Wall LouisaLOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe Mr Chair. This is a bill that is incredibly important and so I too would like to comment specifically about two clauses and the relationship between those two clauses. Part 6 is about the powers duties and responsibilities of governance bodies and I just want to highlight that a duty is a moral or legal obligation. It is a task that one is required to perform so I am specifically interested in clause 202(1)(e) which reads: endeavour to keep the owners informed about the asset base and activities relating to the asset base;".I would have thought that a duty under this clause should be more than "endeavour to" because to endeavour to is to try hard; it is not a "must". So the governors under this section are not required—I would have thought that they must keep the owners informed about the asset base and activities relating to the asset base. I just wonder why that duty on the governance body which in some instances will not be the beneficial owners themselves—they may be the Māori trustee who has been entrusted by the court to undertake the duties as a governance body—is not "must keep the owners informed". Would the Minister Te Ururoa Flavell like to comment on that?I am also interested in how they are going to do that. How are they going to keep the owners informed? Is that via an annual report? What sort of communication do we expect as a duty—as I said a moral or legal obligation—of those governance entities to ensure that the owners are kept informed about the asset base and activities related to the asset base?For me it is specifically relevant to clauses 214(1) and 214(2) which are about the owners being provided with information. So that is the relationship between those two clauses. On one hand we are saying that the governance entity has a responsibility to keep the owners informed but in clause 214 there is an assumption that the owners have not been kept informed. So the owners have to go through a process to request information from the governance body or governance entity.But in addition to that there is an issue I want to bring up for the Minister's contemplation and hopefully he can explain it. I will read it. Clause 214(4)(b)(ii) says: "notify the owner in writing that the information will be provided"—and here is the proviso I want some clarification about—"only if the owner pays a reasonable charge to meet the cost of providing the information;". I do not think that is right. That is why I have asked him questions about the duty of the governance entity to keep the owners informed—because the assumption of an owner requesting information is that they have not been kept informed. Nowhere does it outline what we would expect to be a natural requirement of a governance entity—to inform their beneficial owners.So I think there is an inherent conflict between those two particular clauses and it would be really good to get some clarification. I have not put forward a Supplementary Order Paper. We may or may not finish Part 6 tonight but if we have not I have to say I think it is unreasonable unless the Minister can justify why it is reasonable for an owner to have to pay for information that they are legally entitled to.That is why going back to clause 202(1)(e) I also want to know what type of information and how often—you know what is an acceptable level of engagement between the governance entity and the beneficial owners because if there are any issues in this area we still have an opportunity to fix them. I am not on the Māori Affairs Committee. I noted that the Minister talked earlier about how all the amendments that the select committee proposed were adopted but I seriously think that we have got a problem in this area. Kia ora."