Davidson MaramaMARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): Mr Chair I recall the last time when I was rightfully told off by Mr Chair for saying Mr Chair Mr Chair Mr Chair" so I was trying really hard not to do that this time.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Yes. You should say it at least once though to indicate you would like a call.MARAMA DAVIDSON: OK well—I was trying I promise. OK—fair enough. I do want to pick up where my colleague Nanaia Mahuta left off because the Greens want to be very clear that we do not agree with—I mean whether the formalities have actually gone through or not what we understand is that a CEO has in fact been put in the process before the bill has even gone through the House. Budget allocation has happened before the bill has even gone through the House where a CEO process is happening before the Māori lands—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Is that in this part of the bill? MARAMA DAVIDSON: Sorry? The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Just check. MARAMA DAVIDSON: Yes OK. The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Is it the appointment process? MARAMA DAVIDSON: I will go back to the bill first. So for example—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): All right. I will take the member's assurance.MARAMA DAVIDSON: I am going to go back. I know that the Minister has addressed some of the disposition of land through his speech previously just tonight. I did just want to put on record that under the legislation—for example in clause 100—it would seem that for the sale of a parcel in ordinary cases there are restrictions and limits to the way in which a parcel of Māori freehold land may ordinarily be sold. I accept that. I accept that clause 100 sets out that the sale must go to either "a preferred recipient in relation to the land" or "a preferred recipient or preferred entity in relation to the land". But what I just wanted to say is that while I accept that and it could be legally true I wanted to make sure that what we are saying though is that it is still possible—yes. It is still possible for the sale of a parcel of Māori freehold land. Yes we have put down on paper what seem to be good restrictions but we are just not saying that we are preventing the sale of Māori freehold land. I am not proposing that that is the purpose of what we should be doing—preventing sale—but I just wanted to make it absolutely clear for my understanding of it that we can at least not be purporting to say that we are preventing the loss through sale completely. While I understand Minister Flavell is reiterating the protections my point is that it appears that in clause 100 we are not preventing it. It is still open—it is still a possibility that in ordinary cases the sale of a parcel of Māori freehold land can go ahead. I think my colleague Nanaia Mahuta may have also picked up on clause 130—yes that is in Part 4—which is entitled "Lease of parcel for residential housing rent-free". I understand that this is another change where—OK. So in the bill clause 130(1) states: "A lease may be granted over all or part of a parcel of Māori freehold land for the purpose of residential housing and rent-free but only in accordance with this section." If you come down to clause 130(2) it states: "The term of the lease must be—(a) 99 years or less;"—so 99 years or less; the term of the lease must be 99 years or less—"or (b) for the life of the person to whom it is granted." I have no political issue with that but I am just trying to jog my memory on whether we discussed lesser terms and what the benefits or downfalls of having different terms may be. I am only trying to pick up on the impact of long-term impact leases and what that has done. I understand that further down in clause 130 it does actually restrict the lease. Clause 130(5) does restrict the lease. It states: "The person to whom the lease is granted must be—(a) an owner of the land; or (b) a beneficiary of a whānau trust that has an interest in the land." I do understand that distinction—it is all within the same clause—but I ask whether the Minister would not mind recalling the discussion on the different terms of the leases. I am just genuinely querying whether 99 years or less even if it is to a current owner or beneficiary can be—"