Mooney Joseph; Parker DavidJOSEPH MOONEY (National—Southland): Thank you very much Madam Chair. Minister I want to ask you about Mana Whakahono ā Rohe—beginning on page 109. My question really goes to the potential scenario of different hapū and iwi with overlapping areas of interest. Let's say in a scenario one hapū or iwi might wish to set up a Mana Whakahono ā Rohe. That might go through a period of time—some months maybe—and I note that participating authorities must conclude a Mana Whakahono ā Rohe not later than 12 months after the date in which the invitation was received or within any other period agreed by all the participating authorities. My question is: what happens if that goes through a number of months then say another hapū or iwi with an overlapping area of interest decides to set up their own one and then if we proceed through this they cannot come to an agreement? I note clause 30ZZD Resolution of disputes in course of negotiations" in which participating authorities choose a binding or non-binding process involving an arbitrator or mediator and that they can't resolve it then they may individually or jointly seek the assistance of the Minister. I'm curious why there is no timing on when the Minister needs to make a decision on whether to appoint and meet the costs of a Crown facilitator and direct the participating authority to use a specified dispute resolution process for that purpose. But in addition to that I note that clause 30ZZE specifically talks about what happens when the disputing parties have an overlapping area of interest and do not wish to work collectively on developing a Mana Whakahono ā Rohe arrangement. I note that the parties to the dispute must attend a hui facilitated by an independent person appointed by the Māori Land Court and if a dispute remains unresolved then the Chief Judge of the Māori Land Court must make a final determination of the matter. And I note under clause 30ZZF that timing has been given there and that once proceedings commence they must be commenced not later than two months after the date of the hui referred to above. So my question is: how long could this entire process take and why is there not any legislative requirement for timing specified in respect of the Minister's decision to require that a Crown facilitator be appointed and for parties to the dispute to attend a hui? It looks by my reading of this that it could take a very very long time before matters are resolved potentially going through the mechanisms that are specified in this piece of legislation.Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for the Environment): Thank you Madam Chair. The member will see that underneath the end of all of these clauses there's a reference to "1991 No 69 s 58P" looking at for example clause 30ZZ to which the member referred. That's the reference to the same provision in the Resource Management Act. Those provisions were introduced by the prior National-ACT Government with the support of the Māori Party in order to try and actually create some practical mechanisms to make relationships between councils and Māori work better and they're carried on into the new legislation. There are sometimes time frames. For example clause 30ZZA sets out the time frame for settling Mana Whakahono ā Rohe agreements and it says that "If an invitation is initiated under section 30ZY(1) the participating authorities must conclude a Mana Whakahono ā Rohe (a) not later than 12 months after the date … [when] the invitation is received; or (b) within any other period agreed by … the participating authorities." So there are mechanisms to bring these things to a head.I think one of the great improvements in this legislation over the current legislation actually relates to who you should have to notify in respect of a notified consent. That's considered in a later part of the legislation but essentially currently there is a non-codified list maintained by Te Puni Kōkiri. One of the frustrations that councils write to me about and applicants at times is they use the list in good faith and then someone else pops up and says "I should have been on the list. You didn't consult with me therefore you're in breach of your duties." and they get sued and sometimes injuncted. In those other parts of the Act we're making that list a code that can be relied upon by people at the date they use it so that they have certainty that if they use that list then they have dealt with the right people. That doesn't mean to say that the list can't be updated for the future. It can be but the decision as to who they consulted on the date they accessed the list can't be second-guessed."