Spatial Planning Bill

Members, we come now to the Spatial Planning Bill. We begin the debate on Part 1.

It might assist the debate if I briefly explain that the purpose of the Spatial Planning Bill is to provide for regional spatial strategies that assist in achieving the purposes and system outcomes of the Natural and Built Environment Bill that we’ve just referred to, and promote the integration and the performance of functions under that bill, the Land Transport Management Act, the Local Government Act, and the Water Services Act. The regional spatial strategies sit between the national planning framework and Natural and Built Environment Act plans, and they will assist with, amongst other things, the timely and cost-effective provision of infrastructure.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I just wanted to ask the Minister, the Hon David Parker: one of the confusions that came around with this bill, the Spatial Planning Bill, was around integration and how local government, local communities, local hapū and whānau would have their say. I noticed that in Part 1, clause 4, it talks about the regional spatial strategies promoting integration, but then it goes on in (a) and (b), and further down to (i), to talk about integration with the Land Transport Management Act 2003, the Local Government Act 2002, the Water Services Entities Act 2022, and then, in clause 7, it talks about iwi and hapū responsibilities in relation to te taiao and that “this Act must recognise and provide for the responsibility and mana of each iwi and hapū to protect and sustain the health and well-being of te taiao in accordance with the kawa, tikanga (including kaitiakitanga), and mātauranga in their rohe or takiwā.”

So I’m actually seeing how this bill is talking about integration but I’m just wondering, for the purposes of explaining to New Zealand listeners out there tonight, how this actually integrates on a democratic level with the Natural and Built Environment Bill, so that they can see how, when they have a view in their local community, it has its way into the spatial planning and then has a way back down into the spatial planning. Thank you.

Thank you to the member Barbara Kuriger for that question. The regional planning committee that puts together the regional spatial strategy is the same committee that is appointed for the Natural and Built Environment Bill—soon to be Act—plans, with one difference, and that is that, at the request of local government, central government have agreed there should be a central government representative on it, in part to make sure that central government can be brought to the party; to make sure that the likes of land transport plans can be better integrated with regional planning.

Point of order, Mr Chair. I’m just seeking clarification, really, that this bill, the Spatial Planning Bill, will be taken part by part, and not as a whole. I don’t know that we made a decision on that.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Well, I haven’t had a motion or a request to the contrary. So, at the moment, it is part by part.

Would it be helpful to move—

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): The member is welcome to—

The Minister is not objecting.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): So you are seeking to have it heard as one—

Well, I just want confirmation that it is. But I think the Minister is indicating that it will be.

💬 Hon David Parker: If the member wants to seek leave for the debate to be heard as one part, we’d be happy with that.

Yes. I seek leave, Mr Chair, that the bill be taken part by part.

CHAIRPERSON (Greg O’Connor): Well, that is the status quo until there is a move to the contrary. We remain with the status quo.

Thank you. That’s good to know, Mr Chair. So we’re in Part 1 of the bill, and I wanted initially to start speaking about clause 3. At the Environment Committee, there were a number of submissions about why some parts of this bill explicitly referred to portions out of the Natural and Built Environment Bill and other provisions weren’t explicitly referred to, and I’m particularly talking about the concept of te Oranga o te Taiao, where it was explicitly referred to in this piece of legislation while other elements of the Natural and Built Environment Bill have not been. If the Minister could advise the committee of the whole House why that was the case, I’d appreciate it.

It was thought desirable to align the purposes of the two Acts to avoid confusion.

Minister, in looking at the purpose clause, at clause 3(b), the purpose of the bill is to “promote integration in the performance of functions under the Natural and Built Environment Act 2022,”—they’re rather presumptuous, considering it hasn’t been passed yet, but we’ll assume that that’s the convention of the House in the way the bill is written—“the Land Transport Management Act 2003, the Local Government Act 2002, and”—another recently passed Act—“the Water Services Entities Act 2022.”, which established four water services entities—four entities. Now, Minister, the current Government has a bill before this House, the Water Services Entities Amendment Bill, which changes the number of entities from four to 10.

