Davis KelvinKELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau): Tēnā koe Mr Chair. You learn something new every day. I was quite interested to hear that Wī Pere's father Thomas Halbert actually had six wives. I did not realise that. If you can just bear with me for a second it reminds me of my grandparents' 50th wedding anniversary in 1979. My grandmother had not seen her younger sister for a couple of decades I believe. My Great Auntie Eunice turned up—she had had a number of husbands—and my grandmother said: Oh what husband are you on to now?" and she said: "I'm on to my fourth." My grandmother said: "Ha! Look at me. I have been married to the same guy for 50 years." and Auntie Eunice said: "Well that's your fault!".I would just like to speak as well to my colleague Meka Whaitiri's Supplementary Order Paper 205. It is really good to hear that she has spoken to Alan Hāronga the chair of the Wī Pere Trust about the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP). We thought it may have a few concerns about the SOP—in other words the SOP says that people should be able to go to the Māori Land Court rather than the High Court. There are a number of reasons why we believe that and the first and the most obvious reason is that the cost of going to the High Court is quite prohibitive to your everyday whānau who want to challenge something whereas in terms of the cost of going to the Māori Land Court I believe that filing an application there comes to something like $50 plus GST. So it is quite within the reach of everyday whānau to be able to file an application in the Māori Land Court the difference being that in the High Court you get a speedier decision and as Meka has said Alan Hāronga told her that the High Court is the appropriate court for commercial expertise.So the balance is between getting a speedy judgment in the High Court but at a higher cost that may put the cost of going to court out of the reach of people or having a slower process in the Māori Land Court but whānau being actually able to afford to do it. So that is the argument that is in discussion here and obviously we on this side of the Chamber prefer that all whānau actually have access to the court. Hence we believe that the Māori Land Court is the most appropriate court to be in the bill. Hence Meka Whaitiri has suggested that the Māori Land Court is the most appropriate court rather than the High Court.Second I would like to speak to Minister Flavell's SOP 234 which is an amendment to the Te Rarawa Claims Settlement Act 2015. We support this SOP. It is a very minor amendment to the original Te Rarawa Claims Settlement Act of 2015. It was just something that was overlooked and the explanatory note in the SOP actually explains things really well. Under the Māori Fisheries Act 2004 Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd is able to recognise an iwi organisation for the purposes of receiving fisheries assets as the mandated iwi organisation. Unfortunately when the Te Rarawa Claims Settlement Act was passed or before it was passed the mandated iwi organisation for Te Rarawa was a charitable trust named Te Rūnanga o Te Rarawa. It was the intention of Te Rarawa iwi for the mandated iwi organisation status of the charitable trust to be transferred to its post-settlement governance entity.But that did not actually happen in the Act so this SOP is setting out to resolve that issue for Te Rūnanga o Te Rarawa. So it is actually recognising Te Rūnanga o Te Rarawa as the mandated iwi organisation for Te Rarawa iwi and this SOP applies that retrospectively to the Te Rarawa Claims Settlement Act. So those of us on this side support that minor adjustment to that previous Act."