms of iwi management plans. 
I sat in on the hearings in Auckland on the Resource Management Act along with my colleague Nanaia Mahuta when Mark Solomon gave a plea to the Local Government and Environment Committee in its consideration of the Resource Management Act that as far as Ngai Tahu were concerned they were not involved in the resource consent process and that due recognition of iwi management plans was simply not happening at either local council level or regional council level. I think it is really sad that National is saying that because the Act is strong enough now it therefore works. National is saying that because it has done a lot about streamlining and turbo-charging the Resource Management Act and taking away the regulatory barriers to the consenting process the Act therefore works for iwi; I do not think so. That is not what we heard at the select committee. 
All this little bill does is make three amendments. It amends under clause 5 the “take into account” provision. All that consenting authorities have to do now is just to “take into account” but the bill substitutes “recognise and”—the strong word is—“provide for” iwi management plans. This bill is yet another solution a part of the puzzle that would strengthen the Resource Management Act. 
I wonder what has happened to the iwi leaders forum that consults National and the Maori Party on the foreshore and seabed legislation. I wonder whether National has taken time out from its agenda and its crowing about achievements to say: “What do you think iwi leaders whom we consult openly with? What do you think about this amendment that has come from Nanaia Mahuta who knows only too well along with the Tainui people of the Waikato River that here is yet another streamlining amendment that will make it easier for Maori to be recognised and to be taken account of?”. [ 
Interruption 
] No they have not even asked. 
This amendment gives a focus for iwi management plans in both regional and district council plans. All it does is put the issues that iwi have laid on the table at the front end of the planning process. It ensures the participation of iwi in the consenting process; what is wrong with that? Why would National vote against this bill other than for political pique? If iwi do not like what is happening in terms of what they have proposed as a vision and a strategy in an iwi management plan and if they are not taken notice of all that they can do now is look for redress in a Treaty settlement process. How cumbersome is that? I think all parties would benefit if only National could be generous enough today to support this bill. I am glad the Maori Party is supporting it. We will be speaking about that when we are out on the hustings next year. 
Current iwi authorities—and Mark Solomon told us this—have consultation fatigue absolute consultation fatigue. They said that they have put together their iwi management plans and that this bill is just a plea and an amendment to the Resource Management Act that asks for those plans to be taken notice of. If we had done that earlier we would have got right issues in relation to the Maketu Estuary and the Kaituna River when we looked at the Rotorua lakes and their clean-up. If we had had that right in the Resource Management Act currently there would not have had to be a Treaty redress through the Waikato River settlement legislation. We would have got it right at the front end. 
In conclusion I tell members that in answer to question No. 6 today in the House from the Maori Party Nick Smith said that iwi had an ongoing role. He gave that assurance in respect of Goat Island and the Poor Knights Islands. But iwi do not have that role because the very instrument that means most to them in the Resource Management Act is the iwi management plan which does not have to be taken notice of.