Wall LouisaLOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēna koe Mr Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to Part 2 of the Point England Development Enabling Bill and I specifically want to talk to my Supplementary Order Paper 320. I want to read out what this Supplementary Order Paper is seeking to do. It says: In clause 7 after subclause (4) (page 4 after line 2) insert: '(5) Section 136 of the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Act 2014 does not apply if notice under section 120 of that Act is not given in respect of the development land following the registration of the memorial under subsection (3)(c).' " The relevance of this particular Supplementary Order Paper actually rests on what section 136 of that settlement Act says. What it does is provide that right of first refusal land can be disposed of where it is held for State housing purposes and the Minister considers the disposal is to achieve or assist in achieving the Crown's social objectives in relation to housing which is exactly what this bill is going to do. It is going to provide this land for social housing. We have heard that this bill is all about Ngāti Paoa's Treaty settlement. I want to acknowledge Hauāuru Rāwiri who is here representing Ngāti Paoa. We have seen letters—well I have seen letters—from the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations dated 13 October 2016 stating that. But nowhere in this legislation is that recorded because before that can actually happen this legislation needs to pass. The relevance of this Supplementary Order Paper needs to be looked at within the context of the 9.5-hectare Moire Road development in Massey—which was Ministry of Education land—because in fact the justification for that land not being right of first refusal land was essentially that it was to be used for State housing purposes as I have quoted above. So the intention was to sell it as residential - mixed housing urban to Fletcher's and when Ngāti Whātua heard about that they decided along with Waikato-Tainui to take the Crown to court. What resulted from that has been incredibly interesting. A couple of weeks ago Ngāti Whātua went to the Court of Appeal because originally they had gone to the High Court which decided it was not going to hear the case. So the case in the Court of Appeal is really about clarifying overlapping iwi boundary issues from Ngāti Whātua's perspective. Those issues are really relevant if you look at lands that the Crown has in Tāmaki-makau-rau and at what it chooses to do with those lands because under that 2014 collective settlement redress Act the mana whenua of Tāmaki-makau-rau actually do have right of first refusal over all lands except for those that are designated for social housing purposes. I am not sure what the Court of Appeal is going to find. Presumably because the Crown is using this piece of land as a Treaty settlement what the court is going to say is that this House and ultimately Parliament has jurisdiction—the court does not have jurisdiction but the House does. So we have struggled all along with this piece of legislation. From Ngāti Paoa's perspective this is Treaty settlement legislation but when you look at the regulatory impact statement prepared by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment it is really clear that this proposed legislation remains outside Treaty settlement policy and therein lies all the conflicts in what the Crown has said to justify this piece of legislation. In fact in justifying this as Treaty settlement legislation as I pointed out before it has managed to circumvent what would have been an Auckland Council process of consulting with the people of Point England. Who was consulted? Actually from the information that I have gathered it was Auckland Council under Mayor Brown who is no longer the mayor; it was the previous chair of the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board; and it was the Tāmaki Redevelopment Co. But because this was going to be used for a Treaty settlement the council did not want to breach confidentiality and it actually chose not to do what it should have done which was engage and consult with the community. So we are here totally by design and totally by the design of the Government. We do have a problem with the process. We do not have a problem with Ngāti Paoa at all. Actually I do believe that in 2015 Ngāti Paoa came up with this idea themselves because they knew that the Government had identified 500 hectares of land across Tāmaki-makau-rau. They saw what had happened at the Moire Road development in Massey which by the way is now a joint venture between Fletcher's and Ngāti Whātua—Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Whai Rawa Ltd. Ngāti Paoa said "There is an opportunity for us here and we are going to take it." and the Crown has decided that it will use this land for the Ngāti Paoa Treaty settlement. But that is why I believe my Supplementary Order Paper is vital because what this will mean is that only Ngāti Paoa can get this piece of whenua as part of their commercial redress for their Treaty settlement. Without this the Minister for Building and Construction can do what he did in the Moire Road development and actually put it out for tender and give it to somebody else acting as a third party—Fletcher's. I know there are three preferred providers but Fletcher's is the one that has been mentioned by the local community. This bill is now about some form of reconciliation. Do I think Treaty settlements have a special place in the Parliament and in the history of our country? I do actually—it is part of our truth and reconciliation process. But the manner in which this bill has been progressed through the House has actually hugely compromised that process because of what the Crown has done deliberately by not ensuring that Ngāti Paoa have taken the public with them. I am very supportive of Treaty settlements that will enable our mana whenua to create a capital base for us to be independent and I know that the housing that Ngāti Paoa will build on that property actually is going to house some of the whānau in State houses that are part of the Tāmaki development. They are interlinked. There is a relationship between the housing development that Ngāti Paoa will lead and the Tāmaki development because Tāmaki needs to move people from State houses into this development to then develop those lands. That is a 7500-house development and 2500 of those houses are State houses so the only positive from my perspective is that the people who are living in those State houses are going to have an opportunity to actually remain in the community that they have called home. So if there is one positive that I want to highlight it is actually that. But other than that I know that for a lot of people who live in that community this has been incredibly stressful and distressing. We have put everything on Ngāti Paoa to try to address the lack of process through this bill. We have asked them to go and talk to the community and actually when we had the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations before the Māori Affairs Committee a couple of weeks ago I asked him what is his responsibility. What is the responsibility of the Office of Treaty Settlements to do some of the work that Ngāti Paoa has had to do because they are not the ones whom people should be angry with. The only people to be angry with in this process are Nick Smith the National Government the National caucus and their coalition partners who have allowed this situation to occur. So I implore my colleagues across the House. I know New Zealand First has said it will not support the Supplementary Order Paper but I am hoping the Government will. It is a sign of goodwill. I think that would also allay some of the fears that the community has that this could be developed by somebody else. I do think that the community will enjoy working with Ngāti Paoa who will build a marae and will continue to have a relationship with that community beyond the development of these houses. Kia ora."