Mahuta NanaiaHon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): Actually having heard the explanation from our colleague and chair of the Māori Affairs Committee Nuk Korako around the High Court jurisdiction—I understand that.I have got a question that needs clarification because if we look at new schedule 1 the initial constitution of the board in the voting provision area—is it appendix 1? Sorry it is appendix 3 in new schedule 1—where the provision is made for voting ballots can be destroyed after 3 months. However that implies that there is a 3-month opportunity to challenge the outcome of a voting situation. In that instance if—I am sorry I cannot find it now that I am looking at it.While I am talking anyway I had observed that—oh here it is. Clause 12 of appendix 2 in new schedule 1 Retention of election records" states: "The board must keep all documentation … for a period of 3 months after the election …". However there is no provision within the appendix to state that if there were a challenge it has to be done within the 3-month period because you know you would need the records to be able to mount a challenge with some evidence as to why that could be put to the courts. So I am just thinking as I read that that that is an issue of governance at the heart of it. If it was a genuine opportunity I guess to ensure the robust nature of the election of trustees and there was the potential for challenge there is no way to link that period of time which is 3 months to the potential of a challenge being mounted. So I just raise that because as you were making some very good points it occurred to me that we had not asked those questions at select committee.Can I go back to new schedule 1 and say that some of the high threshold obligations that we were concerned with to support the submissions before the select committee were around things like the decision-making process. So when we were looking to the issue of significant or major transactions the threshold of major transactions is set out in the initial constitution and I think that is a helpful thing in the initial constitution. I regret that I may have been a little bit unclear when I talked to the quorum issue. What I was referring to is when the bill was initially introduced in the constitution it made the provision of a transitional board comprising either three or seven members and we had recommended that that should be five or seven members so that the quorum would move up from two to three. So I just wanted to clarify that for my own benefit. The other thing that I wanted to ask a question and seek some clarification on was around the issue of disposal of a beneficial interest. The bill indicates that that would expire on things like when a civil union took place. However it is not clear what the threshold test of that is and if we are wanting people to self-proclaim "Oh I'm in a civil union and therefore my beneficial interests may cease." I think we might be dreaming. As I am thinking through some of the practical aspects of situations and whether it was intended that there be a self-reporting of a civil union and therefore beneficial interests would cease—if we could have clarification on those.The other aspect of the initial constitution which I absolutely support—and I think people making submissions to the committee would be pleased about—is that we have put in a reviewable period of the constitution and also ensured that there is an opportunity to vary the constitution by resolution. That in my mind at least provided an opportunity for legitimate concerns around the way in which the trust could be improved and that shareholders contribute to the way in which the constitution operates—that there is a mechanism there but it is not so low to allow scurrilous let us say opportunists to change the constitution. Again we discussed this at length. We felt that there needed to be some kind of threshold and an opportunity and this would be a positive innovation to the way in which the constitution was working. But everything in terms of supporting the trust going forward and modernising I absolutely support."