Paraone PitaPITA PARAONE (NZ First): I really appreciate the opportunity of talking to Part 6 of this bill. I want to just make comment about clauses 203 204 and 205 and talk about the immunity that obviously kaitiaki and owners will have from personal liability. I just want to say that from my experience being a trustee for Māori land I have no doubt in my mind that as a trustee if I do something wrong particularly if it is against the trust order then I stand to be liable for that.I just want to say that I do not believe that one who is appointed a kaitiaki for any Māori land should be exempt or be immune from any decision or any action that they might take in terms of the governance of Māori land particularly if the actions run against the terms of the governance deed. We should not make any exemption for integrity honesty and more importantly owners having confidence in those persons who have been appointed as kaitiaki.In so saying I refer to the comments that my tuakana made in terms of Part 5 where he suggested a Supplementary Order Paper extending the 5-year requirement of previous misdemeanours being extended to a 10-year period. I can understand why he proposed the amendment. However he was obviously not successful although I supported his Supplementary Order Paper. As a previous speaker highlighted under clause 202 a governance body must hold and manage an asset base for the benefit of the owners and that suggests to me that they are holding it on behalf of themselves because when a governance agreement is established it becomes the legal owner. So in other words why would you have to put this clause in here unless it is intended that it also refers to the beneficial owners? That might be a question that the Minister may like to address later on.As we look at the duties and responsibilities of a kaitiaki again he or she is required to act honestly and in good faith. Again if they do act in those terms then why should they be immune to any adverse action that they might take? I want to raise that point because if we look at clause 201—sorry I have already mentioned that. I think that because it is Māori land there should be no exemption to the requirement of kaitiaki or kaiwhakahaere whatever you would like to call them being immune to personal liability in terms of any action that they might take.The other point that I want to make is in terms of clause 207 Requirements if governance body sells or exchanges parcel of Māori freehold land" and in particular to subclause (2): "If a governance body sells a parcel of Māori freehold land the body must—(b) 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:"—again for its own benefit—"(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 …".There is no reference made in terms of a time frame for which they are limited to holding or investing that money although in paragraph (c) it says "within 1 month after the sale amend the governance agreement and send the updated agreement to the chief executive for registration under section 163." That is only in terms of amendment of the governance agreement but there is no reference to how long they can hold that money in either a bank account or an investment.The other point I wanted to make is in regard to clause 208(2) which says: "The governance body must within 1 month after the partition amalgamation or boundary adjustment amend the governance agreement and send the updated agreement to the chief executive for registration …". I am not quite sure whether that means registration within the proposed Māori Land Service or registration with the land transfer office. My understanding is that if it is to be registered with the land transfer office then it requires the title to be surveyed. No mention of that is made in that clause so I just wonder whether in fact the Minister might take a call in regard to that.My tuahine from the Green Party made special reference to management claims and I think that the points that she made are quite important because if land is going to be subject to a governance agreement then there has to be a purpose. I suspect that—well I would suggest that that would be the role of the kaitiaki. Again the role that that person takes is very important and should they not follow the requirements of the governance agreement then again I say that they should not be immune from any wrong actions that they might take. Indeed because of this immunity clause you may see people encouraged to operate outside the square so to speak and so it may encourage them to do things that they would probably not normally do if it was their own asset.Again I emphasise the importance of having the requirements for a land management plan and I have not said this before but I certainly agree with this part of the bill. In terms of the disposal of Māori land I am a bit reluctant to allow governance bodies or the kaitiaki or the kaiwhakahaere to sell Māori land because I understood that the purpose of this bill was to limit the sale of Māori land. In fact encouragement should be made to acquire more land by governance entities and to retain the titles in Māori land. But again the bill—particularly this part—makes no reference to the requirement that land should remain Māori land other than the option for governance entities to be able to retain it in Māori land. Kia ora."