The environment select committee has recommended scrapping Mana Whakahono a Rōhe agreements as part of the government's Resource Management Act reforms, a move that would extinguish all existing and pending iwi-council participation arrangements across Aotearoa.

The recommendation lands as the broader RMA reform package enters its final stages in Parliament. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon publicly addressed the removal of existing iwi agreements last week, saying the government was motivated by concern about the growing number of agreements being signed (RNZ). A government press release, "Better planning for growth and environment," published on beehive.govt.nz on 20 July, confirms that under the reformed system councils will have the option of entering into new "narrowly scoped" iwi participation agreements, intended to record how iwi authorities will participate in planning processes (Beehive).

Chris Bishop, the minister in charge of RMA reform, said the legislation includes provision for these iwi participation agreements as an alternative mechanism (RNZ). The government's framing is that the new agreements are narrower and more focused on planning-process participation than the Mana Whakahono a Rōhe provisions they would replace.

The select committee's recommendation and the government's decision to scrap existing agreements have drawn sharp responses from iwi leaders, particularly in Northland. The Northland Regional Council currently has three Mana Whakahono a Rōhe agreements in place. One of those was signed with Ngāti Hine in 2024. Rowena Tana, chair of Ngāti Hine, has voiced strong opposition to the reforms alongside the council's leadership.

Pita Tipene, chair of the Northland Regional Council, said he learned about the recommended changes on a Monday, with no prior consultation. He described the reforms as "despicable" and "cowardly" (RNZ).

The distinction the government is drawing between the outgoing Mana Whakahono a Rōhe regime and the proposed iwi participation agreements is central to the political contest around this reform. Mana Whakahono a Rōhe provisions were established under the existing RMA as a mechanism for iwi and councils to formalise their working relationship on resource management matters, covering a broad scope of engagement. The replacement agreements, by the government's own description, are "narrowly scoped" and focused specifically on recording how iwi authorities participate in planning processes.

Luxon's stated rationale — concern about the growing number of agreements — signals the government's view that Mana Whakahono a Rōhe was proliferating beyond what it intended when the mechanism was introduced. That framing positions the scrapping as a corrective measure rather than a removal of iwi participation rights per se, since Bishop has pointed to the alternative mechanism in the legislation.

For iwi like Ngāti Hine, which invested in negotiating and signing a Mana Whakahono a Rōhe agreement with their regional council as recently as 2024, the prospect of having that agreement voided by legislative change is the crux of the grievance. Tipene's language — "despicable" and "cowardly" — reflects a view that the government is unilaterally dismantling hard-won arrangements without engaging with the iwi and councils that entered into them in good faith.

The Northland Regional Council's position is notable. The council holds three such agreements, meaning it has been one of the more active local authorities in using the Mana Whakahono a Rōhe framework. Its chair learning of the select committee's recommendation rather than being consulted ahead of time underscores the speed at which these changes are moving through the legislative process.

The reform is now in its final stages, which means the window for iwi and councils to influence the shape of the replacement framework is narrowing. Whether the iwi participation agreements the government proposes will satisfy the relationships and obligations that Mana Whakahono a Rōhe was designed to give effect to is the substantive question that will play out in the remaining parliamentary process and, likely, in the implementation phase that follows.

What is clear from the government's own statements is that the shift is deliberate and directional: from a broader statutory mechanism for iwi-council engagement to a narrower, planning-process-focused instrument. The political argument is whether that narrowing is a reasonable recalibration or a rollback of Treaty-anchored participation rights. Tipene's response leaves no doubt where at least some iwi and council leaders sit on that question.