So, Minister, given that the purpose of this bill is to promote integration between land transport, local government, and water service entities, how does the Minister see the integration working when he’s told the House that instead of 67 districts and territorial authority plans and I think it’s maybe 14 or 15 regional council plans, there will be just 15 plans, and yet there will be 10 water service entities whose geographical regions do not coincide with the 15 regions envisaged by the Natural and Built Environment Bill, or Act—as it’s referred to in the Spatial Planning Bill, or Act, as it may become?

So how does the Minister see the integration working when there’s not four, but now 10 water service entities, and when at least one of those entities—entity D, which includes a large part of the South Island—coincides with the rohe or takiwā of Ngāi Tahu, which also includes Seddon and Murchison, Minister, whereas the regional council boundaries and the regional planning boundaries envisaged by this bill actually include Seddon and Murchison in the Tasman-Marlborough District? It doesn’t appear that it’s going to be easy to integrate all of these different regions and these different infrastructure functions and planning functions, so, Minister, would you please explain how you see this working in practice?

Well, if there is a smaller number of water services entities to integrate with compared with a larger one, it will still work. It will work either way.

I’d also make the point that in respect of some local government boundaries, they reach over more than one regional council, with a case in point being the Waitaki District, which rests in part south of the Waitaki in the Otago Regional Council area and in part north of the Waitaki, which is in the Environment Canterbury regional council area. Both Acts enable that to be properly catered for.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to ask the Minister a question about clause 5, “Tiriti o Waitangi”, “All persons exercising powers and performing functions and duties under this Act must give effect to the principles of te Tiriti o Waitangi.” I want to know from the Minister what that actually means in practice, because it’s a change from “have regard to”. “Must give effect to” is strong language, and I want to know what the practical effect of that is going to be for communities trying to plan their regions.

Hopefully, in the end, it’ll end up with less inconsistent practice across the country. When the Resource Management Act was passed, the “take into account the principles of the Treaty” clause was intended, according to the debates at the time, to ensure a role for Māori within their area to express their views and have that properly taken into account. It didn’t roll that way in practice, and, therefore, as a consequence, we’ve had a lot of complex and varied bespoke Treaty settlement arrangements, including those passed by that member’s party, for the Waikato River Authority, the Taranaki planning committee, and for a myriad of other different formulations—and we would hope that there is less need for bespoke arrangements in the future.

As to the meaning of it, there’s lots of jurisprudence around the Conservation Act. In reference to the meaning of “te Tiriti o Waitangi”, it actually refers to, in effect, both versions of the Treaty—te reo version and the English version.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to ask the Minister about clause 7, which follows on from “Tiriti o Waitangi”. Interestingly, the heading note for clauses 5 through 7 says “Tiriti o Waitangi and other matters”, which sort of makes it out like clause 7 is just another matter, which I think is an interesting form of phraseology. “Iwi and hapū responsibilities in relation to te taiao”—it does strike me that the breadth of this of this clause is large, and worryingly large, I think. “All persons exercising powers and performing duties and functions under this Act”—all persons—“must recognise and provide for the responsibility and mana of each iwi and hapū to protect and sustain the health and well-being of te taiao in accordance with the kawa, tikanga (including kaitiakitanga), and mātauranga in their rohe or takiwā.”

Now, I want to know from the Minister if he’s concerned about the potential for judicial review as a result of the breadth of this clause. “All persons exercising powers and performing duties and functions … must recognise and provide for the responsibility and mana of each iwi and hapū”. I’ve just read it out, and members of the public listening can read it out for themselves and read it.

The possibility of legal action to judicially review the people exercising these powers, claiming that they are not recognising or not providing, or they might be recognising and providing, but they’re not providing for the responsibility and the mana of each iwi to protect—which, as we’ve noted in the Natural and Built Environment Bill debate, has a particular strong meaning in resource management law—and sustain the health and wellbeing of te taiao in accordance with the kawa, tikanga, and mātauranga in their rohe or takiwā.

