Wall LouisaLOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. It is my pleasure to take a call on this Point England Development Enabling Bill. I do so as a proud member of our Labour caucus but also as a Māori based in South Auckland and as somebody who is 100 percent committed to and passionate about resolving our historical Treaty settlements.This is an incredibly emotional piece of legislation. I think we all just have to take stock of what we are trying to do which is many things actually. So firstly I would like to acknowledge Hauāuru Rāwiri who is in the House on behalf of the Ngāti Paoa Iwi Trust. I acknowledge that from their perspective they have completed their negotiations with the Crown and they are in the process of their deed of settlement being prepared. So for them this journey has taken a long long time. Actually we can go back to 2007 when we released the Tāmaki Makaurau Settlement Process Report which in fact was the tribunal report that has brought us to where we are today. So this is a time to actually contemplate why we have managed to arrive at a point in our history where we are bickering like children in this House of Representatives which is actually supposed to take the people with us.If this is a Treaty settlement bill then why have we not ensured that the people of Point England and the people of Maungakiekie and Tāmaki have been taken with us on this journey? We have failed in that process. We all need to look at what has happened here tonight and think about how it has happened. I think that from Ngāti Paoa's position they have in good faith been negotiating with the Crown since 2007. In fact in 2013 when their marae was agreed to it was agreed by the Crown which notified the council. It was supported by the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board and we had some cultural redress that ensured Ngāti Paoa had some whenua on the land of their tupuna Paoa that they were going to create—not only for themselves but for the community of Maungakiekie and Tāmaki.Somehow we went from there to where we are today: discussing 11.69 hectares of a reserve piece of land that as my colleague Denis O'Rourke said was gifted to the people of Auckland in 1945 from whom? From the Crown. Who did the Crown take it from? Actually it took it from the iwi of Tāmaki Makaurau including Ngāti Paoa.I have tried in my deliberations as a member of this Parliament to talk to the people who have been vested with the responsibility of engaging with our communities. I have talked to people like Josephine Bartley who is the current chair of the Maungakiekie-Tāmaki Local Board. I have talked to Phil Goff who is the current Mayor of Auckland. Auckland Council actually supports this legislation but it said two things: the people of Point England need to be compensated because 25 percent of the current recreation land that that community enjoys is being lost. Actually I think the Government is negotiating with the council to reimburse or compensate the community.The other thing that the council said was that if this is truly a Treaty settlement then the only people who should get this land are Ngāti Paoa. Whether we like it or not there is an opportunity through legislation for the Government to actually give this land to a developer. I am trying to close that gap through my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 320. Within the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Act of 2014 there is an opportunity for a developer—if Ngāti Paoa does not take up the option if the other 12 mana whenua who are signatories to that particular settlement agreement for whatever reason do not take up that option the Crown because it is using this land for housing can actually sell it on the open market. That is a realism of this.So this is not a traditional normal Treaty settlement like we say it is. This is actually extraordinary and it is out of the box which is why I think you have seen from our side of the House we do not support it. We have got a proud history of supporting Treaty settlements. Straight-up Treaty settlements—100 percent we support them. This is not a straight-up Treaty settlement. But from our perspective we have to maintain the mana and the integrity of our Treaty partners our mana whenua who have acted in good faith who have negotiated with the Crown and they have come to an agreement about this particular piece of land.The SOP is seeking to close the loop and say that if this land is going to be vested back into the Crown—because currently it is vested in Auckland Council—and if this land is going to be used as right of first refusal land and if this land is going to go back to Ngāti Paoa then we want to limit section 136 of the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Act which essentially means that because it is being used for housing purposes the Government and the Minister for Building and Construction can sell it to somebody else. So if we can close that loop and be really clear about what this bill is—that it is part of the deed of settlement that it is Treaty legislation and that the only beneficiary of this piece of legislation going through the House tonight is Ngāti Paoa—then I think maybe maybe we can start to actually realise the full intent of this Treaty settlement process which is about our truth and reconciliation process.For our mana whenua and our community groups to get caught in the middle of the bickering that we are having in this House—actually we have to take responsibility for the fact that the community was not consulted. So who should take responsibility for that? Is that Ngāti Paoa's responsibility—to have gone to the community to talk to them about this piece of land and where it fits in their Treaty settlement? Was it Auckland Council's responsibility? Was it the Government's? Whose was it? This is the process where we have now told some of our community groups and particularly our local board leaders that this is part of Ngāti Paoa's settlement.So I think that there is an opportunity for us to move forward but we can only do it in good faith and we can only do it through trust. The reality of my Supplementary Order Paper is that this shows that the community does not trust the Government. This SOP is an insurance policy for the community because it is afraid that this National Government is not going to honour its Treaty settlement. It is going to give it—[Interruption] No I am serious. You are going to allow somebody else to develop that land—Fletcher's whoever it may be—but you are not going to actually give this land back to Ngāti Paoa.Hon Member: That's outrageous.LOUISA WALL: It is not outrageous. It is absolutely not outrageous. If you think it is outrageous then you are deluding yourself. You are also deluding yourself about the responsibility that the Government had in making sure that you took the people with us. You have actually undermined the Treaty settlement process through what you have done. Every other Treaty settlement that goes through this House usually has universal support. We would never get up and actually contradict a deed of settlement because that deed of settlement has taken so long to get to. The deed of settlement that is being prepared—and that is the other thing we must all remember. Once it is signed by the Crown it is signed off by Cabinet and by Ngāti Paoa and then it is legally binding.I think that there is a way forward. At the moment we cannot support this legislation. We would love to support this legislation but we cannot support it because this is not a traditional classic Treaty settlement bill. You can say it is but it has not gone through the Māori Affairs Committee which is the traditional process. Actually you know I think the Māori members of the National caucus would say this is not a traditional Treaty settlement piece of legislation.I think that there is an opportunity for us to work together to resolve this issue to clarify it. I am hoping that there will be support for my SOP. It is on the Table. I am not sure when we will have the Committee stage and the third reading debate but I look forward to us having a robust discussion and everybody being really clear that unless this is categorically and can only ever go to either Ngāti Paoa or other iwi of Tāmaki Makaurau then we will not support it because it is not a Treaty bill. Kia ora.