Davidson MaramaMARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): I really welcome this in depth and part-by-part debate to be honest. I think that we owe it to our people. I do appreciate the fact that we are all in the same boat where we are sifting through quite complex legislation going back and forth probably getting things wrong here and there—but this is what this House is supposed to be about. I really would appreciate the Minister in the chair the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell and all members of the Committee taking the opportunity to actually debate these clauses for our people. This is incredibly important.Part 6—I think I am at clause 210 in Part 6. I wanted to pick up on something. Again I welcome the Minister's comment on this. Part 6 is Operation of governance bodies". Part 6 concentrates on the operation of governance bodies over land. We go to clause 210 which talks about the requirements for a land management plan. If we are talking about operations of governance bodies and if we go to clause 210 "Requirements for land management plan"—now I am quite interested in this particular part of the legislation. This clause says: "(1) This section applies"—and then it outlines how this particular land management plan requirement would apply. If we go to clause 210(3) it says "The governance body must have in place a land management plan that—" and then it laundry-lists the types of things that the legislation stipulates should be in the land management plan. I am interested in this and I welcome the Minister's response while having this debate here in the Committee about what the things are about this land management plan.For example if I just pull out a few of these subclause (3) says: "The governance body must have in place a land management plan that—(a) identifies the Māori freehold land that is managed under the governance agreement; and (b) sets out any proposed changes that affect the Māori freehold land". If we go down I was particularly interested in clause 210(3)(f) where the land management plan "sets out the risks of adopting as well as the risks of not adopting the land management plan; and (g) in respect of a proposed disposition of a parcel of Māori freehold land sets out—(i) why the disposition [might be] necessary". And so on and so forth. This is a land management plan that I am assuming is to be available for our people to see how our land is going to be managed by these governance bodies mandated under Part 6 of this legislation. I think this is really interesting and should be debated here in this Committee. Let us pull this apart. Let us have a look. On the face of it this looks like it could be a worthwhile thing.I think it is relevant to all parts of this bill but I would like to take the liberty to say that I represent one of many Māori who do not have a lot of experience in whenua and land issues. Some people in this House have some incredible experience which I acknowledge and has been important in the deliberations of the Māori Affairs Committee on this bill. I am probably like most of our people—you know what? To be honest I do not even know whether I am part and parcel to any landownership. There are a lot of us in this country who would be in a similar position. I know that we have had a clause-by-clause debate in the Māori Affairs Committee but that is very different to having the debate here in public which is what this House is for. I look at this—wow there is a land management plan. There are many of us who do not even know whether we are part of any land management plan whether we are descendants of land and then we are talking about the opportunity to have a land management plan in front us. This is really really important stuff and I really would welcome the Minister and all members to take all opportunities. We are all in the same boat. Look at this. This is huge. It goes all over the place. Then if we stick with clause 210(3)(a) after it talks about "land management plan" this part of the legislation then says that for a governance body's decision to put in place a land management plan—and then it refers us to clause 13 of schedule 4. This is because what it says is that the land management plan—it talks about the thresholds where the land management plan applies in certain situations including dispossession. So then if we go from clause 210(3)(a) and refer to clause 13 of schedule 4 and we go down to clause 13(3) "The decisions for which a minimum level of owner agreement is required" for example and this also goes back to clause 201(3)(a) it says: "The agreement of owners who together hold 75% or more of the participating owners' …".For some pieces of land that could be a handful for some other pieces of land that could be a large number of people. But this stuff is incredibly relevant. There are more than likely situations where our land is being dispossessed managed planned traded worked and developed with descendants who are part of that particular piece of land and we have no idea. We have no idea and so this is interesting stuff. How are we going actually going to address the disconnection that most of our people have to whether we even own land or not? How are we going to have our people participating in setting up these land management plans? Seventy-five percent on the face of it seems like a safe threshold but actually I think we should be aiming higher. I am not saying that that is a legislative change for me personally but I think I am trying to address—you know there are opportunities here in this legislation we are debating them this is important and I wish the Committee would debate them fully.In my last time—and I welcome being corrected on this—I understand that my colleague Meka Whaitiri's has tabled amendments. I do not know how to refer to these—on Wednesday 5 July at 3 p.m. it has got "1" and "2". I hope that is sufficient reference and I hope that I am right that they do fall under Part 6. I welcome correction. It has got clause 206 because I wanted again—OK bear with me clause 206 Meka Whaitiri's tabled amendment. It goes down to clause 206(2). She is proposing to replace the words "As soon as practicable after making the decision the governance body must—". She proposes to change the words instead to "Within one month after making the decision". She is giving it a time frame and on the face of it the Green Party would definitely support this.I would like to know what reasons the Minister in the chair the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell might actually have if he is planning on not supporting this amendment. I would appreciate an explanation as to why we would not think about putting an actual time frame on that particular clause and I probably should outline that the clause 206 relates to "Requirements if governance body decides to hold land as Māori freehold land". On the face of it this seems good and the Greens will be supporting it. I would appreciate some insight from the Minister if he does not plan on supporting it.Likewise and again I will welcome correction there is Meka Whaitiri's tabled amendment No. 2 Wednesday 5 July clause 207. Again just to capture the point it puts a time frame. It replaces the wording "as soon as practicable after the sale" with "Within one month after the sale—". On the face of it I think it sets out clearer objectives for making those decisions. We would support that. I would really like to understand whether the Minister is planning on supporting that and if not why. Thank you."