RMA

s6(e) “

in relaon to managing the use, development, and protecon of natural and physical resources, shall

recognize and provide for the following maers of naonal importance:”

(e)

the relaonship of Maori and their culture and tradions with their ancestral lands, water, sites,

wahi tapu, and other taong

a:

PROBLEM WITH THIS SECTION

:

•

As the specific secon is 6(e) this means there are a

whole number of different things that must be taken into

consideraon –

s (6)(e) is only one consideraon out of many

•

Issue with the wording: “shall recognise”. What happens when the other secons are in conflict with (e)?

The problem with this secon is that although it does recognise maers of importance to maori – it is paragraph e, so there is a

lot prior to this that must be taken into consideraon. It could be problemac if this point e is in conflict with another point.

Another example of Maori interests being recognised in statute, but arguably not substanally. Addionally, when these

Tikanga- based consideraons are only one aspect of a larger list, there is the risk that they will oſten be out-shadowed by these

other consideraons. Judges who are non-maori (most judges) may not have a proper understanding of the importance of these

factors (such as wahi tapu) and therefore when weighing them against other consideraons, may deem non-compliance with

these factors of lesser importance relave to other points

RMA S7

In achieving the purpose of this Act, all persons exercising funcons and powers under it, in relaon to

managing the use, development, and protecon of natural and physical resources, shall have parcular regard to—

(a)

kaiakitanga:

Problem here is that kaiakitanga can describe many things - and there can be mulple kaiaki, so what iwi takes priority if

there are more than one? It is sll progress including this word however one cannot just place this word in and assume that

maori interests are adequately protected. There are further procedural consideraons that need to be considered - kanga is as

intricate as state law.

RMA s8

shall take into account the principles of the

Treaty of Waitangi

(Te Tiri o Waitangi)

Again, this is problemac as there are both Maori and English versions

However, seeing kanga incorporated in statute in this way is a reflecon of Twining’s weak pluralism. Tikanga is

only recognised to the extent that it is allowed via statute, and only when the dominant state law system allows it.

Even then, much of this statutory recognion of kanga principles is sll discreonary and may not ulmately be

applied anyway. Although it is a posive step that Tikanga is being recognised and provided for in statute, there is a

strong argument as to whether this is simply lip-service, and the actual substanve nature of the presence of kanga

in the law is sll insignificant.

Second, while this incorporaon means there is some recognion of kanga principles when regulang the

environment, it can also have a number of potenal negaves. First, quesons must be asked whether kanga

principles can be understood and given effect to outside the Maori legal framework. For example, plucking kanga

out and posioning it in a state-driver legal framework that suits lawmakers, like s 7 of the RMA, prompts the

queson of whether kanga can really be given effect to in isolaon and out of context, or whether statutory

incorporaon is just lip service. There is also the danger of misinterpretaon and misappropriaon as the kanga

incorporated in the New Zealand legal system will be applied mostly by non-Maori judges who know lile about

kanga both theorecally and in pracce. There is also a danger that codifying kanga principles in this way may

diminish the effect and purpose of kanga because it is not a fixed system. And, because kanga principles are only

one factor to be considered in our western-centric legal system, it is usually overpowered by state law or Eurocentric

consideraons anyway.