Whaitiri MekaMEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Because I am a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee I do want to touch on the same line I was saying in my previous contribution and that is the commitment to this bill under Part 2 to Ngāti Paoa. I just want to draw the Committee's attention to the report tabled in the House by the Local Government and Environment Committee which obviously received not only the submissions but considered the bill and reported back to the House. I do want to acknowledge the members on the select committee particularly as we try to be constructive members on that select committee in terms of getting ourselves really clear on where Ngāti Paoa's Treaty settlement sat with this particular bill. I do want to draw the Committee's attention to the fact that we did ask officials to ensure that we understood Ngāti Paoa's Treaty settlement per se and how it related to this bill because we knew from what submitters were saying and what the Minister was saying in his first address that this was an enabling bill for Ngāti Paoa's Treaty settlement.What I want the Committee to know is that despite members asking for copies of Ngāti Paoa's Treaty settlement so that we could answer some of the questions and the confusions we have had in this Committee in tonight's debate we were unable to get a copy. We were told it was outside the brief or scope of this particular bill. We wanted to investigate all possible options that the Crown in the negotiation of Ngāti Paoa's Treaty settlement—that all options around commercial redress particularly around land return were actually addressed. We were unable as select committee members to receive a copy despite asking through obviously our officials the Office of Treaty Settlements whether we could please have a copy. The upshot is that we were left—well I can speak for myself as a member of the select committee—extremely confused as to whether this bill actually had a relation to Ngāti Paoa's Treaty settlement and we had to trust that it did. But I want the Committee to know that there were many members asking for copies of it.In that vein we were asking whether other land was considered as part of Ngāti Paoa's Treaty settlement. It is an important point to make because we are not just getting up here and debating to be difficult for difficulty's sake. There are some members in here who are mandated and we support Ngāti Paoa's Treaty settlement and we want to make sure that all avenues are explored to ensure we have a full and final settlement when it comes to that point.Coming back to this bill under Part 2 and particularly the work of the select committee all I want to inform the Committee of is that I felt that I was not fully equipped because we were not given the information we sought to ensure that this bill actually formed a part of Ngāti Paoa's Treaty settlement. That was denied to select committee members and I thought it was an important piece of work that we should have had in front of us to then come to this Committee fully informed with how this fitted in with Ngāti Paoa's Treaty settlement.So my statement stands—Ngāti Paoa is not included in this bill. I have yet to hear from the Minister in the chair Scott Simpson to say that I am wrong. I have yet to hear. I have asked the Minister because the right of first refusal in Part 2 clause 7 does not reflect Ngāti Paoa; it reflects the collective. So I have yet to have an answer. I have come and I have asked of the Minister in the chair whether he would please take a call to make it really clear for all members in the Committee that Ngāti Paoa has an agreement with the collective so that the right of first refusal over both the development lands in clause 7 and the remaining reserve lands in clause 7 actually goes to Ngāti Paoa. That is not clear in this bill.