Resource Management (Enhancement of Iwi Management Plans) Amendment Bill

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) Link to this

I move, That the Resource Management (Enhancement of Iwi Management Plans) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I am pleased to introduce this bill to the House to affirm greater recognition of tangata whenua interests in the resource management and local government planning process. As stated in the explanatory note, “The purpose of this bill is to strengthen the provisions by which iwi management plans influence regional and district plans and policies,”. Clause 5 of the bill introduces an amendment that would mean iwi management plans would be elevated in the planning hierarchy, recognising and providing for the interests of tangata whenua when it comes to developments in their rohe. The intention is that the cultural, environmental, and heritage interests of tangata whenua are considered more effectively at the front end of the planning process rather than at adversarial, often lengthy, resource consent hearings.

I believe that this bill strengthens the intent of sections 6, 7(a), and 8 of the Resource Management Act by setting out the priorities of iwi in their management plans. This bill also promotes in a practical way the intent of section 5 of the Resource Management Act to achieve an integrated response that footnotes the whole notion of sustainable management. Māori have a huge contribution to make in this space and too often they have been left on the periphery rather than being critical to the outcome. I am optimistic that given the National-led Government’s new-found relationship with iwi and Māori this bill may get to select committee. Indeed, if the Māori Party can see the value of this bill, then I would hope the Government would endorse its judgment, as the bill is progressive in its intention.

Not so long ago the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu (Claims) Waikato River Settlement Act passed its third and final reading in this House, with a significant majority. That settlement provided for a co-governance and co-management framework to address a longstanding concern amongst Waikato iwi that the degradation of the Waikato River be addressed. That settlement makes provision for statutory recognition of a vision and strategy that seeks to create an integrated management approach to cleaning up the river and, more important, forging a common ambition amongst iwi, local government, landowners, Government agencies, industry, and the community.

Some of the mechanisms to achieve change require accords, joint management agreements, and a broader context for considering land-based activity and its effects on waterways. I expect several more settlements will look to this model as a means of defining a unique approach to catchment management of waterways and engaging effectively with iwi and central and local government.

The bill seeks to normalise a way of doing things that has been achieved to date only as a result of Treaty settlements. I have heard numerous examples throughout my electorate where negative encounters with the Resource Management Act have led iwi to oppose resource consents because of a lack of engagement with tangata whenua or any recognition of their concerns. Iwi management plans are just part of the picture and should be integrated across council planning and policy processes. In order for them to be effective they must be developed as planning documents that preserve the integrity of tangata whenua aspirations, but are able to be utilised by regional councils and territorial authorities in the planning process.

To achieve this, a dedicated work stream for iwi, councils, and the Ministry for the Environment would be necessary. Undoubtedly this will signal a new way of doing things, with some councils having to engage the participation of iwi through their regional policy statement consultation processes. I believe this bill sets a uniform approach to achieving best practice. This change will result in the setting of better planning and policy-making decisions, rules, and internal operational practices for council and more effective outcomes. I have thought about the issue of cost and foreshadowed that there will be a fiscal impact that might be better considered in full by the select committee process, as it will involve iwi and local and central government.

I want to highlight just a few examples from my electorate, Hauraki-Waikato, as there is a problem that needs to be fixed. Ngāti Te Ata is situated in the south of Tāmaki Makaurau, the Auckland isthmus. Their interest to protect ancient burial sites at Maioro in Waiuku, and historical sites at Matukutureia in Wiri, are well documented in the Manukau claim, yet their representation to protect their heritage and special landscapes have been fraught with conflict, frustrated by process, and delayed by inaction. A long period of time has passed since their interests were brought to light substantially in the 1980s. But that has been a long and drawn-out process. Against the backdrop of the Auckland super-city reform this amendment would give greater assurance to iwi who want to protect their natural heritage and historical sites.

Across the Hauraki Gulf I think about Whangamata. Hapū and iwi there lodged objections to the Whangamata marina on the basis that their traditional fishing and harvesting grounds would be detrimentally affected. Even though the Resource Management Act provided for recognition of kaitiakitanga and the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, those hapū presented their information to the Environment Court, to Ministers, to local MPs, and to anyone who would listen, but their interests were secondary to the economic potential of the marina. The chairperson of the Hauraki Māori Trust Board even declared that they were not anti-development but their customary interests in the area had been totally ignored.