Now, the potential for judicial—

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: Intervention.

—intervention; Scott Simpson’s right. Or, at least, it’s not even so much about the judicial intervention; it’s about the potential for judicial review to stymie the quite legitimate aims and aspirations of spatial planning I think is extraordinary. I do really worry, Minister, about this provision. I think we are going to see endless litigation and judicial review of this. So I just wonder if the Minister is also worried about it; and if he is worried about it, what he’s planning to do about it, and if he’s not, why not?

This clause, as explained to me by officials, is recognising the responsibility of iwi and hapū to protect the environment. The Māori world view is that they don’t just have obligations to themselves; they have obligations to protect the environment, and this is what that gives voice to.

Well, just to follow up on that, I mean that doesn’t really answer the question, to be honest, but it says iwi and hapū responsibilities in relation to te taiao, but that’s not what the actual words of the clause say. It says, “All persons exercising powers and performing duties and functions under this Act”. So everyone is affected. Although the heading of clause 7 says “Iwi and hapū responsibilities”, it’s actually about everybody: “All persons exercising powers and performing duties and functions under this Act must recognise and provide”—so it’s everyone. Everyone who does anything or anyone who exercises any power under this Act and performs a duty—and the Act imposes a variety of duties, which we’ll get into, and functions. This is a clause with extraordinary breath.

It’s everyone exercising powers and performing duties and functions is subject to a range of obligations. It’s “must”, not “may”. They “must”. They “must recognise and provide for the responsibility and mana of each iwi”—each iwi—not a general commitment to Te Tiriti or the Treaty, not a general kind of commitment to, you know, engage with Māoridom or the Māori world view, leaving aside that issue, which the Minister doesn’t really expand on. It’s each iwi and hapū: “…. to protect and sustain … in accordance with the kawa, tikanga (including kaitiakitanga), and mātauranga in their rohe or takiwā.”

The odds of someone not doing this, frankly, are high and the odds of someone turning up to court and saying “You, Mr Decision Maker” or “You, Mr Regional Council” or “You, Mr Regional Planning Committee”—

💬 Simon Court: Or Mrs.

Or Mrs—thank you; a very good point, thank you, Mr Court—“you haven’t done this. You haven’t recognised and provided for the local iwi, each local iwi or local hapū to protect and sustain te Taiao. You haven’t done that.” The odds of that happening, I would say, are frankly reasonably high—reasonably high.

💬 Simon Court: I’d bet on it—I’d put money on it.

I’d bet on it, says Simon Court—I’d bet on it. [Interruption] Well, look, I’m not Kieran McAnulty. I’m not a betting man—I’m not a betting man.

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: Kieran McAnulty is.

Kieran McAnulty is. He’s not in the House, but I reckon he’d have a wager. He’d have a wager on it, I reckon.

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: He’s the TAB guy—he’s the TAB guy.

Yeah—oh, I apologise. I know what you’re about to say, Mr Utikere. It was in jest—it was in jest. But, anyway, we’re away from the point. But it’s a serious issue—it’s a serious issue. The odds of this happening are high, as I said just before, and invite the Minister to address it.

The potential for judicial review as a result of this clause is huge, is massive. And we’ve had enough litigation, frankly, through the Resource Management Act. We need less of it, not more of it—

💬 Hon Rachel Brooking: That’s right.

—and has the Minister—well, “That’s right.” So you see the Associate Minister’s agreeing with me. So has the Minister or indeed herself—

💬 Hon Member: She always agrees with you, Bish. She always agrees with you.

Well, she doesn’t always agree with me. I wish that was true. Has the Minister considered—

💬 Hon Member: She might even be voting National this year.

Because we would—I don’t think she’s voting National. We would support a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) to narrow the scope of this clause. I’ll say that on the record. We would support an SOP advanced by the Government if the Government realises that this clause is too large and wide in its scope. We would support an SOP that would narrow it down in the interests of good government—in the interests of good government because that’s what we’re all about on this side of the House.

