Henare PeeniPEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): I rise to take a call on the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill. I would rather not debate the merits of whether or not iwi or the Māori Party should have navigated the iwi Māori down this particular pathway. I want to focus particularly on some of the information and detail in the clauses of the bill. Namely clause 38 and new section 58M(b)(ii) which talks about the coordination of the resources required to make sure that negotiations and any kind of meeting after a notice of intention to work with local authorities—I wonder exactly what that means for the likes of Ngāpuhi the biggest tribe or Ngāti Hine the biggest hapū within that tribe who actually do not have the resources to front up to those kinds of meetings. They have not been able to settle their Treaty claim.I want to say this to the House: there is a reason why this Government despite its hard-fought efforts in settling Treaty claims has been unable to settle with Ngāpuhi. What it is suggesting with this type of bill is that one iwi authority or one hapū or any collection can come together and work with the local authority with issues regarding resource management—the Resource Management Act (RMA). Let me put it to you like this: there are 55 hapū in Ngāpuhi—55 hapū. Are we suggesting that under new section 58M(b)(ii) the coordination of resources required for either one of those hapū a collection of those hapū or an iwi like Ngāpuhi will be able to come to the table with the local authority on an equal footing knowing full well that the local authority might be able to speak for a small district such as—I do not know—Whangarei?Ngāpuhi are able to claim Mount Manaia which falls in the Whangarei catchment—the local body authority. They claim Manaia as one of the pillars of the house of Ngāpuhi. That means that the organisation based out of Kaikohe will then be down in Whangarei working with the Whangarei council. There are numerous—at least a dozen—hapū within that particular catchment. I see that one of them made a submission on this particular bill. Patuharakeke live around the Bream Bay or Marsden Point area in Whangarei. They made a number of I thought good recommendations in their submission where they thought that this particular bill could work for them. I notice as I read their submission and the recommendations that they made that they are not in this bill. In fact quite a different pathway was pursued compared with the kind of solid and robust submission that Patuharakeke made on this particular bill.I am concerned when I consider within my electorate of Tāmaki Makaurau that there are big issues made around iwi and hapū. After years of fighting for an urban voice or urban recognition within any of the types of settlements or future aspirations of Te Iwi Māori—the Māori people—I wonder where the urban voice is.I wonder too where that might fit in the very complex web that exists in Tāmaki Makaurau. You have the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Act a settlement Act that acknowledges the tribes within Tāmaki Makaurau. Some of those tribes have already settled on their own—Te Kawerau ā Maki Ngāti Whātua ki Ōrākei and others. What about the third biggest tribe in this country: urban Māori—those who do not actually affiliate to either Ngāti Whātua ki Ōrākei or Te Kawerau ā Maki in Tāmaki Makaurau? Is it the responsibility of those tribes—Te Kawerau ā Maki Ngāti Whātua ki Ōrākei—to engage with all of the Māori who live there? I do not think that it is their responsibility. I think that is quite an unfair expectation.I also equally think that it is important that urban Māori have a particular voice and have a particular say within this piece of legislation. So that raises concerns. How are they expected to come together to the table on an equal footing on such an important issue?I want to continue with clause 38 and new section 58N(4)(b). It is this particular part that I think supplements—or supports anyway—my notion around who is going to be in and who is going to be out. Who is in and who is out? In particular we will find that situation in Tāmaki Makaurau. I have already spoken about those who have settled under the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Act. I have already spoken about those who have currently already settled their bills—Ngāti Whātua ki Ōrākei Te Kawerau ā Maki. What about those who have not yet settled their particular Treaty settlements? Where is the scope for them after if by a miracle the organisations or the iwi and hapū within Tāmaki Makaurau are able to rally together to be able to negotiate and work with the local authority on an equal footing? Where are those people expected to come in? I see that it does say that they are able to add to the conversation or add to the particular negotiation at some time later but I wonder whether they will agree with those things that have already been organised and agreed to between the parties—iwi hapū and their local authority.It is all of these types of issues that we think have not actually been thought through clearly enough. I think it is rich for members on the other side of the Chamber to say that iwi Māori or Māori leaders support this pathway that is being pursued by the Māori Party and the National Party. Read the Ngāti Whātua ki Ōrākei settlement. Read the submissions. They all say there are some serious concerns. In fact some make recommendations that are not even considered in this bill yet already express concerns about the kind of pathway that we are heading down with the proposed changes supported by the Māori Party. Let us be clear that the Māori Party is saying that the tribal leaders have all supported this. I have already named Ngāpuhi the largest tribe in the country. I do not see any of the Ngāpuhi submissions being made. I do not see any of the Ngāpuhi reo being chased in this particular bill.Just to reiterate my point urban Māori are of great concern to me. Those Māori who live in Tāmaki Makaurau might not necessarily have a direct say over the resources that are shared in Tāmaki Makaurau but what if they want to build on their house or extend their house? They have to apply through this particular process with the RMA. I wonder whether urban Māori can collectivise as an authority to be able to vouch or advocate for issues regarding simple things like house renovations for themselves. I am not too sure. Those types of issues are questions I will leave with the Minister and his advisers in the hope that we can get some sort of clarification.I recall the words of my colleague Marama Fox with regard to stepping backwards in time towards colonisation and leaving Māori out of the conversation. Well times have changed since the 1840 signing of the Treaty of Waitangi and I would argue that there are a lot of Māori in Tāmaki Makaurau who are being left out with the proposals being made in this particular amendment bill.I will finish my contribution by asking the Minister for some clarity around those complex webs that have already been set up with Treaty settlements. I named Ngāpuhi who have not settled yet but have well over 55 hapū within that particular large tribe and I ask whether or not that will cause some complexities and some issues into the future. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on the matter.