It's important that this includes an apology, because, when we are prepared to admit that we're wrong, that is often the first and perhaps the most important part of healing differences from the past. It's also important to acknowledge that this settlement relates primarily to land and to rights in water. So where the bill provides for cultural redress, such as vesting 16 sites—specified in Schedule 2—in Ngāti Maru as cultural redress properties, that seven sites are vested in fee simple, in other words Ngāti Maru can choose to do what they want with the land when they want, but nine sites to be vested as reserves. So that acknowledges that, in fact, there are limits in the interests in this land and recognises that, in fact, there are rights of other New Zealanders in this reserve land which is held for the benefit of the entire community, and so that is one of the dilemmas that we face when looking at whether these settlements, in fact, address in the most efficient way, in the most enduring way, the breaches of contractual rights that the settlement is trying to remedy, because it does require a balancing of property rights between the individual and collective ownership that Ngāti Maru will have over this land, and the public interest, for example, in conservation or reserve land which has been allocated to Ngāti Maru as part of a vesting of properties as part of the cultural redress.