Tirikatene RinoRINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Just picking up on my last contribution and the contribution that Mr Paraone has just made do I take it that the Bishop of Te Upoko o Te Ika could be three different persons?Pita Paraone: No he's one of three.RINO TIRIKATENE: One of three—OK. Well thank you for that clarification. I note the explanation of the member in the chair Alastair Scott that whoever the Bishop is determines the geographical areas in which that Bishop operates or which he or she is responsible for. Again it seems quite fluid in terms of the definition and I return to my point: if we are modernising or updating this legislation which is 73 years old I would hope that we would make sure that the defined terms especially are actually defined precisely so that we know exactly what is in and what is out and so that we do not leave any grey areas for any internal church squabbles or whatever that may happen in the future. Another example that I do wish to raise falls within the definition of the Bishop in amended section 2 set out in clause 4(2) where the Bishop (b) includes any person acting as the Bishop when the Bishop is for any reason unavailable". When is a Bishop unavailable?The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): When he's dead.RINO TIRIKATENE: Ha ha! Well—no I think it is a fair question because it is a very loosely worded provision here. Is it that he or she has just ducked out and may be unavailable at that particular point in time? Obviously it is a person who is acting in his or her stead and assuming the role of the Bishop. I just wanted to make that point because I do believe that perhaps we could re-look at the drafting—I am not sure—just to add a bit more precision to these terms. Like I mentioned it is 73 years since the original Act was passed and so we do not want to wait another 73 years and not correct something that could be tidied up at this point. The other point that I do want to raise as well relates to the definition in the preamble which refers to the definition of "tangata whenua of Wairarapa". I have listened and heard from members who were on the Māori Affairs Committee that it is well known that the two iwi groups within the Wairarapa are included within this definition. I hope it gives them comfort that just referring to it as the groups that descend from the Wairarapa is sufficient. But again the definition refers to "tīpuna rangatira". In amended section 2 it says: "tangata whenua of Wairarapa means an individual who has a whakapapa to the tīpuna rangatira who established historical kinship groups in Wairarapa". I know obviously that the Māori Affairs Committee did not recommend that we explicitly state Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne but if we are referring to the tīpuna rangatira—and I have noted one of the submitters—those names have been submitted. It is not for me to say what is in and what is not but if we are referring to a particular class of rangatira—a particular class of peoples—I would hope that we would be able to make these definitions more accurate. We can do that but just leaving it as being someone who descended from the tīpuna who has a historical kinship group to the Wairarapa is very broad—it is very broad. There is a fair point that the iwi groups have made. Given that we have—[Bell rung] Sir?The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Rino Tirikatene—third call.RINO TIRIKATENE: Thank you. Given that we are in the process of righting the historical wrongs through Treaty settlements in this particular geographical area those settlements clearly articulate the history and the descent groups and the tūpuna for those particular groups. It would better inform people who may seek to benefit from the trust to have a much tighter definition that they could be able to connect to. That was just the point that I wanted to make. By us putting it in very general terms and just referring to "tīpuna rangatira" without actually specifying those rangatira—it may be just referring to the "Waitangi tribunal report of" te mea te mea te mea. Or it could be referring to the deed of settlement for those particular iwi groups. I think again that we want to make sure not only that we are being inclusive but also that we are being accurate with the beneficiaries who will no doubt be proud to be associated with these ancestral lands and would want to seek benefits and perhaps maybe a role in administering these historical lands on behalf of those tūpuna. That was just the point that I wanted to make.I think—maybe not in this instance but definitely in the future—if we are going through the whole process of Treaty settlements and rectifying historical injustices and wrongs we should at least pay reference to those other Acts of law—other Acts of Parliament other deeds of settlement—that have been enshrined in legislation and that could cross-reference and maybe be of benefit to the beneficiaries of these lands. Kia ora tātou. Preamble agreed to.Clause 1 agreed to.Clause 2 agreed to."