Smith Stuart; Parker DavidSTUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): Oh thank you Mr Chair. I did raise this clause or a similar clause in the Natural and Built Environment Bill. I would like to go back to it. This is a different bill. I have to ask the same question I did in the Natural and Built Environment Bill which is there is a principle in the law that everybody should be able to know the law. But under clause 5 All persons exercising powers and performing functions and duties under this Act must give effect to the principles of te Tiriti o Waitangi." But we don't know what those principles are—the Minister's admitted that earlier—so it's not possible for someone to know the law.So does the Minister agree that it's not possible to know the law in this case? How does that make this a workable proposition? I think it's incredibly confusing. We should have one law for all and it should be able to be known by everybody. But it can't be when the principles are—as I recall under the Natural and Built Environment Bill at select committee when the officials were asked about what the principles were they said "Oh they're evolving." Well that's not a very satisfactory answer given that this is law we're writing here.This is law that New Zealanders will have to live with under almost everything that they do. How is it possible to know the law? We are creating a massive rod for our own back. It's going to have an incredibly deleterious effect on our economy quite frankly. It'll be good for some but even the legal profession don't like this because they also have clients that they have to present and how can they do that when they don't know the law? It's not possible to know the law.So was this actually considered when the Minister gave instructions to officials to write this legislation? Was there any work or advice that came back from officials that this would be an unworkable provision and if so why did the Minister persist with it? I think we deserve to understand the rationale for this provision in this and other legislation. Simply saying that the courts say this is better than referring to the actual Treaty instead they want to refer to the principles that's not a good enough answer. Just because it's been done that way doesn't mean it's right. So Minister we're all eagerly awaiting your response.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Those are the same words that are in the Resource Management Act that that member's party failed to repeal over nine years and in many other Acts that that member's party over the years have supported. Indeed I read out that part of that section 8 of the Reserve Management Act which says decision makers "shall take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi". So the concept of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi is frequently used in the statute. The change here is not to the reference to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi or the Treaty of Waitangi but the duty to give effect to them rather than take into account and there are precedents for that on the statute book.If only we listened to everything that the National Party did we'd be great! Well I'm afraid I disagree with that simplistic and incorrect proposition."