Resource Management (Enhancement of Iwi Management Plans) Amendment Bill

Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā. Ko te taiao e awhi nei i a tātou, tihei mauri ora. I wish to acknowledge the passing of Lieutenant Tim O’Donnell DSD, killed in action on active service in Afghanistan, and also the severe wounding of two of his comrades in arms. Lieutenant Tim O’Donnell was a veteran at the tender age of 28. I wish to extend my deepest sympathy to family, friends, and unit colleagues of all three men.

As my honourable colleague Nanaia Mahuta observed in an earlier part of this debate, John Key’s National-led Government is making great progress in negotiating Treaty settlements and working with Māori in addressing challenges facing the whole of New Zealand society. The Resource Management Act 1991 recognises the role of tangata whenua in various ways. Those exercising power under the law are required to have regard to both kaitiakitanga and the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Consent authorities are required to consult iwi. We have already achieved so much in reforming the Resource Management Act. The first phase of our streamlining reforms went a long way to reducing costs, uncertainties, and delays that have frustrated New Zealand homeowners, small businesses, and farmers for years. It ensured a better balance between environmental protection and economic growth. One of the four objectives of the phase two reforms is achieving the efficient and improved participation of Māori in resource management processes. So there is no need for a separate amendment bill, and National does not support this bill. Thank you.

I am pleased to support the Resource Management (Enhancement of Iwi Management Plans) Amendment Bill. I was astonished to hear National’s position, and to hear the previous speaker say that the Resource Management Act is working in terms of consultation and involvement with, and the participation of, Māori, when this is an elegant little amendment to the 1991 Resource Management Act that will make consultation easier for Māori. Therefore, the results will be a far improved model of hearings and consenting under the Resource Management Act, in terms of iwi management plans.

I sat in on the hearings in Auckland on the Resource Management Act, along with my colleague Nanaia Mahuta, when Mark Solomon gave a plea to the Local Government and Environment Committee, in its consideration of the Resource Management Act, that as far as Ngāi Tahu were concerned they were not involved in the resource consent process, and that due recognition of iwi management plans was simply not happening, at either local council level or regional council level. I think it is really sad that National is saying that because the Act is strong enough now, it therefore works. National is saying that because it has done a lot about streamlining and turbo-charging the Resource Management Act, and taking away the regulatory barriers to the consenting process, the Act therefore works for iwi; I do not think so. That is not what we heard at the select committee.

All this little bill does is make three amendments. It amends, under clause 5, the “take into account” provision. All that consenting authorities have to do now is just to “take into account”, but the bill substitutes “recognise and”—the strong word is—“provide for” iwi management plans. This bill is yet another solution, a part of the puzzle, that would strengthen the Resource Management Act.

I wonder what has happened to the iwi leaders forum that consults National and the Māori Party on the foreshore and seabed legislation. I wonder whether National has taken time out from its agenda and its crowing about achievements to say: “What do you think, iwi leaders, whom we consult openly with? What do you think about this amendment that has come from Nanaia Mahuta, who knows only too well, along with the Tainui people of the Waikato River, that here is yet another streamlining amendment that will make it easier for Māori to be recognised and to be taken account of?”. [Interruption] No, they have not even asked.

This amendment gives a focus for iwi management plans in both regional and district council plans. All it does is put the issues that iwi have laid on the table at the front end of the planning process. It ensures the participation of iwi in the consenting process; what is wrong with that? Why would National vote against this bill, other than for political pique? If iwi do not like what is happening in terms of what they have proposed as a vision and a strategy in an iwi management plan, and if they are not taken notice of, all that they can do now is look for redress in a Treaty settlement process. How cumbersome is that? I think all parties would benefit if only National could be generous enough today to support this bill. I am glad the Māori Party is supporting it. We will be speaking about that when we are out on the hustings next year.

Current iwi authorities—and Mark Solomon told us this—have consultation fatigue, absolute consultation fatigue. They said that they have put together their iwi management plans, and that this bill is just a plea and an amendment to the Resource Management Act that asks for those plans to be taken notice of. If we had done that earlier we would have got right issues in relation to the Maketū Estuary and the Kaituna River when we looked at the Rotorua lakes and their clean-up. If we had had that right in the Resource Management Act currently, there would not have had to be a Treaty redress through the Waikato River settlement legislation. We would have got it right at the front end.

