Whaitiri MekaMEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe Mr Chair and thank you very much for giving me a full 5 minutes for this contribution and for reminding the Committee that we are debating Part 5. Part 5 is Authority to act in relation to Māori freehold land". This is where the rubber hits the road because in this part we are talking about the role of governing bodies. This part talks about the establishment of governance bodies who appoints them what their role is going to be and how they are going to be managed so this particular part like I said is where the rubber hits the road.I want to say to the Minister in the chair Te Ururoa Flavell that I have put a few tabled amendments on the Table there. I apologise if I have repeated myself from the last speech but I think it is important in my 5 minutes that I do go through my tabled amendments that relate to Part 5. Let us start with clause 132. No clause 132 has been debated; my apologies. Let us start with clause 154(1)(b) which is in Part 5. After "how governance agreements are" my amendment is suggesting that we insert "reviewed and". If we go to clause 154(1)(b) where it talks about the "Overview of provisions relating to governance bodies" we have got "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 governmental bodies and how governance arrangements are cancelled." I am suggesting in my amendment to clause 154(1)(b) that after "how governance agreements" we add "reviewed and". That is to ensure that we have the ability not only to cancel but also to review governance arrangements.My second amendment in Part 5 is to clause 184. I will give the Minister and myself a chance to turn to that particular clause; we are talking about subclause (4)(a) of clause 184. In this particular part we are talking about the kaitiaki their numbers and their eligibility and we are talking about who will be disqualified as a kaitiaki in subclause (4) of clause 184.In the bill we talk about criminal history and in there we say "the person has been convicted within the last 5 years of an offence relating to fraud or dishonesty (whether convicted in New Zealand or overseas):". So we are saying that a person is disqualified if they have been convicted within the last 5 years. My amendment is suggesting that 5 years is too low—5 years is too low—and I am suggesting that that should be lifted to at least 10 years. The reason why I have said 10 years is that Māoris have got memories like elephants and when you have committed a criminal offence that stigma even though you have served your time and you have served your punishment remains. I want to make sure for the benefit of Māori land owners that they do not get themselves in a situation with a kaitiaki who has just come out of a "criminal history"—and it says there: for "fraud or dishonesty"—where the limit is only 5 years. So I just want to make sure that I have explained why I think that is necessary—that we lift that up from 5 to 10 years.In the last minute that I have—if I could ask the Minister to turn to clause 193 which talks about the process for appointing kaiwhakahaere. In subclause 4 of clause 193 as I interpret it—and the Minister may have a different view—we talk about "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 that—(a) the proposal to appoint a kaiwhakahaere has already been sufficiently considered by a meeting of the owners; or (b) the matter requiring the appointment of the kaiwhakahaere is sufficiently urgent to justify appointing a kaiwhakahaere without a meeting of owners being held; or (c) in relation to the matter requiring the appointment of a kaiwhakahaere" and it goes into the subparagraphs. My amendment is that I actually think that whatever we are doing with Māori land Māori land owners should actually meet about it. That particular clause as I read it actually gives the chief executive—"