Henare PeeniPEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Excellent. Tēnā koe Mr Chair. Thank you very much for this opportunity. I rise to speak to Part 2 clause 262(48) and (56) with regard to grandparented Māori authorities. For fear of putting those in the gallery to sleep I thought I had better ring some of my far more learned friends from university who are now accountants and tax specialists to ask for a little bit more detail about this particular bill and how it impacts on Māori authorities. What I got was a mixed response—a mixed response. Some see it as a good thing. Some see it as not quite a good thing and probably have more questions around some of the issues I will raise in my contribution. One of those things is simply the compliance costs. What we are saying is that somebody like Ngāti Whātua who have been setting up their asset management structure since May 2016 can look forward to up to $1 million in compliance costs—$1 million in compliance costs—to make sure that they have the right mechanisms around limited liability structures. This is I think a gross injustice for the likes of Ngāti Whātua and their asset-holding arrangements given that Māori authorities pre - May 2016 will have already been able to continue to operate under the old mechanisms. One of the aspects I thought interesting in my discussions with my learned friend was around Māori authorities being considered as one share owner—the only and sole share owner—within those look-through companies. As a member who sits on quite a number of Māori trust boards I say that is not the case. We know that Māori authorities that do actually sit in those look-through companies and hold the shares actually do not hold one share for everybody but in fact hold multiple shares. When I talk about compliance for the likes of Ngāti Whātua I also think about Taranaki who recently in this House had the third reading of their bill and had their settlement cross the line. In my discussion with them over this particular matter they said that some of the compliance costs for them will range between $50000 and $200000. Is this fair on those types of organisations which are trying to make good out of their settlements and their attempts at trying to share the wealth with their tribal members that have worked hard over many years to get their settlements across the line? Another question that the experts I spoke to also raised was that if they are set up under this new regime which is the limited liability regime for parts of a Māori authority much of their particular operations under a limited liability scheme—although achieving what was required under the old regime—are yet to be tested in court. This was the advice given to me by a learned friend who contributed to a submission on this particular bill made by Ernst & Young on this matter. What they repeated to me was: So then where does this leave all of those authorities since May 2016 that set up under a new limited liability regime? And what will it look like when they move into uncharted waters where these particular regimes and structures have not been tested within a court?". These were some of the questions that actually described probably more negative responses towards this particular clause. Although they acknowledged that for some it is a good set-up because it will allow them to complete their time under the old regime—and hence the term they get is "grandparented Maori authority" where there is a type of sunset clause—for those new—[Bell rung] Mr Chair. The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Peeni Henare. PEENI HENARE: For lack of choice Mr Chair I will continue. If I can just sort of sum up my contribution on this particular clause—how will it affect those who are not aware of the issue? I mean that with respect. I spoke to several Māori authorities that are trying to set up their asset liability regimes now that actually were not even aware of what was happening. They looked at what I sent them as a question on these particular matters and said: "Peeni what the hell are you talking about? What the hell are you talking about?". That makes me concerned about where this might go because these organisations—these Māori authorities setting up post-settlement governing entities and post-settlement asset management entities—are none the wiser as to what this means. I daresay when they look across to some of the other Māori authorities that are operating under the old regime they will ask questions like whether this is fair and what does this mean to them. Just in conclusion this particular clause clause 262(48) and (56) works well for the Māori authorities that have been operating for a number of years now but we know that there have been many more that have been coming online in the past year and they will probably have more questions than they do answers. Thank you."