Parker DavidHon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki): Thanks Madam Chair. It's just worthwhile going back to an issue that was raised by the Hon Michael Woodhouse and in fact I was in the select committee on this day when we talked about—this is to do with clause 6 of Part 1 Treaty of Waitangi. So in the bill that was proposed first reading moved second passed went into the select committee the wording was: In achieving the purpose of the Act all persons performing functions and exercising powers under it must act in a manner that is consistent with—(a) the principles of Treaty of Waitangi; and (b) Treaty settlements." And Jenny Marcroft who is a New Zealand First member proposed a change which aligns with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and it reads "In achieving the purpose of this Act all persons exercising functions and powers under it in relation to managing the use development and protection of natural and physical resources must take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi". The committee by majority everyone—in fact I've got the minutes here. Eight members voted for that: Labour members Duncan Webb as the chair Scott Simpson Liz Craig Jacqui Dean myself Jenny Marcroft Erica Stanford Angie Warren-Clark all voted for that. One member Chlöe Swarbrick voted against it and she's nodding her head confirming that so the minutes are true accurate and correct. So what I find a bit offensive is that the Minister now has a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP)—numbered 534 he's just spoken about it—reinserting the words back in effectively riding roughshod over the Labour members. And the chair of the committee Duncan Webb may wish to take a call—I see over the other side of the House he's got his head down at the moment. Something's amiss here that the Labour members of the Environment Committee voted for this clause to be taken out and voted with National and New Zealand First; now the Minister is proposing in SOP 534 to effectively change it back as the wording was.What I'm interested in trying to understand—and the Minister in his address before said he could live with actually both but he prefers the one that's his SOP and the original wording of the bill. What I'm keen to understand is what changed. Does the chair of the Environment Committee not talk to the Minister for the Environment the Hon David Parker about this bill and how it's progressing through the committee? I just can't fathom that the Labour members voted with New Zealand First and National to change this and now we have an SOP that proposes changing it back and I can't understand why on earth there wasn't open communication between the Minister and particularly the chair of the committee Dr Duncan Webb. We've had numerous examples over the last month where the support parties of the coalition Government are starting to fracture. Is this another example whereby the coalition Government left hand right hand hands in the middle coming together are not talking to one another?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Could I just remind the Hon Nathan Guy that this is not the old style of committee stage debate. This is a conversation with the Minister and I can't hear much conversation and I can't hear many questions. So if you could move to the new style of debate where five minutes is not a target.Hon NATHAN GUY: Yes thank you for reminding me of that. I actually quite like the new style too because this is not the first question that I'll have even though I've been here 15 years. I think the new style is great because it really means that the Minister in the chair has to be accountable open and transparent which is back to the Speech from the Throne.So I guess my substantial question is: why was there a change between the way Government members voted in the Environment Committee about the Treaty of Waitangi clause; why did they do that? And now they're being asked to vote for something that is different.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): The select committee acted appropriately. No one has done anything wrong here. It's up for the committee to decide whether they vote through the Supplementary Order Paper that I've proposed or not."