Katene Rahui: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Katene Rahui: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:652;Page:1498] 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 One of the foundation concepts of the Maori Party—and indeed Te Ao Maori—is that of kaitiakitanga. Kaitiakitanga represents the obligation of current generations to maintain the life-sustaining capacity of the environment for future generations. Kaitiakitanga is the practical expression of rangatiratanga. To exercise kaitiakitanga is to demonstrate customary authority over the way a resource is used managed and protected. It is the practical linking of mana over a region with the kaitiaki authority over the resources of that region. 
Contrary to the press release of the New Zealand Business Roundtable which describes kaitiakitanga as one of a “plethora of fuzz terms” and as “vague and unquantifiable” there are tangible and specific outcomes that can measure the expression of kaitiakitanga against environmental outcomes. These are outcomes such as the continued health and well-being of the resources or the cultural usage of the resource. 
At the very heart of the Resource Management Act is the fundamental importance of kaitiakitanga. The satisfaction of mana whenua that their guardianship is respected and their stewardship of the resources is valued is central towards understanding how to ensure an effective relationship between tangata whenua and the governing agencies of the State. 
It has always been our contention that the Resource Management Act would be sufficient to the tasks of environmental protection and mana whenua involvement in decision making if used properly and if interpreted responsibly by local government. This tension is the central point of conflict—and always has been—in assessing the effectiveness of the implementation of the Resource Management Act 1991 processes. The central premise of kaitiaki responsibilities is that all things living are connected; all living things have mauri. The life cycle connects us all from the smallest blade of grass to a kauri tree. 
The Maori Party’s policy has been explicit about our commitment towards keeping our natural resources and environment healthy safe and intact for future generations. In this sense we are pleased that the bill contains a key objective to reduce the time it takes to make decisions while at the same time maintaining effective public participation and promoting the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. The critical measure to evaluate the legislation will be whether we have the balance right between environmental sustainability and reducing compliance constraints. 
The Maori Party’s interest is in determining that the relationships between the Crown and Maori as the Treaty partner are honourable effective and functional. In a case study profiled in the Ministry for the Environment’s Quality Planning website we can assess the adequacy of the Resource Management Act as judged by interviews with the 26 South Island councils located within the Kai Tahu takiwa. Some of the engagement councils undertake with Kai Tahu is mandatory established through statutory acknowledgments while other areas of engagement are voluntary. But all indicate that there is still considerable room for improving tangata whenua engagement in Resource Management Act procedures. 
Kai Tahu comprises whanau and hapu within 18 papatipu runaka while Te Runaka o Kai Tahu is recognised as the iwi authority for the purposes of the Resource Management Act. The Kai Tahu case study indicated that where there were pockets of good practice it was entirely reliant on the interpersonal relationships developed between council and tangata whenua practitioners. Much of the existing good practice relies on interpersonal relationships developed between council and tangata whenua practitioners. But there were specific and tangible deliverables that could markedly improve the health of the relationship including robust administration clear internal council policies and establishing relationship agreements with tangata whenua. 
If this legislation it is intended as it professes to simplify procedures and to streamline appeal processes it may well be that the Kai Tahu case study gives some clues as to how best practice can ultimately lead to better Resource Management Act decision-making. The intimate relationship between resource management laws and the capacity of tangata whenua to maintain their roles and responsibilities for kaitiakitanga is one of the reasons we argued so fiercely for the preservation of section 8 of the Resource Management Act which refers to the kaitiaki role of tangata whenua and their rights as guaranteed by Te Tiriti o Waitangi. 
The actual wording of section 8 “Treaty of Waitangi” is: “all persons exercising functions and powers under it in relation to managing the use development and protection of natural and physical resources shall take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi”. Part 2 of the Resource Management Act—specifically sections 6(e) 6(f) 7(a) and 8—instructs local government that it must give due and appropriate consideration to the values and concerns of tangata whenua. But—and this is the major challenge—there is nothing to suggest any element of compulsion. Indeed the Prime Minister recently announced that section 8 is no longer a significant issue. Retaining good faith and good partnership and honouring te Tiriti is certainly a significant issue and we look forward—as Labour does—to the select committee process in order to learn the views of Maori on section 8 in particular. 
Amidst what can only be described as policy uncertainty some definite grey clouds are blocking a clear horizon. There is the prohibitive factor that the Environment Court could order parties challenging applications to pay security for costs. This means that before a group can take a case against a company the group would need to put up whatever money the company determines the court proceedings will cost it in lost time and other matters as security for cost. I remember when my auntie Eva Rickard brought the case against Tainui in 1995. The security of cost that Tainui named was $1 million which was too much for Auntie Eva to even contemplate. 
Then there is the proposal that removes the ability of the Minister of Conservation to make the final decision on the issuing of coastal development permits. This is a proposal that we are strongly opposed to. We are apprehensive that some of the amendments may limit the capacity of tangata whenua and communities to be involved in decision-making processes and to challenge and appeal consents once approved. There is the possibility which cannot be discounted that the provisions to limit vexatious and frivolous objections may be called on to deny the validity of arguments put forward by tangata whenua. 
Finally there is the ever-treacherous tightrope that we walk with the Act straddling twin priorities—the development of the people and the protection of the environment. There is anxiety among Maori that the easing of local council responsibilities as frontline Resource Management Act administrators will be to the detriment of the community as large and small-scale developers including local and regional councils hurry on impatient in their quest to establish major infrastructure. 
The potential to reduce cost to businesses will enable councils to fast-track vital elements of the infrastructure—roads wind farms and centralised sewerage and water plants. Whenever there is construction on such a large scale we will always be concerned to monitor proposals to ensure that they will not occur at the expense of local community development aspirations. This to us is the hub of the issue. It is absolutely vital that any changes to enable local councils to make planning changes more quickly are not at the expense of community and tangata whenua dialogue. 
As tangata tiaki Maori must be able to do all we can to promote the regeneration and revitalisation of indigenous flora and fauna protect waterways and land from ecological misuse and destruction and support sustainable development rather than crude fiscal growth per se. We will support this bill at its first reading because we want to hear the views of our whanau hapu and iwi our lawyers environmental advocates our tikanga experts our conservation champions and members of the local community about just how well this bill works—or does not work. Kia ora.