Sharples Pita: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Sharples Pita: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6245] 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Tena tatou katoa. I rise to speak to the third reading of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill tonight with an air of disappointment. The Maori Party stands for a deep commitment to keeping our natural resources and environment healthy safe and intact for future generations and our environment spokesperson and member of the Local Government and Environment Committee Rahui Katene put that simply in a press release she issued a fortnight ago. This is all it was: “We are committed to protecting the rights of Papatuanuku and Ranginui. We are obligated to keep them from being polluted.” 
That commitment to keep Papatuanuku at the core motivates us to do all that we can to protect waterways and land from ecological misuse and destruction. It instructs us to place our focus on the need to stimulate the regeneration and revitalisation of indigenous flora and fauna. It prompts us to support sustainable development rather than growth and to reduce our dependence on oil. It encourages us to promote whanau hapu and iwi as kaitiaki and to support moves to restore this role to them. This bill does little to move us along on any of these areas. 
This bill continues to provide for security for costs despite our Supplementary Order Paper to overturn this and despite the call from Maori submitters to do so. The bill continues to put up an appeals process that is too restrictive. How can we be convinced that there is a commitment to simplify and streamline when there are still fixed thresholds to meet and when appeals based on merit remain disallowed for large projects? 
The bill continues to be too restrictive on terms of who can be involved in the decision making around the development of district plans. It limits the ability of tangata whenua and communities to be involved in decision making and to challenge and appeal consents once they are approved. The bill does not sufficiently protect urban trees from development plans the process of public notification of consents by councils is still too restrictive and the bill continues to disallow the Minister of Conservation to determine coastal permits despite our amendment to the contrary. 
The Maori Party had every intention of trying to enhance the provisions of the bill during the Committee stage to bring about the sense of balance we so vitally need between matters of environmental integrity and the rush for development. We put forward amendments to introduce a Treaty of Waitangi clause to remove security for costs to reinstate the ministerial veto for coastal permits to initiate the transfer of powers from councils to hapu and iwi authorities and to amend the process around which projects of national significance are considered including the membership and functioning of boards of inquiry and the ability to raise appeals against decisions with the High Court. Never let it be said that the Maori Party has not tried to make the best of a difficult situation. 
One by one the amendments were voted down and as that happened we lost our sense of optimism about the potential of this bill to make a difference. Without those changes incorporated in it the bill veers dangerously towards gaining the edge of economic progress at all costs. In the quest to streamline and simplify decision making are we taking proper cognisance of the investment we must make in the world our grandchildren’s grandchildren will inherit? In the quest for development will we end up with a poorer natural world a more depleted environment and a less secure world? 
The Maori Party has talked often in this House about the concept of a genuine progress index which is a way to understand the arithmetic and the consequences of growth especially regarding Earth’s finite resources. We believe that we must learn the first law of sustainability: that growth in the rate of resource consumption cannot be sustained. It is to do with the fundamental questions of globalisation without regard for the health of humans or the prosperity of the planet. We ask again whether in the race to streamline and simplify we have actually created additional pathways that have the effect of being able to avoid community participation. 
Let me remind the House of some of the statements of our people as part of the 840 submissions that were received on this bill. The Ngati Kuta resource management unit from Te Rawhiti in the Bay of Islands challenged Parliament to ensure section 8 of the Act which contains the Treaty provision must be strengthened. Indeed they suggested that some form of compulsion is required. Their reason for such a strong point of view is simply that the Treaty is always relevant and significant. 
Ngati Pahauwera both Raupunga and Mohaka pointed out that clause 68 limits the ability of iwi and hapu to participate in the decision making. This will mean a reduction in public scrutiny and negative environmental outcomes. Te Whakaminenga o Kapiti Ati Awa Ngati Raukawa and Ngati Toa recommended that the Government should commit greater resourcing of iwi to help effective engagement in resource consent and plan change processes. 
I need only think of the impact of the Foreshore and Seabed Act to consider how iwi and hapu rights are able to be utilised to protect the seabed and foreshore. Many of the submitters to the select committee spoke of their experience that regional councils fail to protect their interests and that councils do not share the Crown’s obligation to acknowledge or accommodate present and future Treaty claims. 
Our capacity to exercise kaitiakitanga will be greatly impeded if we are not able to participate in decisions around resource management at all levels of development: local and national small and large. The resource management unit of Te Runanga o Ngati Awa recommended including provisions in the Act to enable councils to commission cultural impact assessments from tangata whenua where an applicant fails to provide evidence of those assessments with the application for resource consent. 
I could go on but I think the point is clear. Aldous Huxley once said: “Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.” We believe that the legitimate arguments put forward by tangata whenua have been ignored. We are concerned that the Treaty provisions in the Resource Management Act are not being sufficiently regarded to the extent to make a difference. We were keen to give the Treaty greater status in the Act so that decision makers would be compelled to recognise and provide for hapu as the Treaty envisaged. We are moved by the view of Ngati Pahauwera that reintroduction of security of costs places iwi and hapu who have a genuine issue of appeal but who do not have a secure financial base in a position of ngoikore or disempowerment. 
We could have been world leaders; we could have taken up the opportunity to protect our environment to care for our future and to invite and sustain community participation. The health of our environment must remain at the very top of our priorities in moving our nation forward. This bill does not give us the confidence that the difference will be made. Our final vote is to be a vote against this bill; we are voting for the aspirations of our people.