Whaitiri MekaMEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Well we are finally here debating Te Ture Whenua. Because of the complexity around this bill—we have 16 parts and a number of schedules. It is not for me to say but I would really encourage the Minister at the beginning of each part—if he could outlay what he thinks that part is. We have had so many amendments and I think that would help our debate and would focus our debate. So that would be great Minister Flavell.Part 1 Preliminary provisions"—so simply what is this bill about? This part is about outlining obviously the intentions behind the bill and the Minister did touch on that in his introductory delivery. I too want to particularly address clause 5 of Part 1 which talks about the interpretation and to just raise for the benefit of the Committee the interpretation of new terms and positions both in English and in Te Reo. So terms and positions like "chief executive"—the chief executive of a yet to be defined Māori Land Service. That is contained in clause 5 this new person. As we go through the bill you will see more and more of the powers and responsibilities this chief executive will have over the Māori Land Service which we are yet to see any detail of at this point in time.The Minister did touch on "kaitiaki". We had submitters who came in front of the Māori Affairs Committee who said: "I don't want to be known as a kaitiaki; I'm a trustee." So obviously from some trustees there are issues with that term "kaitiaki" when really for them they are a trustee. The other term is "kaiwhakahaere" which is raised under clause 5 "Interpretation". Again this kaiwhakahaere in terms of their appointment and who appoints them—it explains that. "Kaiwhakamarumaru"—another concept—again appointed by the court. For this one in particular it is around under-age people who are under 18 or people incapable of running their own affairs—the court will appoint somebody to run their affairs on their behalf. You have got another term called "kawenata tiaki whenua". So the point I am making in referencing these interpretations is that it can lead to an enormous amount of uncertainty and confusion simply because we have got terms there that Māori land owners are still coming to grips with.If I turn to clause 7(7) the Minister in his opening speech talked about how it was almost guaranteed that there will be no further Māori alienation. I guess as I look through this bill I am looking for the opportunities—I take the Minister at his word that there will not be any provisions in this bill that could enable Māori land owners to lose their land. But in terms of clause 7(7) it talks about making statement that the kaiwhakamarumaru for all intents and purposes should be treated as the owner. So this is not the point around alienation; what it is talking about is that the power of an owner is given to a court-appointed person to run land interests on behalf of an under-age person or someone incapable of running their own affairs. So for me that throws up some potential alarm bells. If the kaiwhakamarumaru should be treated as the owner then how do the real owners—and yes Part 1 does talk about beneficial interests but for me: how do the kaiwhakamarumaru and the real owners ensure that their land interests are adhered to?In Part 1 in clause 7A(1)(c) I just note with interest that there is a kind of exception clause that talks about the CNI exception. [Interruption] Yes. It is clause 7A(1)(c). In this clause of Part 1 it is talking about association with land in accordance with tikanga Māori and then it goes through again consistency with the parts from 1 to 9. In this clause it is talking about association with land in accordance—and paragraph (c) talks about the successor of CIL or SINA land—Hon Te Ururoa Flavell: SILNA.MEKA WHAITIRI: Yes—"land as those terms are defined by section 446 of the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998:". I do not have an issue with that but my question to you is: are there any other iwi or hapū that could be included under that particular clause in Part 1? So that was just a question that I thought I would ask and see if you would be able to answer.In clause 9 of Part 1 where we are talking about "Evidence of applicable tikanga Māori" it explains in this clause that "In any proceedings under Parts 1 to 9 any question as to the tikanga Māori that applies in a particular situation must be determined on the basis of evidence." The Minister did cover that in his introductory comments. I guess my question is: whose evidence? Whose evidence? If we take it down into tikanga and even within whānau like my colleague Kelvin Davis said we have all got different tikanga depending on the occasion and the situation. So I see there potentially some problems around defining on whose evidence we will be making a judgment call on which tikanga applies in that particular circumstance.This Part 1 is important to Māori land owners because this bill outlines its purpose and yet there have been numerous concerns around not just the genesis of the bill but the process by which the bill has come up. We must remind ourselves in this Committee that this is not an amendment of the Act; this is a complete rewrite. So we are rewriting a significant piece of legislation that guides Māori land in this country. The contents of this bill are completely untested and there is no case law to guide either the Māori Land Court or landowners when interpreting this. So I appreciate the Minister's explanation of the introduction to the bill. That is his interpretation but for Māori land owners they will have to go to the Māori Land Court to get the interpretation of this bill realised. All I am saying is that that is going to take several years so I am just making the point: the bill is complex and there have been many many amendments. The most recent was just yesterday when we got three Supplementary Order Papers from the Minister—hence my motion to try to get this to be referred back to the Māori Affairs Committee so we could properly scrutinise them.The process has been woeful. It has been woeful leading the Waitangi Tribunal to recommend more consultations and empirical analysis of the barriers to Māori land development. As my colleague Kelvin Davis has referenced with the principles in Part 1 in terms of meeting the obligations of the Treaty it is really important as we go through this bill—and I will give the Committee the assurances that I am looking through the contents of each clause against the guiding principles in the Minister's bill. I will throw up clauses where I think that it actually puts at risk those core principles of ensuring that Māori land owners have the right to make decisions on their land and that the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi are upheld. As we go through this in this debate we will find that from my analysis and my assessment of the parts—"