Henare PeeniPEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Thank you for this opportunity. I want to draw the Committee's attention to Part 2 clause 9 Exercise of powers under Housing Act 1955". I first turn to the submission made by Te Matapihi the Māori housing network established under Te Puni Kōkiri. Its submission says and I agree with this wholeheartedly: "It is our position that iwi-led non-market approach to regeneration with strong Government support"—with strong Government support—"holds the key to solving Auckland's housing crisis."I turn to clause 9 "Exercise of powers under Housing Act 1955" and it says: "… unless the Housing Act Minister has consulted the following bodies about the proposed development:". It lists the Auckland Council which makes sense to me—the Tāmaki Redevelopment Co. Ltd—hmm yeah I guess that makes sense to me—and "the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board established under section 10 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009." Where in there is the strong support from this Government for Ngāti Paoa for the mana whenua o Tāmaki-makau-rau? If the Government was serious about allowing iwi-led developments to ease the housing crisis in Tāmaki-makau-rau it would have in that particular clause Ngāti Paoa. It would also have in that clause Ngāti Whātua. It would also have in that clause ngā mana whenua o Tāmaki-makau-rau allowing a precedent that forces this Government—which supposedly supports these initiatives by iwi to solve the housing matters in Tāmaki-makau-rau—to work with them. But it is not doing that in this particular bill.In fact just as I mentioned earlier the limited scope by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment in the consultation on this bill this particular clause clause 9 will continue that—it will continue that—by making sure that only the Minister has consulted the following bodies: the Auckland Council the Tāmaki Redevelopment Co. Ltd and the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board.Meka Whaitiri: Where's the iwi?PEENI HENARE: Where are the iwi in that conversation? Where is this supposed support from this Government to allow the iwi to allow ngā mana whenua o Tāmaki-makau-rau to actually have a meaningful part and leadership to play in solving the housing crisis in Tāmaki-makau-rau? I want to repeat that submission from Te Matapihi: "It is our position that iwi-led non-market approach to regeneration with strong Government support holds the key to solving Auckland's housing crisis." I agree with that 100 percent. If that is the case I would ask the Minister in the chair whether he could get up and explain then after his contribution previously why Ngāti Paoa and why ngā mana whenua o Tāmaki-makau-rau are not clearly a party that the Minister under their powers must consult with—must consult with. The others are easy to understand but if this Government wants to try to tell us that it is supporting wholeheartedly the iwi engagement in solving and contributing solutions to the housing crisis can the Minister please rise to his feet and tell us why they are not included in clause 9. I think that is a pretty fair question. Mr Hudson seems to be in full support of Ngāti Paoa. I would encourage him to make a contribution too and answer why they are not included in this to make sure that the Minister's powers cannot override them—to make sure that the Minister must consult with mana whenua and in this particular instance Ngāti Paoa. I will leave that question for the Minister to consider."