Whaitiri MekaMEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe Mr Chairperson. Just following on from my colleague David Parker and his contribution I want to focus on the part of the bill that is clause 38 which adds new section 58N of new Subpart 2 of Part 5 which talks about the initiation of Mana Whakahono a Rohe plans. I want to follow on from my colleague's statement around Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 281 from the Māori Party in the name of Marama Fox who can explain and also join in the clear I guess campaign that was taken upon growers in Hawke's Bay particularly Pure Hawke's Bay and iwi leaders of Ngāti Kahungunu around ensuring that the broad powers—and I know I am going off my original statement about Whakahono but it is important that I start off with the broad powers that the Minister gave himself through this passage of the bill but acknowledge the SOP that has been presented on the floor by the Māori Party and I am keen to hear the change in which that change has come about from them.But I do want to acknowledge that campaign on getting the Minister to make the allowance in this bill around ring-fencing GE-free crops from the broad powers that the Minister has which then leads me to the lost opportunity of the Māori Party of the much bigger gains that this bill is intending to do which is obviously the regions that may for example want to halt oil and gas exploration in their rohe. Does this bringing down of the Minister's ministerial powers address the ability for councils to actually ban oil and gas from their regions? Does this particular clause of empowering that the Minister has allow councils—Marama Fox: In the ocean? Or on land?MEKA WHAITIRI: Well the member can get up and respond to that but I am really keen to hear from the Minister in terms of the reducing of his powers to ensure that local councils can make such decisions in their regional plans and whether the Minister is contemplating whether his broad powers will allow that to happen or will the Minister step in and make changes? But it is back to the rohe plans and it goes on from my second contribution—and I am talking about section 58—in the second reading of this bill. I mentioned the existing iwi I guess mechanisms and co-governance or co-management arrangements that they have with councils. If I can just draw your attention to the regulatory impact statement prepared by the Ministry for the Environment. If I can point out paragraph 203 in the regulatory impact statement—the Minister's own officials note that 83 percent of local authorities currently have existing arrangements with Māori be it through memorandums of understanding joint committees advisory boards and forums. So in terms of the gain that the Māori Party believes it has got for iwi it is interesting because there are already 83 percent that have some sort of arrangement right there in the regulatory impact statement by his own officials.I also mentioned in my second reading speech the 124 iwi and hapū that through these Treaty settlements already have these existing arrangements. But it is not so much what I think; it is what iwi Māori submitters who came to the select committee presented to the committee. I want to highlight some of those iwi organisations like Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu and like our very own Hawke's Bay Regional Planning Committee which has nine iwi within my electorate of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti. Everyone wants a streamlined and improved Resource Management Act system and we understand that that is the intent of this bill but what iwi Māori said in their submissions to the select committee was that they did not want their existing arrangements with councils undermined and put at risk with this bill. There is been no answer to how this bill and what part of the clauses acknowledge that the iwi and the hapū who have existing arrangements are going to be protected under this bill.These are the questions that perhaps the Minister can address because it was a serious concern raised by Maungaharuru-Tangitū which is a recently settled iwi. But when you look through the bill you will also note that in addition to the risk perceived or real from the iwi Māori submitters that came before the select committee to ensure—Tainui was another entity that also submitted. So there is a real disquiet amongst iwi Māori particularly the settled ones around whether these Mana Whakahono a Rohe arrangements are actually going to enhance or put their Treaty arrangements under risk.The other point that I want to draw the Committee's attention to in the sections on the Mana Whakahono a Rohe plans is the issue around the place of iwi. As a committee member I raised this in the select committee around officials getting absolutely clear that you can have iwi organisations—for example Ngāti Kahungunu Iwi Incorporation as guaranteed under the Māori Fisheries Act. But then you have got new post-settlement Government entities who may not be Ngāti Kahungunu. For example it could Maungaharuru-Tangitū. So I have raised this several times when we were reporting back from the officials around potential confusion of who is actually supposed to be benefiting from this particular clause. And perhaps again I would invite the Minister to explain how he is going to manage entities that are iwi under one legislation but for the purpose of Treaty settlements have a different title.Like my colleague David Parker said there are other parts of the bill that I do want to address. But I wanted to start getting the Mana Whakahono and the ministerial broad powers addressed so that we are ensuring that we are acknowledging regional decision-making and that councils are protected and that the Minister could perhaps identify where he would apply his broad-based powers under what circumstances and give some assurances to some very progressive local government organisations out there that enter into long-term plans—10- 15- 25-year plans—and that understand their region better than central government and need some assurances from this Minister particularly that those obligations and rights are not put at risk. Kia ora.