Smith Stuart; Court Simon; O'Connor Greg; Brooking RachelSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Thank you Mr Chair. I welcome Rachel Brooking to the chair the Minister. It's great to get her opinion on a few things. Particularly I would like to turn to clause 5(9) In order to promote the well-being of both present and future generations highly productive land is protected—(a) for use in land-based primary production; and (b) from inappropriate subdivision use and development."What is "inappropriate" in that sense? Somebody's appropriate subdivision on a piece of land is someone else's inappropriate subdivision on that land. How is that actually defined? I think I'd be really interested to hear that.I'd also go to clause 6A "Procedural principles" while I'm on my feet. Under clause 6A(1) "All persons exercising powers and performing functions and duties under this Act must take all practical steps—(a) to use timely efficient consistent and cost-effective processes that are proportionate to the functions powers and duties being exercised [and] performed; and (b) to promote collaboration between or among local authorities communities and Māori on their common resource management issues."Now I don't understand that last bit "Māori". It's not local Māori; it's Māori. Is it the local iwi or the local hapū? Because if we go back to clause 4 we have to take account of the Treaty or Te Tiriti. The Treaty was signed by chiefs of hapū so surely it would be a hapū that would need to be referenced in this bill but it's not; it's Māori. That could be just someone who identifies as Māori. How is that defined? I don't understand that. Local communities or if the words "local Māori" might have been there that might make sense. But to have just "Māori" I don't think is helpful. Is that just a drafting error or is "local authorities" meant to be "local authorities local communities and local Māori on their common resource management issues"?So it'd be really helpful if we could get some enlightenment on that because it's a really important piece of legislation and to get all these terms all mixed up I think is really quite unhelpful.Hon Scott Simpson: No consistency.STUART SMITH: No—no consistency at all. So I look forward to hearing some enlightenment on that point.SIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair. Firstly I just want to open by offering a perspective on the way that I understand Māori have been treated by local government by central government when it comes to developments around infrastructure whether it's waste-water treatment plants being built in front of a marae in the Manukau Harbour in Auckland or Governments taking Māori-owned land under the Public Works Act as an easier option than negotiating with other private landowners. We heard at the Environment Committee a number of concerns raised by representatives of iwi hapū and other Māori-based organisations about that concern and how they wanted to make sure that they were not treated unfairly when it came to resource management decisions decisions about land use planning and so on in the future and that their rights be protected in any legislation that reformed the Resource Management Act. The ACT Party would absolutely support their private property rights and their right to be able to negotiate fairly with the Crown or local government or any other public entity that seeks to acquire land in order to deliver infrastructure. So we can understand there's some really powerful historical motivations that probably feel quite visceral and current to iwi hapū in particular and individual marae who have suffered from that kind of treatment at the hands of Government in the past. But what I don't understand and what the ACT Party cannot comprehend is how those wrongs have then been translated into what appear to be general principles for decision makers to give effect to the Treaty of Waitangi and then to take account of a concept known as mātauranga Māori which if you look at the te reo Māori dictionary simply describes it as "knowledge". If you look at other places where mātauranga Māori is defined it's defined as "traditional Māori knowledge". In other places it also includes tikanga kawa and kaitiakitanga. So what does it actually mean this term "mātauranga Māori"?When I asked the select committee firstly to seek advice from officials—can we please have some advice about what a definition might mean what this term might refer to?—that was declined by the committee by the majority. Then when I proposed to include a definition of it in the bill that was also declined by the majority of the committee. Of course that's parliamentary democracy. That's what we do. So because the term hasn't been defined in the bill and because it creates an uncertainty about what the effect is requiring decision makers in terms of clause 5(10) how are we to treat this?Minister the ACT Party has proposed in a Supplementary Order Paper that we could remove some of the confusion this causes by simply removing references in the bill to "mātauranga Māori". Because in the absence of a definition and with so many explanations for it crowding out what could be a sensible definition like simply the word "knowledge" ACT believes we should remove it entirely. But I also want to acknowledge that there is a place for indigenous knowledge about plants about natural systems. I mean imagine for example if we had an oral history available to us to describe what it was like the events of that night that an enormous tsunami hit the East Coast of the North Island in about 1400 AD and engulfed the communities those double-hulled waka sailing craft builders and all of those other people with that traditional knowledge of celestial navigation who came to New Zealand from the Pacific Islands. Imagine if we had an oral tradition that we could compare against the geological record of where that tsunami reached in the hills near Te Puke so we could better understand what it was that happened that day and maybe inform us about where we should and shouldn't be building communities presently. If that's what mātauranga Māori means then it would be very helpful to have a definition of that type in the bill.But I want to give you an example about how confusing it is so I hope the Chair will extend to me the privilege of an additional few minutes because I've done some research—CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): Order! The member's time is complete.Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Associate Minister for the Environment): Thank you Mr Chair. Trying to answer a number of those questions. If we go back to the Hon Scott Simpson about the system outcomes in clause 5 there are a large number of them but I would again refer back to new clause 3A "Means for achieving purpose of Act". So the system outcomes are to be provided for at the national level through the national planning framework the NPF and at the regional level and plans. Of course then we also have new clause 5A "Providing for outcomes" and some useful clauses at clause 6 as well that say things like decision making "not to prefer a use because it is either new or existing use when considering how the outcomes are to be best achieved".So those outcomes will not always be in agreement with each other. Where they are in agreement with each other then both should be achieved. If there does have to be some sort of hierarchy then that needs to be provided for consistent with the purpose of the Act which provides some and then in the NPF and in the plans.There were some other comments there about the use of the word "inappropriate". That's a term that's come from the Resource Management Act. Also about the use of the terms "hapū" and "iwi" versus "Māori"—you will find that it is purposefully used throughout the bill where it refers to "iwi" and "hapū". I'm not sure if Scott Simpson is saying that a Government bill should not refer to iwi at all and only to hapū because that is who the Treaty was signed with which he said—Hon Scott Simpson: It was Stuart Smith.Hon RACHEL BROOKING: —and that that would—oh did I say Scott Simpson? Sorry I meant Stuart Smith. I was looking at Stuart Smith. My apologies. I know that you're very different.So as I was saying "Māori" is used for the more general roles which aren't linked to that ancestral land say in clause 6(2) versus clause 6A(1)(b) which Stuart Smith referred to.In terms of mātauranga I think it's not that difficult really when we look at the clause that the member was referring to for that to be taken into account. I don't think it's something that will cause problems in interpreting it. And the member talked about how his definitions include knowledge but it might be wider and he was starting to tell some stories. Both of those things are good and they were interesting stories Mr Court. Simon Court was also talking about private property rights and I have to say I'm a little bit confused on this issue because of course many iwi and hapū and whānau don't have the private property land rights any more for historical reasons and that's some of the reason why we now have these Treaty clauses in our legislation: to right those wrongs."