Auchinvole Chris: Resource Management (Enhancement of Iwi Management Plans) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Auchinvole Chris: Resource Management (Enhancement of Iwi Management Plans) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 21 July 2010. Volume:665;Page:12595. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 I am very pleased to speak on the Resource Management (Enhancement of Iwi Management Plans) Amendment Bill in the name of the Hon Nanaia Mahuta. As the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee which considered the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill I am very cognisant of the issues raised by this bill and the fact that we keep visiting the Resource Management Act to change it yet again. But let us step back for a moment and consider the progress that has already been made in the area of resource management. 
Stage one of our reforms saw this Government streamline and simplify the Resource Management Act to ensure a better balance of environmental protection with economic growth. That has achieved good positive outcomes for all concerned without incurring unnecessary delays and excessive costs. 
We removed the pervasive presence of the Resource Management Act in matters of low-level environmental significance by defining the activities that should not require consent and that means they will have a smoother pathway to approval. For example a great deal of time and money was wasted in issuing 4500 consents annually for trimming pruning and removing non-scheduled trees in a number of urban councils. 
The whole process was undertaken in order to simplify and streamline the Resource Management Act so as to make better progress without compromising the ideals of environmental protection. The reforms reinforce National’s blue-green message that being pro-environment does not equate to being pro - red tape. We have already achieved much in reforming the Resource Management Act so let us not look backwards but let us take a step forward together. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave for the member to have his full allotment of time restored if he cares to pick up the research notes for the bill currently being debated by the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: That was not a point of order. I say to the member that points of order are made about the order of the House. Points of order are not to be used to break up a member’s speech. That was in my opinion a deliberate tactic to break up the member’s speech. I warn the member against it. Please let the speech flow. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: I can appreciate what this bill is trying to achieve. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Which bill? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: The bill that we are speaking about and that I have been speaking about throughout. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Are you sure? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: I cannot be responsible for the lack of comprehension on the part of members opposite—they will catch up in due course. 
The bill aims to strengthen the provisions by which iwi management plans or IMPs influence regional and district plans and policies and elevate their status in the planning hierarchy. Under this bill regional councils will be required to recognise and provide for iwi management plans as opposed to taking into account these plans as is legislated now. However I believe it would be a retrograde step to introduce this legislation because there will be ample opportunity to debate these issues in phase two of the reforms of the Resource Management Act. 
One of the four objectives of the phase two reforms is achieving efficient and improved participation of Maori in the resource management process so I think it would be unhelpful to pre-empt these discussions or indeed limit the possibilities. I am certainly not unsympathetic towards the proposal of the bill; I am looking just at the process. 
I am confident that through the process of the phase two reforms we will ultimately have legislation that will ensure that Maori and iwi can be sufficiently involved in participating in the resource management process. In fact I understand that the Ministry for the Environment is working on means to improve iwi involvement through iwi management plans in the Resource Management Act processes. There are three options on the table. 
Option one is to change the statutory weight of iwi management plans. Increasing the policy weighting means that the key content of and outcomes sought by iwi management plans can be given more consideration in Resource Management Act planning processes. Option two is the definition and minimum requirements for iwi management plans. The option proposes identifying a list of matters that must be considered as a minimum requirement of an iwi management plan. The matters should be identified during consultation with iwi Maori and ideally could include environmental outcomes sought resource management issues of significance Maori customary values and processes for meaningful engagement with local authorities. 
Option three is the lodgement and the register of iwi management plans. The lodgement process would require the chief executive of the relevant authority to send a copy of a lodged iwi management plan to the Ministry for the Environment or to Te Puni Kokiri. There would be a new corresponding obligation on central government to keep and to maintain a central register of iwi management plans. The register could be made publicly available to promote the sharing of information among iwi and hapu and assist local authorities and resource consent applicants in locating iwi management plans. 
I am looking forward to the cost-benefit analysis of each of the options as I am sure that we will all be open to discussions on these options as we work through the process of finding the best solution to the situation. 
I point out that there are some fundamental problems with this bill. Elevating the status of iwi management plans to the level proposed in the bill would represent a significant step change in how non-statutory plans are considered under the Resource Management Act. The bill would elevate iwi management plans to a status similar to that of nationally important projects which are dealt with in section 6 of the Resource Management Act. I do not think that that is the way forward. It would mean that iwi would have the power to influence or bring to a standstill district plans if they varied from iwi management plans. I think that would be unhelpful and it would hinder progress. 
These provisions were amended in 2004. It is a matter of balance. Previous decision makers were required to have regard to iwi management plans. In 2004 that changed to “take into account.” I believe this was and still is a sensible approach and a balanced approach but I am sure we can further discussions during phase two of the reforms. 
I say in conclusion that the National-led Government is making fantastic progress on Resource Management Act reforms. Phase one went a long way to reducing costs uncertainty and delays which have frustrated New Zealand homeowners small businesses and farmers for years. Phase two will address aquaculture the new structure of the Environmental Protection Authority freshwater management urban design and infrastructure issues. 
The Resource Management (Enhancement of Iwi Management Plans) Amendment Bill would in fact be an awkward distraction from this progress. Regardless of the fact that it has fundamental problems we must remember that one of the four objectives of phase two reforms is achieving efficient and improved participation of Maori in the resource management process. I look forward to being part of those discussions. We will therefore be voting against this bill. Thank you.