Twyford PhilPart 2 Provisions to facilitate developmentPHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): I want to speak to clause 7(3) which really goes to the heart of the purpose of the Point England Development Enabling Bill. What clause 7(3) says is that on the commencement date of this bill on the register for the development land—that is the 11.69 hectares—the Registrar-General must record the following: (a) that the Crown is the registered proprietor of the fee simple estate in the land:". So the ownership of this land that we are debating goes to the Crown on the passing of this bill or I should say on the commencement date of this bill. Why does it go to the Crown? It goes to the Crown so that the Crown can then make it available for the commercial redress component of Ngāti Paoa's Treaty settlement. I want to acknowledge in the gallery this evening Hauāuru Rāwiri from Ngāti Paoa who is obviously someone who has a lot of skin in the game in this debate over the passage of this bill through the House.I want to make it very clear in relation to Labour's position that we have no beef with Ngāti Paoa on this issue. In fact I can understand why Ngāti Paoa might take the view that in the context of their historical experience the status of 11.69 hectares of land at Point England may be far from the most significant thing for them when they consider the possibilities and the opportunities of their Treaty settlement. If they were to take that view then I would find that very believable and very plausible.But this bill is being passed by the Government of the day. It is incumbent on the Government to govern in the interests of all New Zealanders—of the whole community—and therefore the Government has an obligation to take seriously the full range of concerns that might be felt by the community about this bill. I think it is patently clear that the Government has not done that. It has chosen to ignore an obviously superior alternative plan that would offer for Ngāti Paoa if it was put on the negotiating table the same sized parcel of land just across the fence in land that is owned by the Tāmaki Regeneration Company in which the Government is the dominant shareholder. It would provide that commercial redress a stone's throw from the development land that we are debating in this bill. And as Peeni Henare and I have proposed publicly the Government could have offered to transfer the title of the entire recreational reserve to Ngāti Paoa on the basis as has been negotiated in so many other places of public access in perpetuity.The Government could have offered co-governance of the entire Point England recreational reserve in acknowledgment of the special historical relationship and the feeling that Ngāti Paoa have for that patch of land. We propose that a reserve be set aside on Point England for the establishment of a marae so that as part of this Treaty settlement Ngāti Paoa would have a place to stand and a place from which to welcome in the local community. It is an obvious win-win and it stands in contrast to the bulldozing non-consultative narrow vision that we have seen from the Minister Nick Smith in the way that this bill has been crafted and is being taken through Parliament.Labour's commitment to the Treaty settlement process is rock solid it is mature it is thoughtful and it is considered but it is not a blank cheque for every half-baked scheme that Nick Smith comes up with. The shame about this bill is that instead of a bright new chapter in Ngāti Paoa's history it risks poisoning the well of the relationship with the local community."