💬 Stuart Smith: We’re here to help!

We’re here to help, that’s right.

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: Here to help.

Chris Bishop and Scott Simpson are here to help. So if the Government wants to move an SOP—in fact, I might draft one up now. I might draft one up now

💬 Simon Court: Sounds good.

Yep, Simon Court’s saying he’ll support it. The Greens, I don’t think will. I’ll go and have a chat to Eugenie Sage, but I don’t reckon she will—

💬 Hon Scott Simpson: It’s worth a try.

—but she might; you never know. But if the Labour Party wants to get on board with good government, we invite them to join us. Thank you.

In the view of the Government, clause 7 assists with the interpretation of clause 5. Without clause 7, clause 5 would be without guidance.

In addition to that, further guidance is provided in clause 24 of the bill, which says that “The regional planning committee must have … regard to the following, to the extent relevant to the regional spatial strategy” and that includes, at clause 24(2)(c), “any planning document that is—(i) recognised by an iwi authority or a group that represents hapū; and (ii) [is] provided or available to the committee before the strategy is adopted”. So there is some further form given to that further down in the more specific provisions in the bill.

In addition, one of the ways in which certainty is removed as to whether you listen to the right people is that there are specific clauses in both the Natural and Built Environment Bill and the Spatial Planning Bill that say that the councils involved can rely upon the list of entities who have got a relevant interest which is maintained by Te Puni Kōkiri, which at the moment, is an incomplete list that cannot be relied upon. That becomes a code so that if the local authorities rely upon that list at the time that they’re putting together the spatial plan and someone else comes along later and says, “You should have listened to me as well”, it’s too late if they weren’t on the list—although the list can be updated for the future.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Minister, I think it’s really important that we tease out what are some of the practical implications of this clause, clause 7. But before I get to my questions on clause 7, I just want to ask you to reflect on clause 5 because you’ve just stated that clause 7 is necessary to help decision makers—“All persons exercising powers and performing functions and duties under this proposed Act” need clause 7 to help them interpret clause 5.

But Minister, isn’t it true that in response to a question, a written question I’ve asked you on another matter about transport, when I’ve asked what are the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi to which you referred, you said those principles and whether people agree with them or not, this was your answer: “The principles include the principle of partnership, active protection, and mutual benefit”, according to the answers you’ve given me. So wouldn’t having those principles—which you clearly understand, and which you referred to having been derived from other jurisprudence, other legislation even—be sufficient to help decision makers understand what you mean by give effect to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in clause 5?

Thank you, Mr Chair. The phrase “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” is used in a lot of legislation. The alternative is to refer to the Treaty of Waitangi directly. The view of the courts has been that the reference to the principles is more practical and more able to move with the circumstances of the day. I don’t think there is much—well, if there is controversy with the use of the phrase “the principles of Te Titiri o Waitangi”, then that criticism can be made to many, many other statutes, including those that were passed by the last National-ACT Government.

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?

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.

Oh, thank you, Mr Chair. I did raise this clause or a similar clause in the Natural and Built Environment Bill. I would like to go back to it. This is a different bill. I have to ask the same question I did in the Natural and Built Environment Bill, which is there is a principle in the law that everybody should be able to know the law. But under clause 5, “All persons exercising powers and performing functions and duties under this Act must give effect to the principles of te Tiriti o Waitangi.” But we don’t know what those principles are—the Minister’s admitted that earlier—so it’s not possible for someone to know the law.

So does the Minister agree that it’s not possible to know the law in this case? How does that make this a workable proposition? I think it’s incredibly confusing. We should have one law for all and it should be able to be known by everybody. But it can’t be when the principles are—as I recall under the Natural and Built Environment Bill at select committee when the officials were asked about what the principles were, they said, “Oh, they’re evolving.” Well, that’s not a very satisfactory answer, given that this is law we’re writing here.

