Henare PeeniPEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Mr Chair thank you very much for this opportunity. In the vein of my two colleagues who have just spoken Meka Whaitiri and Marama Davidson I do want to speak about the disposition of land made by owners or a governance body. Clause 97(3) is the one I want to refer to and it says: However this section does not prevent—(a) a kaiwhakahaere from disposing of land on behalf of the owners if permitted under [the appointment of the kaiwhakahaere]".In another contribution on this bill I raised the process of appointment of a kaiwhakahaere and some of the obligations of a kaiwhakahaere. That kaiwhakahaere is not obliged to engage with the owners; also that kaiwhakahaere is court-appointed—court-appointed. In this particular part of the bill clause 97(3)(a)—"However this section does not prevent—(a) a kaiwhakahaere from disposing of land on behalf of the owners if permitted under [the appointment of the kaiwhakahaere]"—I understand that it says there "on behalf of the owners" but in the role of the kaiwhakahaere as I read it in the definition they are not required to act as it says here on behalf of the owners if permitted under the appointment. Call it technical call it what you like but I would like to hear some definition around that because we are actually talking about the importance of holding on to that particular land.The next clause I want to talk to in Part 4 is clause 100 "Sale of parcel in ordinary cases"—namely new subclause (3A). It says there "For a governance body's decision to offer land for sale" then it goes down and says: "see clause 13 of Schedule 4". I flick over to clause 13 of schedule 4 and this once again brings me in part to my contribution on Part 3 of this particular bill where it talks about waiting. It says here in schedule 4 clause 13(3): "The decisions for which a minimum level of owner agreement is required are—" and it has two columns there. The right-hand column says "Minimum level of owner agreement" and "The agreement of owners who together hold a 75% or more share in the land" and the one under that says: "The agreement of owners who together hold more than a 50% share in the land".I have not been an administrator for Māori land trusts across the country but I have been an administrator for a fair amount of land trusts and rōpū whakahaere if you like and I have witnessed exactly how the weighting of shares per contribution into the particular trust can be problematic here. Let us take for example—once again my tuakana Pita Paraone knows this very well—the share allocation across the Ngati Hine Forestry Trust. Of the 10 owners of the largest share amongst 4000 beneficiaries—is this rule suggesting that those 10 owners can actually make the decision for disposition of this land? Because that is my understanding of that.The disproportionate weighting—I am not too sure exactly what the formula is but when our whānau gave their land the formula was given so that X number of shares went to those people who committed their lands to that trust. We have seen it happen in the past. Whether it is by good planning or just by coincidence that those whānau happened to collate all of their shares in one trust or whether or not that particular individual landowner is still alive to this day—are we suggesting then that that small number can make the decision on behalf of so many?The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Which clause?PEENI HENARE: I was referring to clause—I had it here—100. Sorry it was clause 100. Sorry I was having a moan about something else here.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): It was sounding like a really good speech on Part 3.PEENI HENARE: No it was a direct reference to clause 100 "Sale of parcel in ordinary cases". In clause 100(3A) it says there: "For a governance body's decision to offer land for sale see clause 13 of schedule 4". So I turned over to clause 13 of schedule 4 and in the right-hand column it reads: "The agreement of owners who together hold a 75% or more share in the land" and "The agreement of owners who together hold more than a 50% share in the land".I have experienced this first-hand as an administrator of Māori land whereby if five out of the 10 largest shareholders come together for a cup of tea at the junction cafe in Kawakawa before heading to the AGM or to a particular special general meeting for the Ngati Hine Forestry Trust—if five of those 10 major shareholders come together then according to the formula "The agreement of owners who together hold more than a 50% share in the land" they can actually decide the fate of the 4000 beneficiaries. That is grossly unfair to me. It does not make any sense. I am sadly not one of the 10 large shareholders in this particular block but I am a shareholder none the less. Other whānau will find themselves in this situation.I repeat the point: I am not too sure what the formula was to give the weighting to that particular shareholding. Was it on amount of acreage or hectares given into administration by the trust? Or was it because that land was particularly better at growing the particular forest or pine or whatever it might be that the administration decided to work the land for? Or was it whether or not their particular parcel of land was better than somebody else's who perhaps had a bit of swamp on their land? Those are all questions that I have because the Minister for Māori Development mentioned how this particular bill will strengthen the mechanisms to protect Māori land. It does not seem to do that to me just simply looking at schedule 4 clause 13. That is a serious question that I have and I hope the Minister can give some clarification on that one.Just in closing my contribution on this particular part I would want to go back to the role of kaiwhakahaere as described under clause 97 "Disposition of land made by owner or governance body". Clause 97(3)(a) reads: "a kaiwhakahaere from disposing of land on behalf of the owners if permitted under [the appointment of the kaiwhakahaere]". I want to get back to this point: the kaiwhakahaere is court-appointed; the kaihwhakahaere is not obliged to engage with whānau in the decision making over that particular land. That does not sound like tikanga to me. That does not sound like a process that will allow whānau to be fully informed and engaged in a very important decision—the disposition of land made by owner or governance body—given that the kaiwhakahaere is appointed by the court. They are appointed by the court.In conclusion I just wanted to add one of the other parts on kaitiaki eligibility. The bill does say that a kaitiaki can only be eligible if they have not been convicted of a particular offence in the past 5 years. That is a huge concern to me because I can tell you a lot of the poor land administration that took place with particular land administration organisations actually happened over the past 30 years. To think that we are going to hahu or exhume some of these particular leaders of administration blocks from 20 or 30 years ago to all of a sudden become eligible for kaitiaki purposes or kaitiaki status on current land blocks is of concern to me. Thank you very much."