Mahuta Nanaia: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
Mahuta Nanaia: Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill — Procedure Second Reading In Committee Third Reading 
[Volume:657;Page:6247] 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 I will take a call on the third reading of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. Labour supported the bill going to the Local Government and Environment Committee at the first reading on the basis that the public submission process would provide ample practical and considered feedback from people who use the Resource Management Act. The aim of the Resource Management Act has always been to ensure the protection of the natural and physical environment to encourage sustainable development and to enable local participation in decision making to be achieved. The challenge has always been to ensure that the balance of interests is given weight in the practical application of what the law intended. On that challenge alone diverse views have been reflected in this House about where the tipping point has occurred. 
I for one recognise that in many communities amongst tangata whenua far too much weight has indeed been weighted in favour of those who can afford to protect their interests by using the process. National has touted its objectives as a means to streamline and simplify legislation. Interestingly the bill as introduced received significant criticism at the select committee for poor drafting and introducing unnecessary confusion and complexity. I recognise that several changes to the original bill have been made by the select committee and I commend its efforts. 
Labour will support clauses that improve the performance and operation of the Resource Management Act and that reduce costs and unnecessary delay without significantly undermining environmental protection and public participation. But we do not support those changes that will rebalance the Act in favour of development per se. On that front there were several aspects in the Committee stage which Labour brought to the attention of the Committee that do not meet those tests—firstly the way in which resource consents are notified as well as the removal of the Minister of Conservation’s decision-making power in relation to restricted coastal activities and secondly the prohibition of district rules that allow authorities to have general tree protection rules in their district plans. 
I spoke to the first two points in the Committee stage and for the purposes of this contribution I will further highlight the fact that submitters recognised that removing the presumption in favour of notification and truncating the time limit for public or limited notification will mean that public participation will be undermined. This in turn will limit local community hapu and iwi involvement in decision making. Several councils noted that the current practice was that roughly 5 percent of consents were currently notified. This in part was due to either a heavy emphasis on involvement in the pre-consent process working with tangata whenua at the front-end of processing consent applications as an early-alerts mechanism or better processes for collating and aligning information to the consent process. 
The bill proposes to raise the threshold of affected parties to narrow the scope of parties that need to be notified. This may invariably impact on the broader interests of tangata whenua who are often reliant on their marae hapu or iwi organisations to protect their interests. By the time their interests are recognised they may have a very short time in which to state the nature of their interests and more than likely will not have time to go back to the marae hapu or iwi collective to confirm a position. A consequence sadly is that an individual will take action on behalf of the broader collective in the meantime. I am still unsure whether clause 131 will enable marae hapu or iwi to act in the broader interests of the collective and support an individual who has expressed concerns with regard to a particular consent. 
On the matter of the removal of the Minister of Conservation’s powers I was particularly cognisant of submission 729 from Te Kupenga o Ngati Hako who were concerned that this provision was being promoted due to issues arising from the Whangamata marina. By way of explanation of the work they do I tell the House that this organisation deals with approximately 10 to 15 applications a month and it has been a section 274 party to about eight applications affecting their rohe. As the Whangamata marina issues commenced in 1996 it is somewhat ironic for them that this issue commenced under a National Government. To date the costs for this hapu in promoting and protecting the interests they believe they have have been in excess of $300000. To this day Ngati Hako’s existing resource consent that was granted for the Whangamata marina is inadequately monitored—by their standards—by the regional council and remains a source of great frustration for Ngati Hako who merely wanted to protect and preserve access to their customary fishing grounds and their pipi beds. 
At some point the Minister of Conservation should have a role to protect the public interest in coastal space that may end up compromised by the Minister for the Environment in applying the Resource Management Act without any regard whatsoever to some broader issues. I made the point earlier in the day that there are far-reaching implications of removing the Minister of Conservation’s role in the coastal space where the Foreshore and Seabed Act could apply. In short one cannot assume that the Minister for the Environment should fill that space and I maintain that if it is not the Minister of Conservation then it should be the Attorney-General in consultation with the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and the Minister of Maori Affairs. 
Ngati Hako made the point in their oral submission that the Minister of Local Government cannot deal with Treaty issues. Certainly issues around the foreshore and seabed will be partly considered in that context as well. On the basis of decisions affecting tangata whenua in Auckland in the recent governance restructuring I strongly agree with Ngati Hako and I urge the Government to reconsider this issue or we will be back to revisit this role at some point in the future. The select committee has been able to defer several issues to the phase two tranche of amendments: matters relating to the requirements of authorities the role and function of the Environmental Protection Authority and water reform which will be eagerly monitored on this side of the House. 
Finally in relation to the Supplementary Order Paper amendments tabled by the Maori Party which Labour endorsed we certainly support the intention of these proposals. Given the nature of the coalition arrangement between the Maori Party and National there would have been clear direction in leadership from the outset if those Government parties showed that they were of one mind on these types of issues—and clearly they are not—rather than the Maori Party relying on Opposition parties and cobbling together support to be able to endorse what they see as fundamental points of policy that need to be agreed on. 
The Government has continued to demonstrate its lack of support for the views espoused by the Maori Party. That is a very sad situation especially given the immense anticipation of iwi and Maori throughout the country on the second tranche of Resource Management Act amendments. Labour generally agrees that where good practice exists then it should inform policy to provide durable and workable solutions. For example the Government through its Treaty settlement process tends to favour large natural groupings and the way in which hapu interests are taken into account exists within this general approach. Regional councils already have a recognised process of working with hapu and iwi through the establishment of for example Te Manawhenua Forum under the Auckland Regional Council structure and Nga Iwi Toopu o Waipa under the Waipa District Council structure. There are many more and I am sure Maori members could point to them. 
There may be broader and wider implications on a range of policy fronts that would need to support the intent of what is being proposed by the Maori Party and I would certainly encourage them to resume discussions quickly with their coalition Government partner National on the second tranche of the amendments. To simply stand in this House and say that this is what they think should be done when they have the influence on this Government to be able to lead change at a policy level is fundamental to achieving durable change for the interests of Maori. 
I commend the select committee members. Certainly the chairperson Chris Auchinvole has stewarded this bill through in a responsible way. His leadership has been cordial and should be recognised in this House. The clerks and all the officials should be commended for the hard work that they have put into the number of submissions that have been heard. We certainly support the sensible amendments that have been contained in the bill as reported back from the select committee even though we highlighted at the outset that the initial drafting was pretty scanty. We hope that the Maori Party will be able to significantly influence the second tranche of amendments that will have a huge impact on tangata whenua. No reira kia ora tatou katoa.