Sage Eugenie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeSage Eugenie: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 17 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13377. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]10.EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to theMinister for the Environment: Will she ditch the Government’s proposal to remove references to the “ethic of stewardship” the “maintenance and enhancement of amenity values” the “maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment” and the “intrinsic value of ecosystems” from the Resource Management Act 1993; if not why not?Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for the Environment): Firstly it appears the member may not have read the proposals because it has been proposed that the reference to ecosystems be not only retained but in fact elevated with the clause clarified to state that the effective functioning of ecosystems be raised to be a matter of national importance. On the other matters the member raises the Government hasindicated that it is our view that those matters are already adequately provided for in Part 2 of the Act and this remains our position.Eugenie Sage: Was the Hon Tariana Turia wrong when she said the Resource Management Act was designed to ensure that our use of natural resources is sustainable and that the Government’s proposed changes to Part 2 undermine the whole purpose of the Act?Hon AMY ADAMS: Minister Turia was certainly correct in her statement on the purpose of the Act and the Government has no intention—and never has had—of amending the purpose of the Act. In respect of her characterisation of our changes she is of course entitled to her opinion.Eugenie Sage: Was the Hon Peter Dunne wrong when he said that the Government’s proposed changes to the Resource Management Act will make matters worse for the environment?Hon AMY ADAMS: Again Mr Dunne is certainly entitled to his opinion.Eugenie Sage: Will her proposed Resource Management Act amendment bill now retain the hierarchy of matters of national importance and other matters in the current Act to avoid creating considerable uncertainty and losing 20 years of case law on the meaning of sustainable management?Hon AMY ADAMS: Every time that this Parliament creates or changes law it always creates a period of time in which people have to adjust to those new provisions. If we were to not do anything on the basis that any change would create uncertainty we might as well all pack up and go home now. Our proposal is about creating far more certainty in the system over time and it would be wrong and foolhardy to pull out one aspect of the proposals and focus on whether that single aspect of change creates more or less uncertainty. The proposal is a package. The objective of the package is to create more certainty less time less cost and far better outcomes for communities. That is still the intention.Te Ururoa Flavell: What advice has she had from iwi and Māori groups regarding the maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment and any effects the proposed changes will have on their role as kaitiaki or guardians?Hon AMY ADAMS: We have certainly had considerable feedback from iwi and Māori groups on the changes to sections 6 and 7 and as a result of that feedback we have made a number of changes to the draft provisions. Kaitiakitanga is of course to be elevated from a matter that the decision makers must have regard to to becoming a matter of national importance which must be recognised and provided for. Of course the role of iwi in planning is one of the key ways in which iwi exercise their role as kaitiaki and those provisions around planning and iwi involvement in it received considerable support from iwi and Māori groups.Hon Peter Dunne: Is it the Minister’s position that the changes to Part 2 of the Act are necessary for the process changes that she is proposing to other parts of the Act to have any impact—in other words that you cannot make the second set of changes without making the first set?Hon AMY ADAMS: Well it is certainly my view that the proposal is a package and has to be viewed as such. Part 2 is a critical part of the Act and that is the reason it has attracted so much attention and debate. It is fundamental to the way that the whole of the rest of the Act is read and applied.