Thank you for the acknowledgement of New Zealand, Richard, and for the question. I think it's a great question. The simple answer to your question is that it's “and, and”. The treaty is a catalyst and is always leaned on now in terms discussion between Maori people and the New Zealand government. We all know that it's there and that it's intended to drive a productive discussion between the parties.
But, at the end of the day, I'm sure you and other members of your committee will understand that it can be a lengthy, drawn-out, highly costly legal process if you choose to go down that path. I would strongly encourage the building of the trust fundamentally with the communities and avoid, if at all possible, going down that much more lengthy, costly process.
Part of the experience in having gone through that process is that it can be very damaging to relationships if you lean on that as the principal mechanism to achieve consensus. It can be damaging and that damage can be long-lasting. My encouragement and urging would be.... We know it's there and that has been helpful—I won't say it hasn't been. A lot of the economic growth that the Maori have achieved has been through that process. But increasingly, what we're seeing is a preference to avoid going down that path. But it is an “and, and”.