Potaka Tama; Parker DavidTAMA POTAKA (National—Hamilton West): Yes fresh from those ambiguities we heard in Part 1 and the brown-washing of Māori terms through this legislation I come to Part 2A Subpart 5 of the proposed legislation clauses 30ZE to 30ZT National Māori Entity" which I have read through and become quite enamoured with but actually am disturbed by the criteria and a few other things of this.This Subpart 5 is a real departure from clause 4 to give effect to the principles of te Tiriti o Waitangi because what it actually does is sets up a pan-tribal entity that is not representative of iwi and hapū—and they might get some suggestions from iwi and hapū. But that pan-tribal entity Government-appointed has a real ability to cut against and operate against the kawa the tikanga and the mana that the proposed legislation intends to protect because it's a pan-tribal entity that has its own views. So I'm quite disappointed by the criteria in clause 30ZM(3) when we have a purpose of the legislation back in clause 3 talking about te Oranga o te Taiao and the health and wellbeing of the natural environment but I see no mention of health in any of these paragraphs (a) through to (f) of 30ZM(3). So I start wondering whether or not the actual appointment criteria—and there's also no mention of development expertise in here given that it's a decision-making framework that we're trying to establish—for appointing persons recommended by the nominating committee to the Minister does not link back into the purpose and the health and wellbeing and those Māori terms that we referred to—kawa tikanga mātauranga Māori mana—I don't know if it's atua tipuna whenua wāhine or moana—there's an inconsistency there.What I wanted to ask the Minister for the Environment is: what commitments can the Minister give that we don't have a Māori entity set up—it's actually a Government entity that's got a Māori stamp on it—to cut against the kawa and the mana and the tikanga of various iwi and hapū? At the moment this Māori entity sounds like a group of resource management sycophants with no development expertise. Kia ora.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Ah the vexed issue of Māori politics coming out from the National Party. This issue is—there are different views within Māoridom and Māoridom are not at one in respect of who should speak for Māori in these issues. There are some people who say that the post - Treaty settlement entities are the only people who should speak with iwi in an area. There are some people who say that it should be iwi organisations who speak for Māori within an area. There are some people who say that in some areas it's not iwi; it's hapū—subgroups of iwi. Then there are other groupings like the Māori Council the Federation of Māori Authorities who say that there are other Māori groupings including Māori land - owning groupings and fractioning out Māori trusts and the like who own land assets and other organisations who have a statutory basis like the Māori Council who should have voice.On the issue of how you put together regional planning committees that issue went to the Waitangi Tribunal because there were some who said that the way in which we were putting those regional planning committees together was wrong. The Waitangi Tribunal said that although they would have liked 50-50 co-governance they thought the Government was entitled to land it where we were. They further said that the primary group that you should be dealing with generally is iwi or hapū but they also said that there are occasions when there are representative groupings of Māori other than iwi and hapū who should be listened to. So how do you resolve that? Well to a certain extent you've got to trust Māori to resolve it and the legislation effectively creates mechanisms to allow that to happen mechanisms to help Māori resolve those disagreements where they have disagreements locally and time lines by which if those matters are not resolved by Māori the system launches forward anyway because the system does have to proceed.In terms of the National Māori Entity the support for that essentially divides along lines of people who say that it's only iwi hapū who should have a voice and people who say "No Federation of Māori Authorities Māori land ownership trusts and the likes of the Māori Council on occasion should have a voice." So faced with that choice the Government having heard the submissions from both of those viewpoints at the Environment Committee decided we would keep the Māori entity in part because I can foresee a possibility that if there are inefficiencies that develop in the way in which Māori are coalescing around how they participate in the new legislation it might be helpful to have someone like the National Māori Entity both helping the Crown but also help Māori sort those issues out locally. Now I say that with trepidation because the iwi hapū construct will jump down my throat and say "No we never want to be told what to do." But I also know that iwi hapū is not the only perspective to be taken into account here and that's why this institution has survived. I think it will help not hinder."