Brooking Rachel; O'Connor SimonHon RACHEL BROOKING (Associate Minister for the Environment): In response to comments made by the Hon Scott Simpson just before the dinner break and now actually just after the dinner break—sorry about the football result—but on to what you were talking about before the dinner break which was the Treaty clause and the change. I wanted to note of course the Resource Management Act (RMA) has a Treaty clause at the moment in section 8 and that test is to take into account—and it still talks about the principles which is the same language as clause 4 which has this higher test and that higher test is must give effect to". The Hon Scott Simpson was asking before the dinner break about where this had come from. He made some interesting comments around the Randerson report in the committee. Of course where it has come from is a long gestation or the long being—not even the gestation—of the Resource Management and the feeling from many people who have to use the RMA that it wasn't strong enough in this clause and that it wasn't strong enough for Māori. That has been a sentiment that has come through in submissions and in various consultation documents for a long time. So it's a fairly simple answer.SIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Just to pick up the point around well what Scott Simpson had raised earlier: does the Minister appreciate and regardless—well sorry. First and foremost of course there are people who want stronger Treaty provisions and that's perfectly understandable. But does the Minister understand it is an enormous step legally if not morally to move from "consideration" to "effect"—like from "take account" sorry to "to effect"? This is an enormous change. This is not just a simple change of nomenclature in terms of particular principles—any principles for that matter. I'm sure a human rights lawyer would understand as I look to my left that to say "to take into consideration" or "to take thought of" human rights and principles is one thing. To "give effect to"—that's an enormous enormous change. The second is that the Minister earlier in the day had been talking about how we'd moved from 100 plans to 16 and how the rewrite of this Part 1 in particular—but the whole 900-plus pages is going to make an enormous impact. And I suppose the question to the Minister in the chair is: does she really believe that the change of font and format in the presentation of a law is somehow going to outweigh or rather make things so efficient and outweigh the enormous effects of 900-plus pages of effectively new concepts untested in law? To put it another way: does she really think that all these enormous changes as I say untested judicially—that the Chief Justice has warned the select committee of just the enormous workloads going to be created—does she think as Minister Parker indicated that simply changing the font and format and reducing the number of plans is going to outweigh that judicial uncertainty?Hon RACHEL BROOKING (Associate Minister for the Environment): To the first point am I aware of the difference between "give effect to" and "take into account"? Yes. And to the second point that it's 900 pages of brand-new concepts that are going to be tested by the courts absolutely not. Some of the concepts in here are different and there will of course be some litigation around those but a lot of the framework of the bill is similar to what the Resource Management Act is. There are some fundamental changes but a lot of it—you still have resource consents you still have plan-making and a lot of the provisions of the bill are to set out very clearly what they are. In terms of the re-order of the Act that's to make it easier for the users."