If this amendment were to proceed, iwi could have had a proactive discussion about a development proposal with their priorities clearly outlined in the council planning documents, and relevant policies and rules applying to consents in sensitive spaces. There would also be a clear point of engagement for developers wanting to meet with iwi. Out on the west coast in the small community called Marokopa, the efforts of one woman on behalf of her hapū, Ngāti Tūpoho, has led to the preservation and protection of sand dunes and a sandspit in the area. Her dogged determination has, at times, seen her efforts conflict with those of the community wanting to enjoy access to this coastal area, but her intent to be a kaitiaki in a very real way cannot be faulted.

The benefit of this amendment would provide greater protection for her to continue the good work that has been done, and it would also provide better access to information and points of engagement for the larger community in terms of recognising this special and historically significant place.

I come back to the Waikato. Near the river at Horotiu, archaeological sites had been excavated in the past. This is the case throughout this stretch of the river, as the sand was particularly useful for lining kūmara pits and preserving the kūmara over winter. Although these sites are protected, there is an application to build approximately 5 metres from the pits. The applicant argues that although the site is preserved and protected, it is not damaged by this development. This site is on private land. The benefit of the amendment that I am putting to the House today would be that whether on private or public land, Māori or general land, all would be subject to clause 6, which amends section 75(2) “to allow territorial authorities to state resource management issues of particular interest to local iwi in their district plans.”

There are other examples too numerous and equally important to outline in the House. But whether the issue is discharge in waterways, dirty dairying practices, sewage effluent being discharged into harbours, developments in small coastal villages, a change in land use, intensification of farming practices, or mining practices out in the exclusive economic zone or on conservation land, tangata whenua have been involved in consenting processes, and too often at the back end. The Resource Management Act can and should work better and we should not have to wait for a Treaty settlement. There is simply a better way of doing things by including at the front end of the planning process engaging council and territorial authorities more positively with the aspirations of iwi. After all, there is a dearth of Māori representation on councils, and a legislative imperative would ensure proactive engagement with tangata whenua in the planning and policy-making process.

I am a firmly believer that if something needs fixing, then do it. Since its inception the Resource Management Act has undergone a number of iterations. Some changes were driven by sheer political ideology; others were technical changes resulting from the practical experience of implementing the intention of the Resource Management Act. This amendment seeks to rebalance the interest of tangata whenua in the planning environment to have greater regard to the cultural, spiritual, historical, and environmental values of iwi. I am hopeful that during the debate today members may consider the positive contribution that this bill can make to the resource management and planning decisions of local government. In many ways it will simplify and streamline more effective engagement with Māori. Kia ora.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) Link to this

I am very pleased to speak on the Resource Management (Enhancement of Iwi Management Plans) Amendment Bill in the name of the Hon Nanaia Mahuta. As the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee, which considered the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill, I am very cognisant of the issues raised by this bill and the fact that we keep visiting the Resource Management Act to change it yet again. But let us step back for a moment and consider the progress that has already been made in the area of resource management.

Stage one of our reforms saw this Government streamline and simplify the Resource Management Act to ensure a better balance of environmental protection with economic growth. That has achieved good, positive outcomes for all concerned without incurring unnecessary delays and excessive costs.

We removed the pervasive presence of the Resource Management Act in matters of low-level environmental significance by defining the activities that should not require consent, and that means they will have a smoother pathway to approval. For example, a great deal of time and money was wasted in issuing 4,500 consents annually for trimming, pruning, and removing non-scheduled trees in a number of urban councils.

The whole process was undertaken in order to simplify and streamline the Resource Management Act so as to make better progress without compromising the ideals of environmental protection. The reforms reinforce National’s blue-green message that being pro-environment does not equate to being pro - red tape. We have already achieved much in reforming the Resource Management Act, so let us not look backwards but let us take a step forward together.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) Link to this

Our Resource Management Act can and should work better when it comes to involving iwi in the planning and consent process. As a House we should be proactive in creating good legislation that strengthens the constructive relationship between Māori and consent authorities. I would like to take this call firstly to congratulate my colleague the Hon Nanaia Mahuta on putting forward a bill that does just that, and, secondly—despite the speech we have just heard from Mr Auchinvole—to encourage all parties in the House to support the legislation.

Currently the law provides that those exercising power are required to have regard for kaitiakitanga, which has been translated as guardianship over our natural environment, and for the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Consent authorities are therefore required to consult iwi and to give consideration to any relevant documents prepared by them. However, the way things are currently structured, iwi input may be poorly integrated into the plans of local authorities.

Māori have no real way, as of right, to participate in planning, except to object through the consents process, causing delays and resulting in a few positive outcomes while at the same time being potentially divisive because of the adversarial nature of the objections process. Partnership and good faith, which are both Treaty principles that suggest working together, are not fulfilled by this process. Instead, we take an unconstructive and adversarial approach to these matters. It is not the right way to do things.

