Whaitiri MekaMEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe Mr Chair. Thank you very much for this opportunity to make a contribution in this debate on Part 2. I would like to make some opening comments around clause 6 and I want to acknowledge the submitters who appeared in front of the Local Government and Environment Committee. They raised some important issues that I would like to acknowledge in this Committee tonight. Of course the key issue that many submitters shared in front of the select committee was the loss of open space and green space. We had 132 submissions received on the bill and 84 of those submitters raised serious concerns around the loss of open space. Of course the bill facilitating the rezoning of 11.69 hectares of the reserves into development land was clearly for those submitters who appeared of grave concern. I want to acknowledge those who took the time to come and share their concerns around the loss of space.Then I want to talk briefly on the second issue. A critical issue that was raised was the impact on the bird habitat. I want to acknowledge our Green colleagues here but also those who took the time again to appear in front of the select committee and raise the concern about the impact that this if this legislation goes through will have on the life of our native birds that inhabit that area.Brett Hudson: What about the houses?MEKA WHAITIRI: For the member who is calling out on the other side of the Chamber it is important that we acknowledge submitters who take their time to come in front of our select committee because it is part of our democratic process in this country so I do not waver because of that member's interjection from acknowledging those who came. Of course another key issue is the loss of sports fields and many again came in front of the select committee and raised that it would impact on them. And of course the other key issue was the precedent and the process that we are about to undertake with this bill going forward.But I want to acknowledge and draw the Committee's attention to clause 7. There has been a lot of talk in this House about this being a Ngāti Paoa Treaty settlement enabling bill. Nick Smith would want us to believe that. The Māori Party has attacked the Labour Māori MPs—particularly my colleagues—and said that this is a Treaty bill we are opposing but I only have to look at this bill. I look at this bill from page 1—a very small bill—and do I see Ngāti Paoa's name in this bill? Does anybody see Ngāti Paoa's name in this bill? No. It is not there and the only iwi referenced in this bill is in clause 7 under Computer freehold registers". There you go. Under clause 7(3)(c) we are talking about "a memorial under section 148" and as far as this bill goes the first right of refusal on the development land does not go to Ngāti Paoa. It does not go to Ngāti Paoa; it goes to the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective group as part of that Treaty settlement Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Act.We have been advised in the select committee that there was a letter between the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and Ngāti Paoa saying that this enabling bill will go to meet some of their commercial dreams but the issue is whether we have got an agreement between the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective group and Ngāti Paoa because that is what the bill says has the right of first refusal over this development land. Maybe the Minister in the chair could get up and say that there is a letter or an agreement between Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective and Ngāti Paoa. If he can get up and say that then that may give some assurances to the Committee that this development land is actually going to end up in Ngāti Paoa's hands because as the bill in front of us is written there is no mention of Ngāti Paoa.I would like the Minister to get up and take a call on what guarantees there are because the entity that receives the right of first refusal under the development land and then—further on in clause 4—for the remaining reserve land is not Ngāti Paoa. The question I have is why we have not got Ngāti Paoa in this bill. If it is a Treaty bill or if it is an enabling bill for Ngāti Paoa to complete its Treaty settlement then I would like to know from this Minister in the chair—"