Kerekere ElizabethDr ELIZABETH KEREKERE (Green): I'm awake! I'm paying attention! OK—thank you for the opportunity to take this short call on the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill.Tim van de Molen: Good speech.Dr ELIZABETH KEREKERE: Yeah I'm nearly done. At the first reading of this bill we raised two issues that helped determine our support for it. The first was the level of consultation that went into the first creation of the bill and that's probably why there were so few submissions to the Māori Affairs Committee—that generally people were quite happy with what you had done and the ones that you did receive were quite supportive. So I think that is a testament to the work of that committee but also that that tautoko was because iwi saw that the powers given to the Te Ohu Kaimoana to allocate and transfer assets to iwi would advance their interests and their aquaculture opportunities. Importantly it would allow iwi to progress their economic social and cultural objectives: their own tino rangatiratanga.The select committee also heard that iwi were well over waiting to access their settlement assets and then part of the problem creating that delay is the Government's instance on large natural groupings or regional negotiations in its settlement processes. This practice is based on the colonial proposition that iwi which are small should all just get together and sort things out amongst themselves. We've experienced massive delays back home at Tūranga-nui-a-Kiwa because of this. The Greens have long disputed this process that pits small iwi against each other while larger iwi have the mana to directly negotiate with the Crown. This process undermines the mana of smaller iwi and unnecessarily delays them having their assets returned to them. Unsurprisingly some iwi have refused to engage with the process which inevitably ends up in dispute. So with this bill and Te Ohu Kaimoana given limited powers to resolve those disputes we think that is a good thing.One of the things we also notice with successive Governments is that they do not trust iwi to take care of their own assets. They require iwi to jump through multiple hoops and add heavy administrative and compliance burdens. For the Treaty settlement we see this in the requirement for iwi to establish post-settlement governance entities or PSGEs. As we have travelled the country to visit land occupations we have heard from many iwi that their PSGEs are using their status as the organisations with the cash to override the wishes not only of the iwi leaders and their rūnanga and trusts but also the wider iwi. In the case of Māori aquaculture iwi are required to establish iwi aquaculture organisations or IAOs. Some submitters suggested that whānau and hapū should have greater recognition in decision-making in relation to those IAOs. Let's remember that hapū signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi not iwi—hapū.So one of the Green Party's six priorities for our Māori priorities is that whānau hapū and iwi have a say in the issues that directly affect them. So we wholeheartedly agree with this; however we understand it is outside the scope of this bill to have that better representation. Engari in support of all the iwi just wanting to get on with their life and their work and waiting for assets which let us always remember were theirs in the first place we commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.