Potaka TamaTAMA POTAKA (National—Hamilton West): I'm honoured to present on this third reading of the Natural and Built Environment Bill. National supports Resource Management Act reform but it should improve the status quo. In my view this bill does not do that. I respect Minister Parker and the select committee for their mahi. There are some parts that are progressive and interesting but in my view ultimately flawed—flawed culturally commercially and constitutionally.The bill's purpose to uphold te Oranga o te Taiao demonstrates the vacuous drafting at play. That a Māori-sounding concept such as te Oranga o te Taiao can guide decision making is commendable. In this Chamber defining these concepts implores caution and integrity particularly when the concept is actually new to Māori communities. The definition proffered around te Oranga o te Taiao is near Picasso-esque: a thing of mysterious beauty that not many if any really understand. It reminds me of my fourth form art work down at central Hawke's Bay. In my opinion the use of a Māori phrase here defined by ambiguous English language is a boondoggle drafting experiment. There is an absence of hierarchy across the constituent parts of the definition. There's an absence of direction for those who invest across territorial and marine environments including Māori who have a relationship with te taiao based on whakapapa and an aspiration to do something like aquaculture in Whakatōhea goldmining in Tara Tokanui and corporate dairy farming like Wairarapa Moana and Parininihi ki Waitotara Incorporations. These absences which are nearly as provocative as absences across our schooling system have caused many diverse commentators to raise their concerns: the Chief Justice Helen Winkelmann; Federated Farmers; and the Environmental Defence Society who commented that the purpose of this legislation is wrapped up in word soup that allows fertile ground for litigation.Clause 5 demonstrates legislative cubism where the bill sets out system outcomes that must be achieved to ensure that the purpose of the Act is achieved. Clause 5(10) provides that one of the system outcomes is as follows The relationship of iwi and hapū and the exercise of their kawa tikanga Māori (including kaitiakitanga) and mātauranga Māori in respect of their ancestral lands water sites wāhi tapu wāhi tūpuna and other taonga are recognised and provided for." But on questioning during the committee of the whole House the Minister was ill-prepared and unable to define what "kawa tikanga" constitute. Time and again that question was asked and what did I get? Crickets. I'll tell you what I'll probably get the same crickets from the former Minister of Conservation—their epistemological foundations their practical implementation and their interface with one another are not known by the decision makers let alone applicants and the entire bench.We should have kept our three wānanga here today to help us and guide us as to what they actually mean. We will definitely need our pyjamas for that conversation though because wānanga as the member for Manurewa knows best happen beyond the hours of urgency that the House holds. It is absolutely outrageous that the Minister and the select committee chair cannot define what kawa tikanga and mana mean but are eager beavers to throw it into the bill.Absence again features in this clause—an absence of hierarchy between kawa and mana tikanga and mātauranga. There is an absence of direction around what kawa is important and whose kawa? Ngāti Toa? Ngāpuhi? Tūhoe? Or te whānau of Waipareira? There is an absence of clarity. Our constitutional Westminster system has a number of foundational principles and the rule of law is the central poutokomanawa of all of them. In this moment in this third reading that rule of a law and legal certainty is immeasurably compromised. We've thrown more coals on the fire of legal activism and for what? Another tick on the Government's insatiable long list on omniscient kāwanatanga aspirations.Minister Parker has described that National and others might have fiddled around the edges to reform the resource management system. This conclusion I would recommend is myopic. It makes cubism seem like basic art. Even the Green Party fortunately knows the only way to get genuine green outcomes is through blue. To suggest that the Treaty provision now effectively similar to section 4 of the Conservation Act will give clarity and stimulation is completely at odds with the actions of the current Government and the former Minister of Conservation which failed at nearly every single step to implement genuine partnership with Ngāi Tai ki Tamaki in the Hauraki Gulf—the very iwi who sought and achieved favourable Supreme Court guidance regarding that clause. Instead the young minds the young talent the young brilliance of Māori working out there in the tribal domain end up in judicial review and litigation processes instead of developing the socio-economic wealth and wellbeing we desperately need. Kia ora tātou."