Nanaia Mahuta’s bill seeks to remedy this by ensuring that more weight will be given to iwi concerns early in the planning and consenting process. It encourages a greater level of engagement between iwi, authorities, and resource management stakeholders. This would shift iwi to a position of front-end participation, providing better outcomes for all involved and having more public support than has been garnered in previous situations, because of the front-end rather than post hoc nature of the input that the bill would provide for.

As Nanaia Mahuta said, the bill also seeks to normalise a way of doing things, as opposed to the current situation where those involved often have to wait for a Treaty settlement to have the way in which they want things to be done formalised. A recent example is where provision has been made for statutory recognition of the vision and strategy in the Waikato River settlement legislation.

NICKY WAGNER (National) Link to this

I rise to speak on the Resource Management (Enhancement of Iwi Management Plans) Amendment Bill. I thank the Hon Nanaia Mahuta for this bill and for raising the issue of iwi management plans.

This bill aims to strengthen the provisions by which iwi management plans influence regional and district plans and policies, and elevate their status in the planning hierarchy. Under this bill regional councils would be required to “recognise and provide for” iwi management plans, as opposed to what is legislated now, which is to “take into account” those plans. Charles Chauvel has spoken eloquently of Māori being involved in the front end of Resource Management Act issues. This bill does nothing to change the process; it merely elevates the status. It would be another change to the status of iwi management plans, because this bill’s provisions were amended in 2004. Previously, decision makers were required to “have regard to” iwi management plans, and in 2004 this was changed to “take into account”.

National does not support this bill. We are already involved in a process of updating and reforming the Resource Management Act, which includes reforms to increase Māori participation in the Resource Management Act process. Phase one of the reforms was the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Act, and that Act went a long way towards reducing costs, uncertainties, and delays that had frustrated New Zealand homeowners, small businesses, and farmers for many years. During that process we heard a lot about iwi management plans, and learnt that although some iwi have detailed plans and have used the process very effectively, others have not. Ngāi Tahu, the South Island iwi and the iwi of my home town, Christchurch, have a comprehensive set of iwi management plans. They have found that their plans have been taken into consideration and have been very useful. However, there is a lack of consistency on the number and quality of iwi plans across the country. As a first step, all iwi should be encouraged to develop iwi plans, and this bill would do nothing for iwi if they did not have plans in place.

National’s reform of the Resource Management Act is continuing. We are now on to our second phase of reforms, which will address aquaculture, the new structure of the Environmental Protection Authority, freshwater management, urban design, and infrastructure issues. National has already identified the need for more Māori participation in the Resource Management Act process. One of the four objectives of the second phase of reforms is “providing for efficient and improved participation of Māori in resource management processes.” We believe that will be a better way to ensure iwi plans are recognised and provided for without additional legislative complexity.

We therefore conclude that concerns of Māori will be more effectively considered through phase two of the Resource Management Act reforms than under the Resource Management (Enhancement of Iwi Management Plans) Amendment Bill.

DAVID CLENDON (Green) Link to this

Kia ora koutou. The Resource Management (Enhancement of Iwi Management Plans) Amendment Bill that we are discussing clearly seeks to enhance the status of iwi management plans in developing district plans and regional policy statements. It does this through a very simple mechanism of changing some language within the Resource Management Act from “take into account” to “recognise and provide for”. As politicians—and for some, indeed, as lawyers—we know the power of language. Language matters. This is a very simple but very appropriate change to make in the context of the wider legislation.

As a party committed to te Tiriti and to recognising Māori as tangata whenua, the Greens are very happy to support this bill and the intention underpinning it, which is to enhance the role mana whenua play in the management and development of the rohe. It is a very small step towards more comprehensive acknowledgment of rangatiratanga.

It seems that much of the opposition to this bill—in particular, to the notion of enhancing iwi management plans, and, more generally, to a deeper level of Māori engagement in resource management—comes from a fear, I think, of conflict between Māori activity, ideas, and developments and environmental protection or, indeed, economic development. For many people these things cannot coexist. Clearly, this is an ill-founded fear and it is simply not true. There are numerous examples of why it is not true.

In a technical sense, this particular bill’s giving a stronger foundation and a higher status to iwi management plans would not elevate the plans to a level where they could in any way compromise or threaten the overarching primary criterion of the Resource Management Act, which is the promotion of sustainable management. Section 6(e) of the Act already recognises and provides for iwi concerns. The sky has not fallen. This is not a veto right; it is simply a means of adding more weight to Māori issues, Māori concerns, and Māori aspirations.

