Flavell Te Ururoa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to MinistersText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFlavell Te Ururoa: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers[Sitting date: 24 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13598. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]3.TE URUROA FLAVELL (Co-Leader—Māori Party) to theMinister for the Environment: Does she agree with the former Prime Minister and architect of the Resource Management Act 1991 Sir Geoffrey Palmer that taken as a whole the proposed amendments to the Resource Management Act 1991 will seriously weaken the level of protection given to New Zealand’s natural environment under the Act and how will she address the concerns in particular related to the merging of sections 6 and 7?Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for the Environment): No I do not agree with Sir Geoffrey’s assessment on the impact on environmental protection. The Resource Management Act reforms are a package with a large number of elements that all work together. For example by improving our planning processes having better use of national tools and encouraging communities to make more decisions at the planning stage it is my view that we will get more robust and enduring decisions that better weigh all of the needs of our communities and their cumulative effects. In respect of sections 6 and 7 specifically we are continuing to talk with a number of parties about the optimal framing of those sections.Te Ururoa Flavell: Does the Minister agree that merging sections 6 and 7 into one list forcing decision makers to choose one principle over another without clear guidance from case law does protect the environment; if so why have so manyMāori submitters disagreed with this view?Hon AMY ADAMS: Well no I do not agree that merging them has the impact the member suggests. In fact the case law has been quite clear that decision makers have for some time become used to exercising overall broad judgment weighing up all of the factors to take into account in making their decisions. That is reasonably well settled and in fact I would point out that some iwi groups submitted in support of exactly this change.Te Ururoa Flavell: Does she stand by the statement made on 10 August that “The changes aim to incentivise effective working relationships between iwi/hapū and councils.” and how will this be done when the critical guidance in sections 6 and 7 will be merged together with no detail about whether local authorities can achieve this?Hon AMY ADAMS: Yes I do stand by that statement and I point out that sections 6 and 7 are just one part of the Act albeit a very important part and actually some of the specific reforms in the package that we are proposing around reform of the planning pathways and iwi participation in planning is exactly some of what we are pointing to. I would also point out to the member that the package of reforms includes: elevation of kaitiakitanga from a matter that particular regard must be given to to a matter that has to be recognised and provided for; clarity of the role of iwi andhapū in resource management planning including a requirement for councils across all planning pathways to seek and have particular regard to the advice of iwi andhapū; provision for hearing and review panels to include members of tikanga understanding and perspectives of the local iwi orhapū; greater transparency around how iwi andhapū interests are considered by councils; requirements in section 32 reports for councils to specifically record how their consultation with iwi has progressed and how plans meetthose concerns; stronger incentives for effective working relationships with iwi andhapū through stronger iwi planning agreements—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is a very long answer thank you.Moana Mackey: Can she guarantee that any policy changes to restrict or remove the public’s right to submit appeal or protest against any application under the Resource Management Act will be clearly signalled when the amendment legislation is introduced to Parliament and not done by a surprise Supplementary Order Paper during the Committee stage of this or any other bill as Minister Bridges did with the protest ban under the Crown Minerals Amendment Act 2013 Amendment Bill and as she is doing today with an amendment to shut the public out of the consenting process under the exclusive economic zone legislation?Hon AMY ADAMS: I point out to that member that our policy decisions from the National-led Government and the National Party have been announced for some months. A bill will come out in due course which I am assuming members of the Opposition are capable of reading but if they want help working their way through it I am happy to take them through it. I point out to the member that the Supplementary Order Paper that she is referring to this afternoon was notified by us in a press release back in April so exactly what her definition of “surprise tactics” is eludes me.Moana Mackey: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order and it will be heard in silence.Moana Mackey: Thank you. The Minister actually did not answer the question of whether she could guarantee that she would not do that.Mr SPEAKER: No on the basis of the question that was asked it was addressed satisfactorily by the Minister.