Statement | Partnership cannot be narrowed when it begins to matter
By: Te Tira Whakamātaki
July 27, 2026
Te Tira Whakamātaki stands with Ngāti Rangi, Ngāti Hine and other iwi that have entered Mana Whakahono ā Rohe processes with local government in good faith.
These agreements were created to give practical effect to relationships between iwi and councils. They provide a way for both parties to agree how they will work together on planning, consenting, monitoring, cultural heritage, climate resilience and environmental management.
They do not give iwi an automatic veto over council decisions. They are negotiated arrangements, agreed between councils and iwi, that create clearer processes and more durable relationships.
Iwi and councils have invested considerable time, expertise and trust in developing them. Some have spent years working through what partnership should look like in practice.
The Government now proposes to prevent existing and initiated Mana Whakahono ā Rohe agreements from transferring into the new planning system. In their place, councils may choose to enter new, more narrowly scoped iwi participation agreements.
That is not simply a change of name. It replaces an established statutory process with a narrower and more discretionary mechanism. It means relationships already negotiated in good faith may have to be rebuilt within new boundaries set by central government.
The Government says the change is needed because the number of agreements being developed increased after the new legislation was introduced. But increased use of a lawful mechanism is not, by itself, evidence that the mechanism is failing. It may instead show that iwi and councils were finally beginning to use it as Parliament intended.
The experience of Ngāti Hine and the Northland Regional Council also shows what risks being lost. Their agreement provides a formal place for rangatira-to-rangatira discussion, earlier notification of proposed developments and a way for iwi knowledge and responsibilities to inform decisions affecting whenua and taiao.
Those relationships do not weaken local government. Done well, they make decisions more informed, reduce conflict and help councils address issues before they become expensive legal or political disputes. This is not simply an argument about one planning tool. It is about whether iwi and councils can rely on statutory arrangements negotiated in good faith, and whether Crown commitments remain dependable when they begin to influence real decisions.
We are also concerned about the process that produced this reversal. Federated Farmers publicly called for the existing agreements not to be carried into the new system and has welcomed the Government’s decision. The Government should now release the advice, representations and Treaty analysis on which Cabinet relied, so the public can understand why negotiated relationships were set aside and whether the consequences for iwi and councils were properly assessed.
This concern also sits alongside other recent changes to environmental law, including the Herds of Special Interest legislation, which TTW opposed.
We recognise that hunting has a legitimate place in Aotearoa and that hunters can make an important contribution to conservation. But recreational interests should not override Indigenous biodiversity, mana whenua responsibilities or the purpose of our most highly protected conservation lands.
Taken together, these decisions suggest a troubling pattern: Māori participation is welcomed while it remains advisory but narrowed when it begins to carry practical weight.
TTW calls on the Government to preserve existing and formally initiated Mana Whakahono ā Rohe arrangements, release the evidence and advice behind its change in position, and meet directly with affected iwi and councils before further amendments are made.
Partnership cannot be invited, negotiated and relied upon, only to be rewritten when it begins to matter.
Stable government requires stable commitments. That should concern all New Zealanders, regardless of their politics.