Katene Rahui: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Katene Rahui: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 13 September 2011. Volume:675;Page:21223. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 The Maori Party has taken a keen interest in the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill particularly in respect of its capacity to provide for an effective environmental management regime in the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf—essentially the seabed and subsoil of Aotearoa. Respect for the marine environment—the acknowledgment of the importance of land and waters that have provided sustenance—is an essential element of the Maori world view. Implicit in our tikanga is the reminder to respect and protect nature so that future generations may enjoy the same quality of life that we cherish now. We entered into an analysis of this legislation therefore with a view as to how it will enhance the sustainability of our environment and enable mana whenua the rights and responsibilities encompassed in our understanding of kaitiakitanga. We see any investment in protecting our primary ecosystems as being necessary for future economic prosperity and for the benefit of future generations. As seafaring people we appreciate that we have partaken of the food garden sown by our ancestors for our benefit. In due course it will become time for us to resow to ensure sustenance for the generations to come. That time is now; the opportunity is here through this legislation. This legislation sets out an obligation for adverse environmental effects to be avoided remedied or mitigated. 
In coming to this bill I am reflecting on the submission of one of my Ngati Kuia whanaunga Raymond Smith who presented a submission to the ministerial panel reviewing the Foreshore and Seabed Act on behalf of the runanga. He said in that submission: “We need to be part of that group that decides it. We believe that … if we do have our mahinga kai our pingao areas that need to be protected we need to be able to rahui. We need to be able to have those tools with teeth … for environmental protection sustainability and even our customary protection our cultural protection.” This view was reflected throughout our consultation in the very limited time period between when this bill was introduced and its first reading today. 
We understand that iwi welcome a legislative framework to protect environmental outcomes in the marine environment but there are two overarching issues for them: namely what is the process to ensure that iwi are involved in further policy development and what are the regulations and where do iwi fit into the regulations? There is no doubt where iwi are concerned that we want to avoid any potential risk of harm to the environment and subsequently any threat to the present and future economic well-being of New Zealand. We see the extension of the responsibilities of kaitiakitanga as taking up a vigilant stance to watch out for the health and safety of people; to safeguard the biological diversity and integrity of marine species ecosystems and processes; and to protect rare and vulnerable ecosystems as well as the habitat of depleted threatened or endangered species. Our commitment therefore to manage the cumulative effects of all activities on the environment is our uppermost concern in this bill. 
First and foremost we are pleased that the legislation will provide for consultation with Maori and will ensure consideration of Treaty settlements and customary rights and/or interests granted under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011. But we are concerned from some preliminary views of iwi that the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill currently contains insufficient protection for and recognition of Maori interests. There are a number of areas where the regime needs to be strengthened which could improve the opportunity for more meaningful participation by Maori and enable better protection and recognition of Maori interests. We have approached the Minister with our suggestions in this regard and hope that he will give due thought to his response. One particular suggestion for example is for a mandatory requirement for a cultural impact assessment to be completed before an application can be accepted and provision to be made for cost recovery for iwi participation in processes. The preliminary assessment from the iwi we consulted is that they consider that the bill does not meet existing precedent and of course in their view and ours it should be seeking to improve upon existing statutory precedent. They also believe that the bill is somewhat hollow. The substantive criteria for balancing environmental impacts and economic outcomes are left to regulations and/or decision makers which may not provide desirable surety for environmental outcomes. 
We note that the Environmental Protection Authority advisory committee which carries over from a similar committee under the Environmental Risk Management Authority would also have a role in providing advice on process and decisions under the new legislation. The authority will make decisions on consent applications and will be responsible for the day-to-day operation of the legislation including information management monitoring and enforcement functions. If the Maori advisory committee is to be the principal mechanism to facilitate the recognition and protection of Maori interests it is a poor substitute for explicit statutory recognition of iwi rights and the inclusion of a stronger Treaty of Waitangi clause. At the very least if the Maori advisory committee is to play an important role it should be explicitly provided for in the legislation that its advice must be taken into account. I am mindful too that the recent Waitangi Tribunal report on the Wai 262 claim  
Ko Aotearoa Tenei 
 discussed the role of advisory committees in some detail and recommended that they should have broader roles including the discretion to comment at will rather than on referral and with input from iwi and hapu as to appointments. The appointments to the Maori advisory committee should be considered in areas where iwi have strong coastal interests and there should be direct iwi and hapu input into those appointments. One of the amendments we will be proposing as the bill proceeds through the House is that statutory status should be accorded to iwi that in some way provides for iwi to be recognised as a partner to the Environmental Protection Authority when it makes its decisions. 
The last comment I will make is about clause 14 the Treaty of Waitangi clause. The way this clause is currently worded sets out how the bill recognises the Crown’s responsibility to take account of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi rather than as an obligation on a decision maker to have regard to take account of recognise and provide for the Treaty or its principles. This clause is therefore more of a declaration of the Crown’s view that the bill complies with its Treaty obligations rather than a provision that places a positive forward-looking obligation on decision makers in terms of the Treaty and Treaty principles. Not to put too fine a point on it but this is insufficient from a Maori point of view. It is also inconsistent with the Resource Management Act which will apply where activities occur within 12 nautical miles and which contains provisions that expressly require decision makers to have regard to Maori interests. Our recommendation to the Minister is that the clause should be replaced by a provision requiring that the Treaty or Treaty principles be taken into account. This could be done as part of clause 12 which lists the matters to be taken into account when making decisions under the legislation. It could also be done by way of a new forward-looking Treaty provision. 
We have made a commitment to the Minister that we are happy to work on redrafting the Treaty clause to ensure that it will recognise and respect the Crown’s responsibility to give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and throughout the whole of the bill not just the specific parts referred to in the current version. Our support for the bill can be assured only for the first reading. We hope that sending the bill out for consultation during the select committee consideration will enable a far more comprehensive analysis of the bill and we will be actively encouraging whanau hapu and iwi to make submissions.