I would say I believe that some of the settlements that have come to be in recent times have blurred the lines between private property that is owned and introduced co-governance over areas that many New Zealanders consider to be collectively owned. An example of that would be the collective redress in Tāmaki-makau-rau of 2014, which introduced, amongst other things, co-governance of Auckland's volcanic cones by the Tūpuna Maunga Authority. Now, since that legislation was heard, I've heard Chris Finlayson, the then Attorney-General and the Minister responsible for many of the settlements done under the previous Government, say, actually, he regretted some of those arrangements. It certainly created a lot of difficulty with the governance of the maunga and the common use of them, and many of the people that use them have been unrepresented and there's been a lot of friction in the set-up of that organisation. But that caution is with an acknowledgment that we are arriving at the end of a long settlement process, and so we're not going to allow ourselves to oppose this piece of legislation for Ngāti Rangitihi, for example, because there is a worrying drift towards Treaty settlements that, rather than restoring property rights and giving back what is rightfully owned, are actually creating ongoing co-governance arrangements which may lead to more difficulty than they solve in the long term.