Henare Peeni; Bishop ChrisHon PEENI HENARE (Labour): Thank you Madam Chair. I thought that contribution from my colleague Arena Williams was outstanding and it's in that vein where we are coming up to this anomaly when we look towards the repeal bill here. I want to bring the Minister responsible for RMA Reform's attention to the amendments to the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011.Ngāti Apa took a claim to the Waitangi Tribunal and actually ended up in the High Court where the High Court decided the customary rights of Ngāti Apa in Te Tau Ihu o te Waka. The rest is history really—that sparked the foreshore hikoi and what it did was it forced the Government of the day to look towards bits of legislation that allowed tribes to have the ability to apply for customary rights through the courts. Actually it was our former colleague the Hon Christopher Finlayson who I thought did a very inspired job there to tidy up something to allow Māori the avenue towards application for customary rights on Takutai Moana.My question to the Minister: in repealing the coastal permit—and it's slightly in the vein of my colleague Arena Williams—what we're effectively doing here is reverting the coastal permit laws back to 1991 which gave rise to the Ngāti Apa claim which ended up in the High Court and forced the High Court decision which led to the foreshore and seabed and ultimately the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act. So that's the first question: in doing so are we diluting Māori's ability to be able to take these particular claims of coastal permit into the legal realm to apply for customary title?The second question just very quickly is with respect to the customary title right for those under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 there have been quite a large number of iwi who are already involved in a process to try and achieve a customary title right. I'm curious if the Minister knows what will happen with those cases. We know—and I may be corrected by some of the members in the House here—that there's only been one application that's got across the line that resulted in the Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Porou legislation. But there are no less than seven others who are already going through this particular process and whether or not this repeal of the definition of coastal permit" will affect those particular members or tribes who are pushing through their coastal claim. I think these are important questions. I know as I said already Mr Finlayson I thought through legal instruments actually provided a really good way of getting through the customary title argument and debate on the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act. So I'd really like to hear from the Minister on those matters.Hon CHRIS BISHOP (Minister responsible for RMA Reform): Thank you Madam Chair. I agree with the member who resumed his seat the Hon Peeni Henare around the elegant solution that Parliament came to with the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act. Although as the member will be aware we do have concerns around one of the more recent judgments in relation to that Act. Parliament has made its intention clear and it's not clear to us that the courts are taking the right approach to it. But in a general sense I accept the member's point.This repeal bill has nothing to do with that. So any existing claims that are before the courts or going through the process remain so; they will work their way through the process. The Ngāti Apa decision of the Court of Appeal in 2003—I respect the member's knowledge of the matter but that's not going to happen so I wouldn't be too worried about that. All it does as I've said many times is take out the last three months and go back to what we had under the 1991 Act. There is no intention to upturn or overturn any existing processes or settlements or anything like that.That also I think deals with Ms Williams' point around changes to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act. Again in the sense that changes around that that were seen as an advancement are being undone: yes that is true—reasonable people can disagree or agree on that. But we are just going back to what the law was up until three months ago. So that's the easiest way to think about the bill. Parliament is essentially rejecting the changes made just three or four months ago.In relation to her select committee referral motion which she's had another go at I see she's moderated her demands—demand's probably a bit strong—moderated her inquiry request a little bit; 90 days. The House must conduct an inquiry within 90 days.Hon Kieran McAnulty: It's a 90-day trial.Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Ha ha! Yep yep. Well 28 days of that time people will be at the beach; cute Mr McAnulty will be playing cricket and Ms Williams will be at those beautiful North Shore beaches. So I think that might be a little bit ambitious. I am prepared to consider it.The other option of course is that Ministers or the Government write to a parliamentary select committee and ask them to do a short sharp targeted piece of work around what bits of the Natural and Built Environment Act (NBA) the Government may wish to advance. Because as I have said to the House previously it's inevitable that we will keep some of the more sensible technical amendments in relation to the Resource Management Act (RMA). Because although it's sort of been advertised that the NBA repeals the RMA it doesn't—actually David Parker is partly to blame for that because David Parker stood up in Parliament on many occasions and said "We're repealing the RMA; National's opposed to it" and actually it doesn't. The RMA continues in its existence for quite some time.Hon Kieran McAnulty: You've been waiting a long time to make that point haven't you?Hon CHRIS BISHOP: What was that?Hon Kieran McAnulty: You've been waiting a long time to make that point.Arena Williams: Yeah which is why we don't need to be here today.Hon CHRIS BISHOP: Yeah well we could finish up right now vote and get out of here. But you know it's entirely over to you guys.Arena Williams: No you remove it.Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I'm happy to keep answering your questions. So that deals with that issue.Just going back to what Rachel Brooking said in relation to the Spatial Planning Act the member's very exercised about why the Government's keen to get rid of this. I think I've given a few reasons already which is that we want a structurally coherent way around spatial planning. The other bit is that it is not possible to unpick the changes made through the Spatial Planning Act (SPA) from the NBA. So for example clause 5 of the SPA inserts a strengthened Treaty clause around giving effect to the Treaty. Our preference is for "have regard to" the Treaty as is in the current RMA. Clause 6 contains the language around te Oranga o te Taiao which we've canvassed in Part 1 and the first and second reading. The SPA purpose clause makes it clear that the purpose of the SPA is to uphold commitments made through the NBA. So yes they're separate Acts but they're clearly interlinked and it's impossible to unpick them.The other thing of course is that the SPA—and the NBA for that matter—kicks off a 10-year transition time frame. The Government's taken the view that rather than councils and decision makers starting to apply the law and get started on it we've taken a decision that it's best to get it off the statute books—Madam Chair I'll just answer this briefly.CHAIRPERSON (Barbara Kuriger): The Hon Chris Bishop.Hon CHRIS BISHOP: I'll just take a couple more seconds. We've taken the view that it's best to get it off the statute books so that everyone has certainty. I actually think we're doing everyone a favour. It's no longer going to be the law if Parliament passes it.The other point I would make is something that I don't think I've mentioned before which is that I've decided to retain the Spatial Planning Board which is not actually set up through the NBA or SPA; it's set up through the Public Service Act. I have decided to retain the Spatial Planning Board while we work out our own approach to spatial planning. But the idea of getting agencies together into a room—as the member knows from her time as a Minister—is very very useful. So the Spatial Planning Board will continue and in due course we will work out exactly what the Government's approach to spatial planning is."