Williams ArenaARENA WILLIAMS (Labour—Manurewa): Thank you Mr Chair for the opportunity to contribute to this debate and congratulations to the Minister in his new role. There are a number of amendments in my name to Part 1—seven actually—and to be economical with my time I'll be talking about four in this contribution that relate to ngā Mana Whakahono ā Rohe agreements. The House will find those in clause—they are amended by clause 3 of the amendment bill but they are in clause 11 of Schedule 1.So it would be useful I think if I quickly give the House the context of what this clause 11 does. This means that for those hapū that have entered into a process for agreeing Mana Whakahono agreements in any given region this provides a transitional arrangement for them to continue with those arrangements as if they were an iwi authority. Now the House finds itself in some trouble with this—particularly with those agreements where hapū have entered into them with their regional authority but they cannot for some other legal reason be treated as an iwi authority. I have some amendments that will help the Minister to get past this hurdle and I hope he'll consider them when we come to the vote.The first that I want to speak about is say the transitional arrangement of the Mana Whakahono ā Rohe under Part 3 of the Natural and Built Environment Act 2023 entered into by Poutini Ngāi Tahu. That agreement itself was signed on 22 October but it represents the first in a number of processes for the other rūnanga rūnaka of Ngāi Tahu to enter into regional agreements within their rohe. Because Mr Chair you'll appreciate that for an iwi the size of Ngāi Tahu their iwi catchment area is almost the whole of Te Waipounamu but they have a number—13 I believe—of rūnaka rūnanga that have primacy than their own regional area.Now they are called rūnaka—you might think of them as hapū and for the effect of this bill they are being treated as hapū. But this provision in the amendment bill as proposed would see them being treated as iwi authorities. They are not iwi authorities. They should not be treated as iwi authorities for the purposes of the Resource Management Act (RMA) because they are not an iwi authority. The iwi authority in Te Waipounamu—for the purposes of the area of the south of the South Island excluding the top of the south and those iwi that claim primacy in that area—is te iwi o Ngāi Tahu. They have their own constitutional arrangement to share power between the iwi and those rūnaka and it would be inappropriate for them to gain the status of iwi in this situation.It's worth spending a little bit of time in the context for this. Those rūnaka and the Poutini Ngāi Tahu rūnaka that entered into those arrangements had the blessing of te iwi o Ngāi Tahu. Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu kaiwhakahaere Lisa Tumahai commented on 23 October that this agreement was the logical next step in developing the relationship: When we think about our history as [an] iwi it has been quite a journey to get to a position of working with the council in a true sense of partnership. The work we have all done in the past five years having been on council we have made big steps forward from the past and it reflects our growing maturity as iwi [in the] post-settlement [context]." What she's saying there is that there was an agreement between the iwi and what we would see is for the hapū to lead out with the council in this area. It's inappropriate for them to take on the role of the iwi but the iwi came to an arrangement with the hapū that they could share that role.What I want to know from the Minister is: will he consider my amendment to maintain the Poutini Ngāi Tahu agreement that was signed on 22 November in the primary legislation which is what my amendment would do and then to explain to the Chamber how he will give effect to those other rūnaka-level arrangements that will be entered into by the other rūnaka of Ngāi Tahu.I would also like the Minister to answer two specific questions for the Chamber before I explain my other amendments related to Mana Whakahono agreements. The first question is: which hapū have started the Mana Whakahono ā Rohe process but are not completed? The second question is: the hapū of Ngā Puhi do not have the ability to act as an iwi authority and should not be treated as an iwi authority for the purposes of the Resource Management Act; how will the Minister deal with ngā hapū o Ngā Puhi who have entered into or intend to enter into a process for Mana Whakahono arrangements?"