I studied resource management at Lincoln University in 1993-94, only a couple of years after the Resource Management Act had come into force. At that time there was considerable optimism within Māoridom that this very new, radically different regime would give Māori greater opportunities to be actively involved and to affect the management of our natural and physical resources. Some very high-quality analysis and review were done through the resource management law review process of the late 1980s; again, this was cause for optimism. I had the good fortune to be influenced by some of the people at the centre for Māori studies at Lincoln University, as it was then, not least one Hirini Matunga, who had some extraordinarily innovative and creative ideas about how Māori and non-Māori planning processes could run in parallel, in tandem, and give us richer and deeper outcomes. Sadly, a lot of that early promise has not been fulfilled, largely because Māori have constantly found themselves struggling to find that point of entry to get real influence and some traction in terms of creating these high-level documents—the district plans, the policy statements. They are constantly forced into a position of reaction and objection, which is not helpful.

The Māori world view is naturally integrative. The Resource Management Act was intended to enhance integrated management at an ecosystem level, a regional level, and a catchment level. Māori do this almost intuitively. But we are not seeking to rely simply on some spiritual or cultural value. I have personally witnessed some extremely good work done by young Māori students of mine, their peers, and their own teachers, who are looking for creative ways of blending Western science and Western economic and cultural norms and practices with mātauranga Māori, with Māori knowledge, and with Māori aspirations. These models exist; they could be applied. This bill, in raising the status of iwi management plans, would be a useful step towards encouraging much better outcomes for Māori and non-Māori alike. Kia ora koutou.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) Link to this

Kia ora anō tātau katoa. E te tuahine, ka mihi rā ki a koe mō te āhuatanga o tō pire e wānangatia nei e te Whare i tēnei pō. Kia mōhio mai koe, ka tautoko te Pāti Māori i tōu nā hiahia ahakoa, tērā pea ko te āhua nei ka kore e eke. Hoi anō, me mihi rā ki a koe ka tika. E tika ana kia kōrerohia tēnei pire i tēnei wā tonu nei i te taenga mai o te tangata, me kī, te kaituhi mō ngā take iwi taketake o te Rūnanga Whakakotahi i te Ao, arā, the United Nations special rapporteur on indigenous peoples’ rights , a Professor James Anaya, kua tae mai ki Aotearoa nei ki te āta titiro i te āhuatanga o te noho o te Ao Māori, ngā iwi taketake, ki konei. E tiakina ana, āe rānei, kāore rānei, ka mutu, ki te kimi rongoā.

[Greetings once again to us all. I acknowledge you, sister parliamentarian, in respect of your bill being debated by the House tonight. I want you to know that the Māori Party endorses your desire, even though it seems likely that it will not succeed. But we must congratulate you, all the same. That is the least we can do. How timely it is that this bill is being debated at this very moment, with the arrival of the special rapporteur of the United Nations, Professor James Anaya, who has arrived in New Zealand to take a close look at how Māoridom, the indigenous people, exist here— whether they are they protected, yes or no, and further to that, to seek remedies.]

Kua hara mai nā runga i te āhuatanga o te whakaputanga o te Rūnanga Whakakotahi i ngā Iwi o te Ao mō ngā Tika o ngā Iwi Taketake. Professor James Anaya has arrived on New Zealand shores. He does so in the context of the New Zealand Government’s support for the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Ko tāku e pīrangi nei, ko te whakatakoto i tētahi wāhanga o tērā Whakataunga, arā, ko te article 25. Article 25 of that document states: “Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinctive spiritual relationship with their traditionally owned or otherwise occupied and used lands, territories, waters and coastal seas and other resources and to uphold their responsibilities to future generations in this regard.”

Nō reira, kei reira tonu te tuarā o tāku kōrero, he tautoko, he mihi tonu ki te Hōnore Nanaia Mahuta mō tana hiahia ki te whakatakoto i tēnei pire ki mua i te aroaro o te Whare Pāremata. We congratulate the Hon Nanaia Mahuta on taking the initiative to put the Resource Management (Enhancement of Iwi Management Plans) Amendment Bill into the ballot—an initiative that we believe serves the intent of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to keep our natural resources and environment healthy, safe, and intact for future generations.

The Māori Party will certainly support the initiative taken by this bill to elevate the status of iwi management plans as they relate to the setting of regional policy statements and district plans. It is a bill that has been a long time coming. It responds to the poor integration of iwi management plans into local authority plans and policies by strengthening the provisions that enable iwi management plans to influence planning and policy. In doing so, it fits with the key policy position of the Māori Party, which is to promote whānau, hapū, and iwi as kaitiaki, and support moves to restore this role to them.