In conclusion, I tell members that in answer to question No. 6 today in the House from the Māori Party, Nick Smith said that iwi had an ongoing role. He gave that assurance in respect of Goat Island and the Poor Knights Islands. But iwi do not have that role, because the very instrument that means most to them in the Resource Management Act is the iwi management plan, which does not have to be taken notice of.

I have listened to all the contributions in the House on the Resource Management (Enhancement of Iwi Management Plans) Amendment Bill. I thank my Labour colleagues for their contributions and practical experience, in terms of the information we have heard as to the positive impact that this bill could have. I am disappointed that National in particular is not supporting the bill, but I am not surprised. In the preceding debate Government members stood and said: “But wait. The second tranche of Resource Management Act amendments are issues affecting Māori and will be well dealt with then.” The difficulty with that is they failed to clarify how that would be done, and in what way. If the response is just to retain sections 6, 7(a), and 8, then frankly that is not good enough. This bill seeks to normalise practices that have arisen as a result of Treaty settlements and as a result of moving towards best practice, and placed towards the landscape that we are going to, which is beyond Treaty settlements and towards better co-governance, co-management practices in relation to resource management. I think that in time, on reflection, National will see that these small amendments are progressive and a positive way forward.

I am concerned that many iwi are not able to learn from the experiences of the iwi who have settled earlier. Ngāi Tahu was a very good example, which was raised by Stevie Chadwick. They have iwi management plans that are more than aspirational, high-level statements. They are planning documents that have, and can be, integrated into the policy, plan, and rule-making process, which in effect will lead to better decision-making about developments, protection of areas, natural spaces, and heritage reserves.

The bill acts as a carrot, not a stick, to lift the responsiveness of regional councils to recognise and provide for priorities set out in iwi management plans, in the regional policy statement, in local authority district plans, and to ensure that policies and rules followed by the council give greater recognition in the planning regime to what has been expressed by iwi in their plans. It is a progressive and positive step, as I have said. If anyone wants to talk about a step change in working with hapū and iwi in the planning landscape, then I think this is it. I regret that members on the other side of the House failed to recognise that in taking this step forward the community and the public at large will have a better opportunity to understand how Māori perceive their natural environment and the planning challenges that result from trying to provide for that perspective, because it is difficult.

I want to point briefly to the legal advice I received from the Office of the Attorney-General in relation to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act test. In particular, I am quoting from paragraphs 9 and 10: “Arguably, and placing greater weight on IMPs, clause 5 of the bill draws a distinction indirectly on the basis of race. This is because it distinguishes between planning documents generated by groups that are predominantly Māori and those that include non-Māori. Nevertheless, in our view the provision does not give rise to discrimination because it does not create any substantive disadvantage. In reaching this view we have noticed that section 6(e) of the Act already requires all persons exercising functions and powers under the Act to recognise and provide for the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with the ancestral lands, water sites, wāhi tapu, and other taonga. This provision needs to be read with section 7(a) and 8 of the Act. Section 7(a) requires decision makers to pay particular regard to kaitiakitanga, or Māori stewardship. Section 8 requires decision makers to take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.”

So the bill passes the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act test. By virtue of including iwi management plans into the planning regime, we know that the process is better. In my first reading speech I cited a small number of examples in my electorate that have frustrated hapū and led to this particular bill. It is about bringing the interests of hapū and iwi to the front end of the planning regime, towards a more integrated response to deal with planning challenges so that communities and iwi can deal with it at a practical level. Māori, just like anyone else, want to preserve their natural environment, and their cultural and historical heritage, as they want to be a partner to the development of their lands and coastal spaces. The bill is about finding a practical solution to a shared future in integrated resource management. They are largely aspirational statements but they can be much more than that. The bill will set a pathway for greater recognition that they should and can be integrated into the planning process at a local government level. I commend the bill to the House.