This is law that New Zealanders will have to live with under almost everything that they do. How is it possible to know the law? We are creating a massive rod for our own back. It’s going to have an incredibly deleterious effect on our economy, quite frankly. It’ll be good for some, but even the legal profession don’t like this, because they also have clients that they have to present, and how can they do that when they don’t know the law? It’s not possible to know the law.

So was this actually considered when the Minister gave instructions to officials to write this legislation? Was there any work or advice that came back from officials that this would be an unworkable provision, and, if so, why did the Minister persist with it? I think we deserve to understand the rationale for this provision in this and other legislation. Simply saying that the courts say this is better than referring to the actual Treaty, instead they want to refer to the principles, that’s not a good enough answer. Just because it’s been done that way, doesn’t mean it’s right. So, Minister, we’re all eagerly awaiting your response.

Those are the same words that are in the Resource Management Act that that member’s party failed to repeal over nine years and in many other Acts that that member’s party over the years have supported. Indeed, I read out that part of that section 8 of the Reserve Management Act, which says decision makers “shall take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi”. So the concept of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi is frequently used in the statute. The change here is not to the reference to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi or the Treaty of Waitangi but the duty to give effect to them rather than take into account, and there are precedents for that on the statute book.

If only we listened to everything that the National Party did, we’d be great! Well, I’m afraid I disagree with that simplistic and incorrect proposition.

Thank you, Mr Chair. As a former student of these matters—and a practising lawyer and manager of a Resource Management Act (RMA) team—I’ve had some great challenges in understanding the RMA framework and working through it, and it’s been a process of evolution, particularly with terms like “kaitiakitanga”, which weren’t in the legislation until the 1991 RMA legislation.

It’s taken some 30 years to get a little bit of jurisprudential evolution of how those terms should be interpreted, and they’ve still got some uncertainties in RMA practice. You know, particularly in a place like Auckland—which our colleague Simon Court mentioned before—you’ve got 19 iwi, many of whom have different practices or protocols in relation to the exercise of their kaitiakitanga. There’s sometimes an overlap and there’s sometimes a contrast, and RMA practitioners, along with developers, have to manage those contrasts and those overlaps.

Well, in this legislation as drafted—the draft legislation—not only do we have kaitiakitanga; we have now introduced these other terms: mana, kawa, mātauranga, and tikanga. Minister Parker, you’ve referred to the nexus between clauses 5, Te Tiriti o Waitangi clause; and 7, the “Iwi and hapū responsibilities in relation to te taiao”, but one of the challenges that you face when you put in words and phrases like “mana” and “kawa” and “mātauranga” is none of those three terms actually appear in Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and, deliberately, mana was excluded from the drafting of Te Tiriti o Waitangi because it was of such a depth and breadth that it was inappropriate, hence we have a different type of term, and that’s known as “tino rangatiratanga”.

So when we start opining on that term “mana”, you’ve got a breadth and a depth that some people think it might mean “power” but it has multiple faces, and so we don’t get a sense from reading this drafting whether or not we are talking to mana whenua, mana moana, mana atua, mana tangata, mana wahine—which I get reminded of at home on a regular basis—and my personal favourite, mana rangatahi. When we draft words like “mana” into legislation like this, it can take quite a number of distinct pathways which may not have been intended by us as legislators, and it certainly won’t be interpreted easy by those that sit on the judicial benches. Again, the potential for judicial review just on that term alone is significant.

Now, tikanga: tikanga has had some gravity in the interpretation of the common law, and it has been referred to in a couple of pieces of legislation, like the RMA and I think also the wānanga sections of the Education Act, tikanga and mātauranga Māori. But, again, they create all sorts of interpretation possibilities, which we can be curious around but without further clarity or interpretational guidance within the legislation, I fear, given the context in which I’ve operated and as a person who continues to hold a practising certificate, that it gives too wide a berth to the judiciary and to practitioners, and also to random men and their Māori, to run decision making down to doing nothing.

