Henare PeeniPEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe Mr Chair. I was hoping that perhaps Minister Flavell might use his seconds just to mihi us and bring us back to our kaupapa. It has been a while since we have had our hands on Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill. In fact it has been quite a number of months where we have been working through parts part by part obviously and we are now at Part 5. So I do apologise if some of this does seem a little repetitive to yourself Mr Chair and the Committee but there is going to be a little bit of a recapping process. We may be going over a little bit of ground that I know the Minister has actually addressed some of the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) in particular in his responses as the Minister in the chair.I want to start my contribution today obviously by (1) welcoming everyone back to Part 5 of this particular bill. I will move straight to the amendment tabled by my colleague Meka Whaitiri on Wednesday 31 May 2017. I acknowledge that the first three parts of that particular amendment as tabled by my colleague are to parts we have already debated so I will not go over those. But I will come to the amendment to clause 154 as a start where it says: In clause 154(1)(b) after 'how governance agreements are' (page 129 line 12) insert 'reviewed and'." I have a look there and clause 154(1)(b) says: "includes provisions relating to the registration of governance agreements the transfer of assets and liabilities to governance bodies when they are appointed quorum and eligibility requirements for kaitiaki of certain governance bodies and how governance agreements are cancelled." We are hoping that through this amendment we can include the words "reviewed and" as part of a more robust process for this particular bill.The other amendment is to clause 184 and we will just flick through the pages here. This was if I recall correctly addressed by the Minister but if we could have a refresher if you like from the Minister in the chair on this particular issue—because I do think it is an important one. I recall that I raised it at one point in time; I know that other colleagues in the Committee have too. The amendment was to clause 184 around kaitiaki number and eligibility requirements. In clause 184(4)(a) it says there: "A person is disqualified from being a kaitiaki if any of the following applies: Criminal history (a) the person has been convicted within the last 5 years of an offence relating to fraud or dishonesty". The last 5 years—that was the issue that we had. We are proposing in the amendment tabled by my colleague Meka Whaitiri that that be extended to 10 years.This is for reasons which are to me anyway quite obvious. If there is one thing I have noticed in my work as a land administrator it is that those who are qualified or those who do qualify to be able to hold those positions are actually quite hard to find. They are quite hard to draw out of the community the whānau the iwi and the hapū to be leaders in those particular fields of administration. We know of instances where some people have actually been convicted of things 8 to 10 years ago who according to this particular bill will now qualify to be kaitiaki or qualify to be administrators of Māori land. That is of great concern to us. Five years is not long enough and the amendment as tabled by my colleague is looking to extend that to 10 years which I think is a reasonable step. Ten years is a reasonable step when we consider other Acts that actually quite clearly describe the qualifications for those who want to be administrators trustees etc. So that is one of the amendments tabled by my colleague Meka Whaitiri.The other one as tabled by Meka Whaitiri on Wednesday 21 June refers specifically to clause 193 for which this amendment is asking: "In clause 193 delete subclause (4)". Subclause (4) is quite clear: "The court is not required to direct the chief executive to arrange a meeting of the owners under subsection (2)(a) if the court is satisfied" and it lists (a) (b) and (c) and subparagraphs (c)(i) (c)(ii) and (c)(iii). What this particular amendment from my colleague Meka Whaitiri is proposing is that that particular subclause be deleted in its entirety.The other amendment and I spoke very briefly to this at one point in time—I do understand that the Minister did give some form of response but I would like to just reiterate my SOP SOP 322 to the floor with reference directly to clause 197. I think it is actually strengthening that particular clause. The purpose of this amendment is so that a court-directed kaiwhakahaere who has been appointed to report to the owners to report on any matter referred to in clause 196(1) at a meeting called by the chief executive—such a meeting must be held every time a direction is issued under that clause. It must be held.I flipped through the schedule and looked at some of the responsibilities of the kaiwhakahaere and I do recall if I recall correctly the Minister in the chair actually talking about how he felt that that clause was robust enough. I am going to argue once again that I do not believe that it is and that to say "must" instead of "may" while minuscule to some is actually a very important thing. It actually requires more engagement between the kaiwhakahaere the court and those particular landowners. I think that is something that is worth pursuing in this particular debate on Part 5. Just a reminder—that is SOP 322 in my name looking specifically at strengthening clause 197 with the direction of "must" instead of "may" with regard to meetings being held every time a direction is issued under that particular clause.So those are the amendments that are sitting on the Table at the moment. I would if I could encourage the Minister just because of the drawn-out nature of this particular bill—I think it would be important and helpful to the Committee if he is able to if he could restate those positions on the amendments if those have already been stated; if not then that he do state a position on those particular amendments for or against however that might fall. That will allow us to move on to other clauses in this particular bill. I will wind up my contribution on this particular part in the hope that the Minister will address those. Thank you."