O'Connor Greg; Utikere Tangi; Jones ShaneParts 1 and 2 Schedules 1 to 3 and clauses 1 to 3 CHAIRPERSON (Greg O'Connor): The question is that Parts 1 and 2 Schedules 1 to 3 and clauses 1 to 3 stand part.TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Thank you Mr Chair. I thank the Minister for his answer. What was interesting is in previous contributions post that momentous event known as the election there had been comments that had been made by the Minister in the House that related to a willingness to engage with stakeholders around wishing to progress particular changes by way of amendment or not. So my question to the Minister is whether or not that engagement with stakeholders took place or whether those were words that Ministers were able to say but weren't able to fulfil. If so what is the nature of the engagement with specific stakeholders that has led to the path of not seeking any change to clauses 25 and 37?Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): Obviously my officials did engage but at the end of the day judgment has to be exercised. Yes an engagement did take place with representatives from the representative Māori organisations but I have zero interest both as a Māori parliamentarian and as a former chair of this organisation to see those debates that level of discord brought from recent Māori history into this Chamber.TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): Can I turn to the proposed new section 162 which effectively provides rules or criteria around mandated iwi organisations in relation to actions related to the ability to sell settlement quota noting that that would only take place under the new section 162 if the constitutional documents expressly allowed that the sale of the settlement quota was to take place but also that the transaction would be in line with what was outlined in the specific requirements of the organisations' constitutional documents.So my question to the Minister is whether he believes that that goes far enough and whether or not there should have been any time frames associated with those when looking at the specific action of a transfer or sale of settlement quota but also what was contained in constitutional documents that would be held by the relevant organisation.Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): The member's identified quite an important area in this full and final settlement. Upon what basis should iwi be entitled to alienate their full and final quota legacy and upon who should it be made available? The kaupapa if I can put it like that was laid down in the original legislation. What is proposed here is to ensure that it can happen efficiently but there was an injunction and a desire that we not see the dissolution or the dissipation of this full and final settlement right back to 1992. This bill does nothing to weaken that injunction.TANGI UTIKERE (Labour—Palmerston North): I thank the Minister for his comments in response to that specific question. I think it is very helpful for the committee so I do thank him for that.One of the aspects of this piece of legislation—and I'm trying to take your earlier advice sir of being interactive with the Minister so I don't intend to take a lengthy course but perhaps a few questions to come—is around the independent nature of a review that might be undertaken. This review was undertaken back in March 2015. It seems to on face value and perhaps in practice have been rather collaborative in terms of the involvement although it has taken some time. My question for the Minister is on the nature of reviews moving forward. How does he see this piece of legislation as informing whether the regularity of reviews would be questioned or not where they would fall and whether it's an independent nature of the review and if so in what circumstances it would be independent or otherwise?Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Oceans and Fisheries): In the past there was a South Island member of Parliament who became a Minister. He was a vet—largely incomprehensible but his name was Dr Pete Hodgson. I understand he's recently been guiding the development of the Dunedin Hospital but I'll leave that story to speak for itself.Mr Pete—he was a doctor; a vet—Dr Hodgson. Pete Hodgson after engagement and lobbying from Ngāi Tahu in the form of the late Tahu Potiki settled upon a 12-year period for an operational review of Te Ohu Kaimoana something that the chairman of that time was deeply opposed to but the sovereignty of Parliament outstripped the ambitions of Māori organisations something I hope to see visited upon the Waitangi Tribunal in short order but that's another matter.The reference to the review—yes it was called operational. It has led to major—well it has led to significant restructuring. It is my hope that future reviews are infrequent not costly and focus on boosting economic resilience and ensuring that the legacy remains intact for the mokopuna.