One of the questions that I’d like to pose to the Minister is: what is your definition of kawa—because there is no definition of kawa in this drafting—and how does kawa distinctly differ from mana and tikanga? I think with that sort of question, if we get a credible response, we’ll be in a far better position to say, actually, this is looking really interesting and it’s something we can interrogate further.

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I’ve just got quite a short question, Minister, and it’s just in regards to clause 5. I’m curious about why it says, “All persons exercising powers and performing functions and duties under this Act must give effect to the principles of te Tiriti o Waitangi.” It does not say “the Treaty of Waitangi”. Is there a particular reason why it only says “te Tiriti o Waitangi” and not “the Treaty of Waitangi”, or is that a matter of no moment to the Minister?

It’s a matter of considerable import, and it is dealt with in the Natural and Built Environment Act (NBEA), which refers to the definition as set out in the Treaty of Waitangi Act, which makes reference to both te reo Māori and English versions, and that is carried through into this bill by the definitions clause—section 7 of the NBEA—which says that if there is a definition which is also in the NBEA, unless there’s a different definition in there, the NBEA definition applies. So, in fact, the definition refers to both “te Tiriti o Waitangi” and “the Treaty of Waitangi”—as the Treaty of Waitangi Act does.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I’m hoping that the Minister will take the opportunity to give a considered response to my colleague Tama Potaka’s very worthy dissertation and good questions, because I thought that Tama Potaka asked some very pertinent points that I think are deserving of a response from the Minister.

I want to go back to clause 3(b) and clause 4 in this Part 1. The Minister, in an earlier contribution in the debate, made it clear why the water services entity legislation was not included at that point. But at select committee, there were a number of submitters who thought that it would be good to include the Climate Change Response Act 2002 in clauses 3(b) and 4. I’m keen to know from the Minister why that option wasn’t taken and whether he would consider doing so at this late stage.

Clause 3(b) lists what are essentially infrastructure management statutes: the Natural and Built Environment Bill, the Land Transport Management Act, the Local Government Act, and the Water Services Entities Act. The zero carbon Act and related legislation is much broader and touches, amongst other things, those Acts, but also a lot of other things, so we thought the list is best left as in clause 3(b).

Thank you, Mr Chair. Minister, I don’t feel that the committee and people listening at home have received a sufficient explanation as to why clause 7 is required. My parliamentary colleague Tama Potaka raised a very good question: what is the meaning of “tikanga”. This clause 7 will apply to all people subject to the plans made under the Spatial Planning Bill should it become law—all people; not just iwi and hapū. It will apply to all. If we look at the precedence of the clauses here, before we get to the clauses about how plans are made and what matters must be taken into account, we have this clause 7.

So, Minister, I want to ask you: do you consider, do officials consider—since they’re offering you assistance—whether beliefs and principles of a spiritual nature, which might be encompassed by kawa or tikanga or mātauranga, do they take precedence over people’s private property rights, over the right to use their land, and over those who would be developing infrastructure or pretty much anything, a quarry, any type of building, a distribution centre, a road network that links customers to goods? Will upholding or providing for the responsibility and mana of each iwi and hapū, in accordance with clause 7, take precedence over the needs of communities to provide for their infrastructure?

Minister, how could it be that beliefs and principles of a spiritual nature, which cannot possibly be law, a way of life that a group of people in our society believe wholeheartedly but which cannot possibly become law that applies to the rest of New Zealanders—how is it possible that in clause 7 here, these concepts are incorporated in a way that would mean anyone exercising powers, performing duties and functions, under this bill must have regard for these spiritual matters when they’re making decisions about planning, resource management, and environmental matters? Minister, would you care to explain how on earth this has happened?

“Tikanga” is defined in the Natural and Built Environment Bill and carried through, and there’s also carry-over from the Resource Management Act.

In respect of the focus of these legislations, it is on the physical, not the religious. That is made clear by the scheme of both bills.

I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

The question is that Simon Court’s amendment to Supplementary Order Paper 390 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 398 be agreed to.

The question is that the Minister’s amendments to Part 1 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 390 be agreed to.