RMA - simplifying and streamlining: Rahui Katene

One of the foundation concepts of the Maori Party – and indeed Te Ao Maori – is that of kaitiakitanga.

 

 

 

Kaitiakitanga represents the obligation of current generations to maintain the life-sustaining capacity of the environment for future generations.

 

 

 

Kaitiakitanga is the practical expression of rangatiratanga. 

 

 

 

To exercise kaitiakitanga is to demonstrate customary authority over the way a resource is used, managed and protected.  It is the practical linking of mana over a region with the kaitiaki authority over the resources in that region.

 

 

 

Contrary to the New Zealand Business Roundtable’s press release describing kaitiakitanga as one of a “plethora of fuzz terms”; as “vague and unquantifiable”; there are tangible and specific outcomes which can measure the expression of kaitiakitanga against environmental outcomes.   

 

 

 

Outcomes such as the continued health and wellbeing of the resources or the cultural usage of the resource.

 

 

 

Mr Speaker, at the very heart of the Resource Management Act is the fundamental importance of kaitiakitanga.  The satisfaction that mana whenua have that their guardianship is respected; their stewardship of the resources is valued; is central towards understanding how to ensure an effective relationship between tangata whenua and the governing agencies of the state.

 

 

 

It has always been our contention that the Resource Management Act would be sufficient to the tasks of environmental protection and mana whenua involvement in decision-making if used properly and if interpreted responsibly by local governments.

 

 

 

This tension is the central point of conflict – and always has been – in assessing the effectiveness of the implementation of Resource Management Act 1991 processes.

 

 

 

The central premise of kaitiaki responsibilities is that all things living are connected, all living beings have mauri.  The life cycle connects us all from the smallest blade of grass to a kauri tree.

 

 

 

The Maori Party policy has been explicit about our commitment towards keeping our natural resources and environment healthy, and safe and intact for future generations.

 

 

 

In this sense, we are pleased that the Bill contains a key objective to reduce the time it takes to make decisions, while at the same time maintaining effective public participation and promoting the sustainable management of natural and physical resources.

 

 

 

The critical measure to evaluate the legislation will be whether we have got the balance right between environmental sustainability and reducing compliance constraints.

 

 

 

For the Maori Party, our interest is in determining that the relationships between the Crown and Maori as the Treaty partner are honourable, are effective, are functional.

 

 

 

In a case study profiled on the Quality Planning website, we can assess the adequacy of the RMA as judged by interviews with the 26 South Island Councils located within the Ngai Tahu takiwa.

 

 

 

Some of the engagement councils undertake with Ng
i Tahu is mandatory, established through Statutory Acknowledgments while other areas of engagement are voluntary but all indicate that there is still considerable room for improving tangata whenua engagement in RMA procedures.

 

 

 

Ngai Tahu comprises whanau and hapu within 18 Papatipu runanga; while Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu is recognized as the iwi authority for the purposes of the RMA.

 

 

 

What the Ngai Tahu case study indicated was that where there were pockets of good practice, it was entirely reliant on the interpersonal relationships developed between Council and tangata whenua practitioners.

 

 

 

Much of the existing good practice relies on interpersonal relationships developed between council and tangata whenua practitioners.

 

 

 

But there were specific and tangible deliverables that could markedly improve the health of the relationship, including:

 

Robust administration;

Clear internal council policies;

Establishing relationship agreements with tangata whenua.

 

 

If, as this Act professes, it is intended to simplify procedures and streamlining appeal processes, it may well be that the Ngai Tahu case study gives some clues as to how best practice can ultimately lead to better RMA decision-making.

 

 

 

The intimate relationship between resource management laws and the capacity of tangata whenua to maintain their roles and responsibilities for kaitiakitanga, is one of the reasons we argued so fiercely for the preservation of section 8 which refers to the kaitiaki role of tangata whenua and their rights as guaranteed by Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

 

 

 

The actual wording of section 8 is that “all persons exercising functions and powers under it, in relation to managing the use, development and protection of natural and physical resources, shall take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi”.

 

 

 

Part two of the RMA, specifically sections 6 (e); 6 (f); 7(a) and 8, instructs local government that they must give due and appropriate consideration to the values and concerns of tangata whenua.

 

 

 

But – and this is the major challenge – there is nothing to suggest any element of compulsion; and indeed the Prime Minister has recently announced that section 8 is no longer a significant issue.

 

 

 

Retaining good faith and partnership; honouring Te Tiriti, is certainly a significant issue, and we will be looking forward, like the Labour Party,  to the select committee process to learn the views of Maori on section 8 in particular.

 

 

 

Admidst what can only be described as policy uncertainty, there are some definite grey clouds that are blocking a clear horizon.

 

 

 

There is the prohibitive factor that the Environment Court could order parties challenging applications to pay security for costs.  What this means is that before a group can take a case against a company, the group would need to put up whatever money the company determines the Court proceedings will cost them in lost time, and other matters as “security for costs”.  

 

I remember when my aunty Eva Rickard brought the case against Tainui in 1995, the security of costs that Tainui named was $1m – too high for Aunty Eva to even contemplate.

 

Then there’s the proposal that removes the ability of the Conservation Minister to make the final decision on the issuing of coastal development permits; this is a proposal we are strongly opposed to.

 

We are apprehensive that some of the amendments may limit the capacity of tangata whenua and communities to be involved in decision making processes, and to challenge and appeal consents once approved.

 

There is the possibility that cannot be discounted that the provisions to limit vexatious or frivolous objections may be called on to deny the validity of arguments put forward by tangata whenua.

 

And finally, there is the ever treacherous tightrope that we walk, with this act straddling between the twin priorities of the development of the people alongside the protection of the environment.

 

 

There is anxiety amongst Maori that the easing of local council responsibilities as frontline RMA administrators will be to the detriment of the community, as large and small scale developers, including local and regional councils hurry on, impatient in their quest to establish major infrastructure.              

 

 

 

The potential to reduce costs to businesses, will enable Councils to fast-track vital elements of the infrastructure -  roads, wind-farms and centralized sewage and water plants.  Whenever there is construction of such a large scale, we will always be concerned to monitor proposals to ensure they will not occur at the expense of local community development aspirations;     

 

 

 

This to us, is the hub of the issue.  It is absolutely vital that any changes to enable local councils to make planning changes more quickly are not at the expense of community and tangata whenua dialogue.      

 

 

 

As tangata tiaki, Maori must be able to do all that we can, to promote the regeneration and revitalisation of indigenous flora and fauna; to protect waterways and land from ecological misuse and destruction and to support sustainable development rather than crude fiscal growth per se.

 

 

 

We will support this Bill at its first reading, because we do want hear the views of our whanau, hapu and iwi; our lawyers; environmental advocates; our tikanga experts; our conservation champions and members of the local community about just how well this bill works – or doesn’t.