Henare PeeniPEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe Mr Chair. Firstly thank you to Minister Flavell for his explanation around this part and I do take his point that a lot of the provisions in this part of the bill are around making the exercise of powers more clear. I would not go so far as to say that it gives them mana motuhake but it certainly still gives them some room within the letter of the law—both this bill and the other related Acts that governing bodies operate under.I want to turn the Committee's attention to clause 207 Requirements if governance body sells or exchanges parcel of Māori freehold land" and in particular to clause 207(2)(b). I will read it here and I will explain my thoughts on this. It says: "until the body complies with paragraph (a) do 1 or both of the following: (i) hold the net proceeds in a separate bank account for the benefit of the owners of the land; [or] (ii) invest the net proceeds in 1 or more fixed term deposit products of 1 or more registered banks (as defined by section 2(1) of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act 1989) for the benefit of the owners of the land;".As I stare at that and as I look at that particular clause that makes sense so that the money is not sitting there idly—I get that. I have been part of a Māori land governance body where we actually did have term deposits. I understand that. But my question with regard to this particular part is that it does not set a time frame. It does not set a clear time frame. Are we suggesting that as clause 207 "Requirements if governance body sells or exchanges parcels of Māori freehold land" says here in that exchange or sale of the Māori freehold land then just as a default it can put it into a term deposit and by virtue of the fact that it is a term deposit it can sit on it for 6 months 1 year—how long might that term be? And does that perhaps open up too much leeway if you like for governing bodies to simply say: "Oh well we'll sit on that money and wait for something better." when actually that flies in contradiction to the requirements of these particular governance bodies in either sales or exchanges of parcels of Māori freehold land or the requirements for an allocation scheme as indicated in clause 209?Like I said as I stare at that particular clause that makes a bit of sense to me. It reminds me of the failure of a Ngāpuhi settlement to lock away a quantum. If you lock away a quantum you can sit on it and hope that the interest generated will just be of benefit to our people regardless. But that also has a danger because it does not set a time frame. It does not set a time frame and I am scared that this particular clause is not clear enough and actually allows governing bodies to say "Oh well maybe that particular deal did not come through." or: "Wow we were actually hoping that it did not come through and what we will do is we will take this money and park it into a term deposit and hope that we can get some interest off it." We know how term deposits work. Once the money is locked in there it is locked in there. It is locked in there or you pay the penalties if you change the terms of that deposit.I wonder and I ask the Minister in the chair Minister Flavell whether there can be any consideration in this particular clause to actually say that it is a last resort to either park it in a bank account for beneficiaries or to place it in a term deposit—to say that it is a last resort and that if that course is taken we can actually have a clearer time frame on it. What is stopping the governance bodies simply putting it in a really long term deposit with a bank and sitting on it?Pita Paraone: What about distributing it to the shareholders?PEENI HENARE: Or simply distributing it to the shareholders? I am going to get to that very shortly Mr Paraone. So that is the first question: whether or not we can actually place a bit more restriction or more guidelines on that particular part. Like I said this makes good commercial sense and decisions to me and I am not going to rubbish that but what we will say is to ensure that this does not give I guess a backdoor opportunity for governing bodies simply to park it in a term deposit in the hope that they can just make money that way when actually it is set up differently in that particular clause.Now to the part that Mr Paraone talks about in clause 212 "Application of revenues". Clause 212(2) says "If a governance body decides to pay owners a distribution the body must keep a record of—" and then it lists there "the name of each owner entitled to receive the distribution" "the amount to be distributed to each owner" and "the date on which the distribution will be made". That makes perfect sense to me. However I do have one question and the question is actually around the capacity to get that done—the capacity to get that done. We understand there has been an allocation for the Māori Land Service in the hope that we can tidy up quite a lot of the un-succeeded shares idle shares and inactive shareholders and beneficiaries so that we can actually include them. We can hopefully update the database that particular land administration bodies do hold but I wonder whether in fact this bill and the Minister actually understand the scale of that problem—the actual scale of that problem.We looked at one particular part on behalf of Ngati Hine Forestry Trust on a project to update our particular files. Per annum—per annum—that was going to run us just over $100000 to have a project manager to bring that particular database up to date. That is a serious concern that I have—simply around the capacity—because while I understand we want revenues to be given to our people little do a lot of beneficiaries understand that for a dollar to be paid out it almost costs that if not more in compliance costs on tax and administration. That is something that a lot of beneficiaries actually do not understand. Just because you have $1 million in the bank and you can update your owners distribution list and have it all up to date—if you have $1 million you actually cannot give out $1 million. You will only be giving effectively just under $500000; the rest goes on tax and administration.So those are the two questions I have. One is around the capacity and the other one is around clause 207 "Requirements if governance body sells or exchanges parcel of Māori freehold land".House resumed.Progress reported.Report adopted.The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m."