Whaitiri MekaMEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Just to remind ourselves we are like you rightly said Mr Chair on Part 4 which covers the dispositions of Māori freehold land. Hopefully the Minister for Māori Development will answer a lot of the questions that were asked last night in the Committee to just give some clarity around some of the questions that we did pose to him. This is a very important part of this bill because if you look at the principles of this bill the major difference with this bill and the Act is the actual removing of the word retention". There is no "retention" in this bill that we are debating hence why we need to scrutinise Part 4—dispositions of Māori freehold land—so that those concerns of Māori land loss are actually taken care of. Can I just pick up on a contribution from the previous night from the chairperson of the Māori Affairs Committee when he made reference to and made a clarification around clause 99 "Sale of parcel" and clause 100 "Sale of parcel in ordinary cases" and he talked about I believe clause 101 and clause 102 "Exchange of parcel". What I wanted to make sure of and maybe the Minister can answer is that when you look at clause 103 in this clause particularly it talks about how it applies to the governance body in terms of the exchanging or selling of land. It clearly lays it out in terms of subclauses (1) (2) (3) and (4). The question I want to pose to the Minister is this: in reading clause 103(5) it says "If an order is made the governance body may sell or exchange the parcel of land without complying with section 100 or 102 …" which as the previous speaker Pita Paraone alerted the House to was a mechanism to protect Māori land. So I wanted some clarity from the Minister that I am not reading into that particular clause that governance bodies can actually sell without going through the checks and balances as guaranteed in both clauses 100 and 102. So that is a question that I would like the Minister to take. In my previous statement—and I have gone back to just check on the contribution I made the last time in terms of Part 4 particularly around preferred entities and preferred recipients which were both in clause 96. I made a statement that the disputes resolution in clause 96(3) talks about Part 9. Just to be really clear the question I wanted to ask the Minister is that in Part 9 it does not actually talk about a preference of whether a preferred recipient trumps a preferred entity and Part 9 the disputes resolution basically just talks about the process of how you go to get your disputes resolved. So I want to make that question really clear—whether the Minister could just alleviate that concern. In terms of this part I have tabled some amendments and I would like the opportunity to explain. There are about seven—one two three four five—amendments to this particular part. The first one is to clause 132. In this clause—it probably references the decision-making thresholds where we have 75 percent 25 percent or 50 percent shareholders. So I will allow the Minister in the chair the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell to turn to clause 132 and where you have got subclause (3A) where it talks about land not managed under a governance agreement. So this is land not managed under a governance agreement. We have got subclause (3A)(a) (b) and (c) and we have got a range of 75 percent holding 25 percent holding or 50 holding. So my amendment to clause 132 is this: for consistency I have asked whether the Minister would consider—well my amendment is instead of having 25 percent for land between 7 and 25 years that we just round it up to 50 percent. So my first amendment is just replacing 25 percent with 50 percent in clause 132(3A).Turning now to clause 145 "Registering dispositions under Land Transfer Act 1952" I do want to draw the Committee's attention to the submitters. Some submitters in the analysis of all the submissions did reference the cost to Māori land owners through this particular mechanism. I am just giving a rationale for my suggested amendment—that in clause 145(3) where it says: "If the instrument has been recorded in the Māori land register the Registrar-General may treat the instrument as complying …". My amendment is simply to replace "may" with "must". So that is amendment No. 2.If we turn to clause 148 it talks about the orders about compliance with enactments after instruments recorded. I ask the Minister to go down to subclause (2) where it talks about "The application may be made by any person with an interest in the matter." I guess the concern I have there is that it is quite general and it is quite broad. My amendment is in clause 148(2) to replace "with" with "who the chief executive determines has" and that again is trying to bring it into terms that anyone can have an interest in land trying to bring it back into the domain and authority of the chief executive.Clause 154—no we will stop there because we are getting into Part 5. Those were my three amendments to Part 4 in terms of explaining why I have put the amendments there. They are given to try to tidy up to strengthen to be really clear because the part is about ensuring that we do not lose any land through any unwanted actions or provisions as provided under this part. Thank you very much for that."