Mahuta Nanaia: Resource Management (Enhancement of Iwi Management Plans) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mahuta Nanaia: Resource Management (Enhancement of Iwi Management Plans) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 21 July 2010. Volume:665;Page:12593. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 I move  
That the Resource Management (Enhancement of Iwi Management Plans) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 I am pleased to introduce this bill to the House to affirm greater recognition of tangata whenua interests in the resource management and local government planning process. As stated in the explanatory note “The purpose of this bill is to strengthen the provisions by which iwi management plans influence regional and district plans and policies”. Clause 5 of the bill introduces an amendment that would mean iwi management plans would be elevated in the planning hierarchy recognising and providing for the interests of tangata whenua when it comes to developments in their rohe. The intention is that the cultural environmental and heritage interests of tangata whenua are considered more effectively at the front end of the planning process rather than at adversarial often lengthy resource consent hearings. 
I believe that this bill strengthens the intent of sections 6 7(a) and 8 of the Resource Management Act by setting out the priorities of iwi in their management plans. This bill also promotes in a practical way the intent of section 5 of the Resource Management Act to achieve an integrated response that footnotes the whole notion of sustainable management. Maori have a huge contribution to make in this space and too often they have been left on the periphery rather than being critical to the outcome. I am optimistic that given the National-led Government’s new-found relationship with iwi and Maori this bill may get to select committee. Indeed if the Maori Party can see the value of this bill then I would hope the Government would endorse its judgment as the bill is progressive in its intention. 
Not so long ago the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu (Claims) Waikato River Settlement Act passed its third and final reading in this House with a significant majority. That settlement provided for a co-governance and co-management framework to address a longstanding concern amongst Waikato iwi that the degradation of the Waikato River be addressed. That settlement makes provision for statutory recognition of a vision and strategy that seeks to create an integrated management approach to cleaning up the river and more important forging a common ambition amongst iwi local government landowners Government agencies industry and the community. 
Some of the mechanisms to achieve change require accords joint management agreements and a broader context for considering land-based activity and its effects on waterways. I expect several more settlements will look to this model as a means of defining a unique approach to catchment management of waterways and engaging effectively with iwi and central and local government. 
The bill seeks to normalise a way of doing things that has been achieved to date only as a result of Treaty settlements. I have heard numerous examples throughout my electorate where negative encounters with the Resource Management Act have led iwi to oppose resource consents because of a lack of engagement with tangata whenua or any recognition of their concerns. Iwi management plans are just part of the picture and should be integrated across council planning and policy processes. In order for them to be effective they must be developed as planning documents that preserve the integrity of tangata whenua aspirations but are able to be utilised by regional councils and territorial authorities in the planning process. 
To achieve this a dedicated work stream for iwi councils and the Ministry for the Environment would be necessary. Undoubtedly this will signal a new way of doing things with some councils having to engage the participation of iwi through their regional policy statement consultation processes. I believe this bill sets a uniform approach to achieving best practice. This change will result in the setting of better planning and policy-making decisions rules and internal operational practices for council and more effective outcomes. I have thought about the issue of cost and foreshadowed that there will be a fiscal impact that might be better considered in full by the select committee process as it will involve iwi and local and central government. 
I want to highlight just a few examples from my electorate Hauraki-Waikato as there is a problem that needs to be fixed. Ngati Te Ata is situated in the south of Tamaki Makaurau the Auckland isthmus. Their interest to protect ancient burial sites at Maioro in Waiuku and historical sites at Matukutureia in Wiri are well documented in the Manukau claim yet their representation to protect their heritage and special landscapes have been fraught with conflict frustrated by process and delayed by inaction. A long period of time has passed since their interests were brought to light substantially in the 1980s. But that has been a long and drawn-out process. Against the backdrop of the Auckland super-city reform this amendment would give greater assurance to iwi who want to protect their natural heritage and historical sites. 
Across the Hauraki Gulf I think about Whangamata. Hapu and iwi there lodged objections to the Whangamata marina on the basis that their traditional fishing and harvesting grounds would be detrimentally affected. Even though the Resource Management Act provided for recognition of kaitiakitanga and the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi those hapu presented their information to the Environment Court to Ministers to local MPs and to anyone who would listen but their interests were secondary to the economic potential of the marina. The chairperson of the Hauraki Maori Trust Board even declared that they were not anti-development but their customary interests in the area had been totally ignored. 
If this amendment were to proceed iwi could have had a proactive discussion about a development proposal with their priorities clearly outlined in the council planning documents and relevant policies and rules applying to consents in sensitive spaces. There would also be a clear point of engagement for developers wanting to meet with iwi. Out on the west coast in the small community called Marokopa the efforts of one woman on behalf of her hapu Ngati Tupoho has led to the preservation and protection of sand dunes and a sandspit in the area. Her dogged determination has at times seen her efforts conflict with those of the community wanting to enjoy access to this coastal area but her intent to be a kaitiaki in a very real way cannot be faulted. 
The benefit of this amendment would provide greater protection for her to continue the good work that has been done and it would also provide better access to information and points of engagement for the larger community in terms of recognising this special and historically significant place. 
I come back to the Waikato. Near the river at Horotiu archaeological sites had been excavated in the past. This is the case throughout this stretch of the river as the sand was particularly useful for lining kumara pits and preserving the kumara over winter. Although these sites are protected there is an application to build approximately 5 metres from the pits. The applicant argues that although the site is preserved and protected it is not damaged by this development. This site is on private land. The benefit of the amendment that I am putting to the House today would be that whether on private or public land Maori or general land all would be subject to clause 6 which amends section 75(2) “to allow territorial authorities to state resource management issues of particular interest to local iwi in their district plans.” 
There are other examples too numerous and equally important to outline in the House. But whether the issue is discharge in waterways dirty dairying practices sewage effluent being discharged into harbours developments in small coastal villages a change in land use intensification of farming practices or mining practices out in the exclusive economic zone or on conservation land tangata whenua have been involved in consenting processes and too often at the back end. The Resource Management Act can and should work better and we should not have to wait for a Treaty settlement. There is simply a better way of doing things by including at the front end of the planning process engaging council and territorial authorities more positively with the aspirations of iwi. After all there is a dearth of Maori representation on councils and a legislative imperative would ensure proactive engagement with tangata whenua in the planning and policy-making process. 
I am a firmly believer that if something needs fixing then do it. Since its inception the Resource Management Act has undergone a number of iterations. Some changes were driven by sheer political ideology; others were technical changes resulting from the practical experience of implementing the intention of the Resource Management Act. This amendment seeks to rebalance the interest of tangata whenua in the planning environment to have greater regard to the cultural spiritual historical and environmental values of iwi. I am hopeful that during the debate today members may consider the positive contribution that this bill can make to the resource management and planning decisions of local government. In many ways it will simplify and streamline more effective engagement with Maori. Kia ora.