Tirikatene Rino: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Tirikatene Rino: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 21 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4603. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Chair. I am pleased to take a call on Part 2 in the Committee stage of this bill the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill. Just at the outset I would like to respond to Dr Nick Smith’s comments that the bill is actually good law and that it has been substantially knocked into shape by the Minister for the Environment. I would like to just say that in terms of Maori and Treaty relationships this bill falls well short of measuring up in terms of the protection of Maori interests. But firstly I would like to also just stand in support of the two Supplementary Order Papers from my colleague Moana Mackey Supplementary Order Paper 103 and Supplementary Order Paper 106. 
But getting back to the issues in terms of Maori rights I am picking up on the Maori advisory committee. The Maori advisory committee is a positive step in terms of its relationship with the Environmental Protection Authority and it would have been good to see the role of the Maori advisory committee strengthened. The Maori advisory committee has a power only to advise. There is no power to bind nor is there an onus on the Environmental Protection Authority to even show that it has taken on board any of the recommendations or advice from the Maori advisory committee nor is it obliged to take anything into serious consideration. This is not good enough and it does relegate Maori interests as secondary under the consenting process that is outlined in Part 2. 
The advisory committee yes has a power to advise but again it is only “may”. Its power to advise is optional; it is not mandatory. The Environmental Protection Authority may choose to receive the advice of the Maori advisory committee but it does not have to. So that is not good enough and we do not want a situation where the advisory committee or Maori interests are merely just a box that is to be ticked in the consenting process. Consultation with Maori must extend beyond the Maori advisory committee and include iwi and hapu as views do differ from region to region. I refer to the submission from my own iwi down in Ngai Tahu where they had very strong views as to their role as kaitiaki in terms of the exclusive economic zone because equivalent to 50 percent of the exclusive economic zone falls within the Ngai Tahu takiwa. 
The next area where this bill falls short in Part 2 in relation to tangata whenua interests is around the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. It was disappointing that the Supplementary Order Paper that we put up on Part 1 to broaden the recognition or adherence of the general obligation of the Treaty between the Crown and iwi was not adopted. But the bill does need to be strengthened to give better effect to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. As I mentioned there is no general obligation on the Crown to give effect to those principles and there are only references to specific clauses in terms of activities through the consenting process but there is no general obligation that is an obligation on the Crown. Just as an example if we go through Part 2 clauses 32 33 and 46 do not give proper effect to the principles of the Treaty as the provisions are largely toothless and do not impose any concrete obligations. It is merely a notification-type obligation by the Minister or by the Environmental Protection Authority. The bill does not recognise the special relationship Maori do have with their taonga which in this case is the marine environment and this is a clear breach of Treaty principles. 
There is long-established Waitangi Tribunal jurisprudence and the like on these Treaty principles and that means that there is a duty to give effect to the relationship of iwi or Maori with their taonga. How can the bill claim to give effect to the principles of the Treaty when the bill breaches the most important principle the principle of partnership and when a key aspect of that partnership is the relationship with taonga and it is omitted from the bill? The principles of the Treaty are not given concrete enough effect and this may expose the Crown to legal action in terms of failure to adhere to its Treaty obligations. The bill does not actively protect interests of active protection. They are not given full effect. Instead these duties are delegated down to bodies such as the Environmental Protection Authority and other lesser bodies. 
Recognising the special relationship that Maori do have with the marine environment is fundamental to this bill. It was a key part of the submissions that many iwi and other interested Maori groups gave to the Local Government and Environment Committee and unfortunately they have not been given expression in the bill. That does arguably open up some litigation risk around those in addition to the shortcomings from all of the other areas that have been identified earlier in the debate. I will just conclude my contribution here but I will pick up in Part 3 some other aspects around the tangata whenua interests. Kia ora.