Wall LouisaLOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Talofa lava Mr Chair. Tēnā koutou katoa. I just want to highlight that this subpart in Part 5 provides in clause 154(1)(a) for owners of Māori freehold land to appoint a governance body to manage the land on their behalf under a governance agreement;". I have questions for Minister Flavell in a couple of areas and the first is about clause 158. Clause 158(1)(f) notes "a representative entity." and then the relationship between clause 158(1)(f) and paragraph (b) of the definition of "representative entity" in clause 158(3) is about that representative entity being "recognised by the owners of the land as having authority to represent the hapū or iwi." My question really to the Minister is whether or not saying "a representative entity." in clause 158(1)(f) is in fact sufficient or whether it should say "an authorised representative entity." The reason I bring it up is to ask whether it is possible to actually have more than one representative entity recognised by the owners of the land. I would really appreciate the Minister's outlining the process to determine who is the legal representative entity if that were ever to happen what process has to be gone through to discern who is actually the representative entity—so what is the mediation process—and in fact whether it could end up with an entity going to court to determine that it is in fact the representative entity. I think if that is an outcome of the relationship between these two particular clauses then that is not a good process and it should be clarified which is why I highlighted whether clause 158(1)(f) should say "authorised representative entity." because then you have already taken care of the fact that it is the body that becomes the governance body. It is just a question so I am just wondering whether the Minister or the officials have thought of that. Then I ask what the solution is if it is possible for the recognised owners to actually end up having two different bodies having the authority to represent the hapū and iwi. I also want to focus on clause 189 "Court may appoint kaiwhakahaere" and the relationship between clauses 189 190 192 and 193 because essentially the kaiwhakahaere is required because there is not a governance entity. So in reading these clauses—and I have not really had a relationship with this bill. I want to acknowledge those on the Māori Affairs Committee who have. But one of the questions that has come to my mind is that it seems that the relationship between the chief executive of—what is the name of the entity? Marama Davidson: The Māori Land Service? LOUISA WALL: Yes. The chief executive of the Māori Land Service—thank you—has in clause 193(2)(a) to (f) a whole lot of power. He or she is the one who ends up calling the owners together and is the one who ends up writing a report and it is through that mechanism that the court then determines who the kaiwhakahaere is. So that is the chief executive of a Crown entity who is acting on behalf of Māori. I do not think that is appropriate. Obviously the Minister does but I am just wondering about the independence of the Crown and the courts. Are they not supposed to be independent? Well the courts are supposed to be independent. So in fact what the courts will be doing is giving effect—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am going to interrupt the member. She is getting way ahead of herself. She is now talking about Part 9. Just about her whole speech—LOUISA WALL: No no no—clause 193. The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Yes and what I am saying is that the dispute resolution process to which—yes the member does have to sit down. LOUISA WALL: Sorry. The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): The dispute resolution process to which she is referring and asking questions about is set out in Part 9 of the bill. LOUISA WALL: I am talking about clause 193(2)(a) which directs "the chief executive to arrange in accordance with section 194 a meeting of the owners" and then they write a report and if it satisfies the court that then determines who the kaiwhakahaere is. That is what I was highlighting. I was highlighting the fact—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): OK sorry. I thought the member indicated that she thought that was disputed. Keep going. LOUISA WALL: No no—thank you Mr Chair. Mr Chair can I have another call please? The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Yes.LOUISA WALL: Thank you Mr Chair. So I do think given the relationship between the Māori land owners the Government—so the CEO of a Crown entity—and then the courts it actually creates a scenario where in fact it is the Crown and then the courts that are colluding with each other to some degree to then appoint a kaiwhakahaere who is supposed to represent Māori interests. It just—from my perspective and the perspective of Māori I think that they would find it abhorrent that actually the CEO can write a report that then enables the court to all intents and purposes to take a governing body out of their hands and put it into the hands of an entity that has been appointed by the CEO of a Government department and the Crown. I actually think it is incredibly ironic. So it would be really interesting for the Minister to kind of explain that philosophy not only to us here in the Committee tonight but to Māori who obviously have taken a great interest in this particular piece of legislation and will I think continue to. So I have risen to take a couple of calls because I think that this is an incredibly important piece of legislation and I would appreciate it if the Minister if he has considered those two particular issues—I ask whether or not he and his officials could provide some advice to the Committee. Thank you. The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Right. Before I hear anyone else I am going to refer the member—and I should have probably done it a little bit more quickly—to Speaker's ruling 37/4 and probably Speaker's ruling 38/5. The member suggested that the court could be colluding with the Government. I think that is a reflection on a court—it is a reflection on a court—and something that members are not meant to do. People can talk about the decisions of courts and they can talk about the law but they cannot suggest that judges collude with or are directed by the Government."