Court Simon; Parker DavidSIMON COURT (ACT): Minister that's fascinating; because now I'm concerned as other people may be that while you accept there are principles—which are defined in other legislation and which might help decision makers or those exercising functions and duties to interpret what that means—clause 7 potentially creates significant confusion. Because in addition to the principles of partnership active protection and mutual benefit"—which you've described to me are the principles in replies to written questions on transport—people exercising powers performing functions and duties now must recognise and provide for responsibility and mana of each iwi and hapū to protect uphold and sustain the wellbeing of te taiao and that's "in accordance with kawa tikanga (including kaitiakitanga) and mātauranga in their rohe or takiwā." Minister this creates the opportunity—as Mr Bishop pointed out—for a whole lot of judicial review and challenges to decisions. Minister I want to offer you a practical solution and maybe it's something that we could put in a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) and that we might be able to get agreement on. In fact Minister you might wish to propose it as a Government SOP which is the responsibilities that decision makers should have to consult with iwi or hapū or even down to individual marae—where plans and projects affect their private property—should actually be specified here rather than in these general terms.I give you an example: if we can turn back time and we can imagine the thinking of those decision makers in Auckland who decided in their wisdom to locate the Māngere waste water sewage treatment plant and the oxidation ponds for that plant right in front of a marae back in the 1960s. They wouldn't do that these days because would be obliged to take account—and not just the environmental effects but the effects on private property owners who would border that coastal area. But in Auckland there are around about potentially up to 20 iwi and hapū who claim mana whenua in the Auckland region and my experience of seeking feedback from those groups for infrastructure projects in a role that I previously held at Auckland Council is that many of them were happy to give examples of what would be acceptable and what wouldn't and inevitably those examples matched up almost perfectly with what would be acceptable or not for any private property owner affected by an infrastructure development or a planning rule over their private property.So Minister wouldn't it be far more practical to replace this clause 7 with "Persons exercising powers performing duties and functions should consult with iwi hapū and potentially down to individual marae to seek their feedback on planning provisions which affect their private property and the exercise of their rights—including potentially their rights; the customary rights such as to collect seafood and shellfish"—just like the people who were on that marae in Māngere who used to collect seafood and shellfish before a waste water treatment plant was built right in front of their property. Shouldn't clause 7 simply say "consult with the people affected get their feedback and incorporate that into plans and primarily with respect to effects on their private or potentially collectively owned property" Minister?Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): I'm reading from the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009. The purpose of that Act at section 3(f) reads: "to establish arrangements to promote issues of significance for mana whenua groups and mataawaka for Tamaki Makaurau." Seems that it's OK if the ACT Party does it but it's not OK if we do it."