Turei Metiria: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Turei Metiria: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:652;Page:1840] 
6.  
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: Will the Government’s proposed changes to the Resource Management Act have any negative impact on the rights of Maori iwi and hapu to have their say over resource management decisions? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Maori iwi and hapu have an important interest in resource management as applicants as objectors and also indirectly through the creation or loss of job opportunities as users of infrastructure and in exercising their customary rights in such areas as fishing. I have received increased concern from Maori about frustrations at the slow bureaucratic processes of the current Act in such areas as aquaculture. Maori have no more interest in long inefficient bureaucratic processes than any other New Zealander has. 
Metiria Turei 
: Is it not true that the Minister knows that these changes will have a negative impact on Maori and that that is why he is colluding to silence the Minister of Maori Affairs on it? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think I know what it will be. The member cannot in a question allege someone is colluding. I rule that question out of order. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Could I be quite clear—were you ruling out the word “colluding” because if that word is ruled out then we really are— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. The member is the most experienced member in this House. He knows that the Standing Orders around debate are different from those around question time and that to allege someone might have been colluding is not something that has been ruled out in debate. But questions cannot contain such an allegation. It is totally outside the Standing Orders. That is why I have ruled the question out of order. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: How are Maori iwi and hapu negatively affected by the current slow and cumbersome process of the Resource Management Act? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: One of the worst aspects of the current Act is how long it takes to develop and change district and regional plans. This has hampered iwi and hapu in having their interests over natural resources recognised and provided for. I think we would all acknowledge that Maori are at the hard edge of the economic downturn in industries such as construction and forestry. Reforms that can get those industries moving again will help Maori keep their jobs. 
Metiria Turei 
: What will stop council plans allowing for for example sewage discharge over mussel beds or kai moana beds when under his reforms Maori will lose their fundamental right to appeal the plan to the Environment Court? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The changes in appeal rights cut both ways. As the member would know the bill I introduced to the House and that was sent to the select committee by I think 110 votes to 10 does not remove all appeal rights on plans. It constrains rights to issues of Part 2 the substantive purpose of the Act and the substantive example she gives would not be restricted by those changes. 
Rahui Katene 
: What submissions has the Minister received from the Minister of Maori Affairs on the resource management review and was there any change in policy as a consequence of those submissions? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Hon Dr Pita Sharples and the Hon Tariana Turia made very strong submissions to me that the Maori Party would oppose—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can we be clear whether their submissions were made as co-leaders of the Maori Party or as Ministers? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the Minister for that interruption. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. How can it be in order for the Minister to say what he has been told by people in their roles as party leaders but not for another Minister to reply— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. If the member engaged the brain before operating the mouth he would realise— 
Hon Annette King 
: That’s very rude. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have been rude on purpose because the Minister was answering in the area of his responsibility which he is entitled to do. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If the Speaker would put his brain in order he would realise that the Minister of Maori Affairs was speaking within his! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite the member to reflect a little on what is happening here. It is not helpful. These are tricky issues. They are not new. The previous Parliament had difficulty around these issues of ministerial responsibility and they are not easy issues. I have tried in allowing the question of the Hon Trevor Mallard today to show that questions carefully framed can be allowed and I have tried to do that in the interests of holding the executive to account. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you to consider your last statement. You are the Speaker of this House. You have huge respect because of your office and for you to make statements as you did to Mr Parker or to any member of this House and to then admit that you were abusive deliberately demeans the office of Speaker. I cannot recall—I have been here for only 9 years; I invite comment from other members who have been here longer than me—ever hearing a Speaker use those terms of abuse to a member of Parliament and I invite you to reflect on that. It reflects on you personally and on your office and it is offensive. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I note the point the member has made. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Setting aside the previous point of order which you will no doubt reflect upon I seek your clarification and through you that of the Minister in his reply as to whether he was referring to the two members concerned in their ministerial capacities. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think I can deal with that fairly simply. The Minister can reply because it is his ministerial responsibility. The Minister in replying can refer to a range of matters. That is well known. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a somewhat supportive point of order because I want to note that you allowed the original question which was about the Minister of Maori Affairs. Therefore the question from the Maori Party member was about the Minister of Maori Affairs and his contribution. Therefore the response can be about only that and I support both Dr Smiths in the rulings they have made. What we clearly have now is the ability to ask about areas that are not those Ministers’ primary areas of responsibility but to ask about their responsibility in the area of advocacy in a way Mr Speaker which you did not allow earlier. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We will see. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It would be perfectly proper for the member to ask what submissions I had received from anybody and what change I had made to the policy. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Exactly. I accept the point. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect I ask for a ruling from you. The ruling I ask for is whether it is now acceptable for the Speaker in the Chair to throw abuse at members of Parliament. I invite you to give a ruling. I think it is appropriate given that you admitted you did throw abuse at members of Parliament. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: To the Hon David Parker and to the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to whom I clearly caused offence I apologise. I should not have done that. I apologise. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Hon Pita Sharples— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not want to prolong this but an important point is being raised here. You are quite right that the Minister can take submissions from anybody. The Minister is quite right in that it does not have to be in his ministerial capacity. But if it was in his ministerial capacity the reason why we are asking is that we are then able to direct further questions on another day to the Minister of Maori Affairs about that matter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I cannot rule on hypothetical issues. I invite the Hon Dr Nick Smith to answer. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Hon Pita Sharples in his role as the Minister of Maori Affairs made very strong submissions to me that he would oppose any watering down of section 8 the Treaty of Waitangi clause and as a consequence proposals for change have been dropped from the first reform bill. The Minister of Maori Affairs also sought assurances that no changes would be considered to Part 2 of the Resource Management Act reforms and I gave that reassurance. 
Metiria Turei 
: In reference to the Minister’s response to my previous question can he confirm then that should a council plan contain rules that allow for example for a sewage discharge over a kai moana bed where there is a Maori interest in protecting that kai moana bed that Maori group can go to court—assuming they can afford to lodge a bond under his reforms—to challenge that rule only if they have the leave of the court or if there is a question of law concerning that rule but that otherwise under his reforms they have no capacity under law to challenge the impact of that rule over their right to protect or use that kai moana bed? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member is quite wrong in two respects. The first is that the security of cost provision is at the discretion of the court; it is not an automatic right as the member suggests. The second is that the test as to whether a plan can be appealed to the Environment Court is whether it relates to a Part 2 issue the fundamental principles of the Resource Management Act. If it does such an appeal is quite in order. 
Metiria Turei 
: Supplementary question— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am afraid the member has used her allocation of supplementary questions. She may recollect that one question was ruled out and therefore the full six questions have now been used. 
Metiria Turei 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My records including the question that was ruled out identify that the Green Party asked one supplementary question on question No. 2 one supplementary question on question No. 3— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will take the honourable member’s word because my adviser is not 100 percent sure. 
Metiria Turei 
: What will the Minister say then to the nine iwi who are currently seeking customary rights orders in the Maori Land Court over issues relating to customary rights in the coastal marine area who under the existing Resource Management Act provisions are able to challenge any rule in the district plan that would impinge on those rights but whose rights to challenge will be taken away by his reforms because of the constraints around applying to the Environment Court to challenge district plan rules? What are those nine iwi going to do with their customary rights orders that give them rights in that area now that they cannot even challenge the councils? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The changes we are making to the Resource Management Act provide for quicker processes so where Maori want to see changes made to plans those processes will be sped up. At the moment it is taking on average 8 years to make a change in a plan and that is too long. It is also true that if we are going to speed up that process there is some constraint on appeal. I think we have the balance about right.