So we are even more determined to acknowledge the initiative of this bill in putting into legislation aspirations and commitments that will ensure that the intent of the Resource Management Act is honoured. We would go so far as to make a suggestion to the Hon Nanaia Mahuta, if by chance the bill was lucky enough to go through. It would be that she strengthen the provision in clause 6 that allows councils to state issues of significance to the iwi. There is no specific or compulsory requirement to include issues of significance to iwi, but merely a provision for councils to act only if they want to. We know how the notion of “voluntary” works in relation to compliance, especially compliance with the Treaty. The opportunity for mana whenua to be involved is a key ingredient that we would say needed to be put into the bill.

We also would speak about the new models of negotiation, and I would recommend that we consider the recent Te Ātiawa, Ngāti Toa, and Ngāti Raukawa initiative to form a regional rōpū to collectively liaise with all of the councils in their rohe. That is the sort of stuff that I am sure the Hon Nanaia Mahuta would be putting up, and it should be supported by the rest of the House.

Another well overdue amendment that might go a long way to assist in addressing some of the issues that she is after would be to elevate the Treaty of Waitangi section to a preamble in the Act, similar to that in Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993, or perhaps to move it to Part 2 of the Act and make it a matter of national importance. This is another suggestion that might be helpful. We are close to the vote now, so we will know shortly whether the bill will progress.

The idea of the changes I have just suggested is to give the Treaty greater status in the Act, so that decision makers would be compelled to recognise and provide for hapū as the Treaty envisaged. All in all we support the initiative from the honourable member. I am happy to say that the Māori Party is pleased to support this bill and hopes that in the short space of time left the bill is voted on and supported. Kia ora tātou.

BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) Link to this

Kia ora tātou. I am very pleased to support this bill in the name of my colleague Nanaia Mahuta and commend her for it. This is a bill about creating the potential for front-end consultation with iwi without the need first for Treaty settlements, such as happened in the Waikato. It will take some effort from councils to implement this bill, if passed, but the benefits of it are, I think, very, very clear. We do not need to look very far into our history to see a graphic example of where a bill like this might have prevented a major issue that we are still, as a Parliament and as a nation, dealing with today.

I think back to Marlborough 10 years ago when iwi in the Marlborough Sounds felt that they were being excluded from the growing race for water space in the Marlborough Sounds. They believed, whether right or not, that a councillor or councillors were precluding them from gaining any water space. What did that lead to? It led to the foreshore and seabed issue that this Parliament and indeed this Government are still trying to resolve today. Yet this Government is saying that it will oppose this very sensible bill.

I also note that Nick Smith, who has been in the House tonight, has today announced a moratorium on the Hurunui River and further extraction of water in that catchment. That decision was recommended to him by the Environment Canterbury commissioners he installed by parliamentary majority just a few months ago. Included amongst the seven commissioners is one appointed iwi representative. Yet Dr Smith and this National Government say that they do not support this bill, which facilitates iwi input into decision making and allows for some recognition of iwi management plans—some taking proper account of iwi management plans when councils are forming their own plans. It is very, very much a bill that will allow Māori to be truly taken account of in their contributions to the future of a regional plan and of a region.

I also note that the ACT leader, Rodney Hide, in talking about what I suppose in a sense is a precursor to this bill—the co-governance arrangements on the Waikato River, which gave Tainui a right for some input into the decision making on the river they regard as so sacred and important—commented that it was an inappropriate decision because it was not democratic. He said that it was not giving the community the right to sack people—that people coming from iwi into those co-governance arrangements were only being appointed. Yet Rodney Hide, along with Dr Smith, was very pleased to be able to sack the Environment Canterbury councillors just a few months earlier, and that supposedly did not contravene any democratic principle at that time.

This is a bill that makes sense. It acknowledges that Māori, through iwi management plans, should be allowed to have some input into council plans. It acknowledges that they have in the past—and it was extraordinarily variable—not been able to have their views heard around council tables when important decisions are being made. The goal of the bill is to ensure that more weight is given to iwi concerns in planning and consenting processes, and that there be a greater level of engagement between councils and iwi. That is a commendable principle. It should not have to require Treaty settlements and it should be something that this Parliament recognises and reflects in the adoption of this bill in the name of my colleague Nanaia Mahuta. The Opposition Labour Party supports this bill along with the Māori Party and the Green Party. We believe that the bill deserves to have a run and I think the Government should reconsider its position in respect of it.