6. METIRIA TUREI (Green) Link to this
to the Minister for the Environment
Will the Government’s proposed changes to the Resource Management Act have any negative impact on the rights of Māori, iwi, and hapū to have their say over resource management decisions?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) Link to this
Māori, iwi, and hapū have an important interest in resource management as applicants, as objectors, and also indirectly through the creation or loss of job opportunities, as users of infrastructure, and in exercising their customary rights in such areas as fishing. I have received increased concern from Māori about frustrations at the slow, bureaucratic processes of the current Act in such areas as aquaculture. Māori have no more interest in long, inefficient, bureaucratic processes than any other New Zealander has.
Is it not true that the Minister knows that these changes will have a negative impact on Māori and that that is why he is colluding to silence the Minister of Māori Affairs on it?
Mr SPEAKERI think I know what it will be. The member cannot, in a question, allege someone is colluding. I rule that question out of order.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Could I be quite clear—were you ruling out the word “colluding”, because if that word is ruled out then we really are—
The member will resume his seat. The member is the most experienced member in this House. He knows that the Standing Orders around debate are different from those around question time, and that to allege someone might have been colluding is not something that has been ruled out in debate. But questions cannot contain such an allegation. It is totally outside the Standing Orders. That is why I have ruled the question out of order.
Chris AuchinvoleHow are Māori, iwi, and hapū negatively affected by the current slow and cumbersome process of the Resource Management Act?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
One of the worst aspects of the current Act is how long it takes to develop and change district and regional plans. This has hampered iwi and hapū in having their interests over natural resources recognised and provided for. I think we would all acknowledge that Māori are at the hard edge of the economic downturn in industries such as construction and forestry. Reforms that can get those industries moving again will help Māori keep their jobs.
What will stop council plans allowing for, for example, sewage discharge over mussel beds or kai moana beds when, under his reforms, Māori will lose their fundamental right to appeal the plan to the Environment Court?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
The changes in appeal rights cut both ways. As the member would know, the bill I introduced to the House and that was sent to the select committee by, I think, 110 votes to 10 does not remove all appeal rights on plans. It constrains rights to issues of Part 2, the substantive purpose, of the Act, and the substantive example she gives would not be restricted by those changes.
Rahui KateneWhat submissions has the Minister received from the Minister of Māori Affairs on the resource management review, and was there any change in policy as a consequence of those submissions?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
The Hon Dr Pita Sharples and the Hon Tariana Turia made very strong submissions to me that the Māori Party would oppose—[ Interruption]
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can we be clear whether their submissions were made as co-leaders of the Māori Party or as Ministers?
Hon David ParkerI raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. How can it be in order for the Minister to say what he has been told by people in their roles as party leaders but not for another Minister to reply—
The member will resume his seat. If the member engaged the brain before operating the mouth, he would realise—
Hon Annette KingI have been rude on purpose because the Minister was answering in the area of his responsibility, which he is entitled to do.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If the Speaker would put his brain in order, he would realise that the Minister of Māori Affairs was speaking within his!
I invite the member to reflect a little on what is happening here. It is not helpful. These are tricky issues. They are not new. The previous Parliament had difficulty around these issues of ministerial responsibility, and they are not easy issues. I have tried, in allowing the question of the Hon Trevor Mallard today, to show that questions carefully framed can be allowed, and I have tried to do that in the interests of holding the executive to account.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you to consider your last statement. You are the Speaker of this House. You have huge respect because of your office, and for you to make statements as you did to Mr Parker, or to any member of this House, and to then admit that you were abusive deliberately, demeans the office of Speaker. I cannot recall—I have been here for only 9 years; I invite comment from other members who have been here longer than me—ever hearing a Speaker use those terms of abuse to a member of Parliament, and I invite you to reflect on that. It reflects on you personally and on your office, and it is offensive.
Hon David Cunliffe Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Setting aside the previous point of order, which you will no doubt reflect upon, I seek your clarification and, through you, that of the Minister in his reply as to whether he was referring to the two members concerned in their ministerial capacities.
I think I can deal with that fairly simply. The Minister can reply because it is his ministerial responsibility. The Minister, in replying, can refer to a range of matters. That is well known.
Hon Trevor Mallard Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a somewhat supportive point of order, because I want to note that you allowed the original question, which was about the Minister of Māori Affairs. Therefore, the question from the Māori Party member was about the Minister of Māori Affairs and his contribution. Therefore, the response can be about only that, and I support both Dr Smiths in the rulings they have made. What we clearly have now is the ability to ask about areas that are not those Ministers’ primary areas of responsibility but to ask about their responsibility in the area of advocacy, in a way, Mr Speaker, which you did not allow earlier.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
It would be perfectly proper for the member to ask what submissions I had received from anybody and what change I had made to the policy.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, I ask for a ruling from you. The ruling I ask for is whether it is now acceptable for the Speaker in the Chair to throw abuse at members of Parliament. I invite you to give a ruling. I think it is appropriate, given that you admitted you did throw abuse at members of Parliament.
To the Hon David Parker and to the Hon Clayton Cosgrove, to whom I clearly caused offence, I apologise. I should not have done that. I apologise.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen Link to this
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not want to prolong this, but an important point is being raised here. You are quite right that the Minister can take submissions from anybody. The Minister is quite right, in that it does not have to be in his ministerial capacity. But if it was in his ministerial capacity, the reason why we are asking is that we are then able to direct further questions on another day to the Minister of Māori Affairs about that matter.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
The Hon Pita Sharples, in his role as the Minister of Māori Affairs, made very strong submissions to me that he would oppose any watering down of section 8, the Treaty of Waitangi clause, and, as a consequence, proposals for change have been dropped from the first reform bill. The Minister of Māori Affairs also sought assurances that no changes would be considered to Part 2 of the Resource Management Act reforms, and I gave that reassurance.
In reference to the Minister’s response to my previous question, can he confirm, then, that should a council plan contain rules that allow, for example, for a sewage discharge over a kai moana bed where there is a Māori interest in protecting that kai moana bed, that Māori group can go to court—assuming they can afford to lodge a bond, under his reforms—to challenge that rule only if they have the leave of the court or if there is a question of law concerning that rule, but that otherwise, under his reforms, they have no capacity under law to challenge the impact of that rule over their right to protect or use that kai moana bed?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
The member is quite wrong, in two respects. The first is that the security of cost provision is at the discretion of the court; it is not an automatic right, as the member suggests. The second is that the test as to whether a plan can be appealed to the Environment Court is whether it relates to a Part 2 issue, the fundamental principles of the Resource Management Act. If it does, such an appeal is quite in order.
I am afraid the member has used her allocation of supplementary questions. She may recollect that one question was ruled out, and therefore the full six questions have now been used.
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My records, including the question that was ruled out, identify that the Green Party asked one supplementary question on question No. 2, one supplementary question on question No. 3—
What will the Minister say, then, to the nine iwi who are currently seeking customary rights orders in the Māori Land Court over issues relating to customary rights in the coastal marine area, who, under the existing Resource Management Act provisions, are able to challenge any rule in the district plan that would impinge on those rights, but whose rights to challenge will be taken away by his reforms because of the constraints around applying to the Environment Court to challenge district plan rules? What are those nine iwi going to do with their customary rights orders that give them rights in that area, now that they cannot even challenge the councils?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH Link to this
The changes we are making to the Resource Management Act provide for quicker processes, so where Māori want to see changes made to plans, those processes will be sped up. At the moment it is taking, on average, 8 years to make a change in a plan, and that is too long. It is also true that if we are going to speed up that process, there is some constraint on appeal. I think we have the balance about right.