Mahuta NanaiaHon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): I want to follow on from my colleague Meka Whaitiri because I think the issues that she raises are very important. One of the things for the Māori Affairs Committee that we understand having processed so many Treaty settlements is the actual participation rates of people in decision making per se. Therefore how do we encourage Māori owners to make decisions around their land interests to be able to be a part of improving the utilisation of their land? I question aspects of the approach in so far as how complex it is. We discussed this at length within the select committee. The participation thresholds—we wanted to ensure Minister as you are aware that the highest participation threshold was around the disposition or sale of Māori land. But we really grappled with just how complex it is around the range of decisions the varying participation rates and trying to ensure that Māori land owners had good information around this.We hazarded a guess that it is going to come down to the way in which the Māori Land Service works with Māori land owners to ensure that they are really well aware of their rights and interests as decision making occurs. So clause 47 as commented by my colleague Meka Whaitiri is a really important clause because it sets out those rights in a somewhat clear way. But as we progress through the bill and you start to understand how the decision-making process takes place the potential positive impact of a second decision-making mechanism—I think it has been improved because of the select committee. But the way in which it works to improve the transparency of decisions and the participation of owners in those decisions is yet to be tested.So it would be useful for the select committee because the wider conversation of the role of the Māori Land Service in assisting owners to participate in the decision-making regime to understand it as they are participating in it—it would be good to get a steer from you about how that is intended to take place. Again we grappled with the extent to which it needed to be—clearly—in the legislation and are of a view that it is a good thing that it is.I wanted to also comment on the issue around minors not being counted as participating owners and the role of kaiwhakamarumaru which I alluded to earlier and ensuring that the obligations of a kaiwhakamarumaru are representing the best interests—the whakapapa interests—of those under whom they are exercising decision-making responsibilities. It may or may not have been a big issue as you considered this on the way through so I do not want to make a mountain out of what might be a molehill although we accept that when we considered the role and responsibility of kaiwhakamarumaru we understood primarily the aspects relating to minors and those not able to vote themselves.The other area that I thought was useful to comment on—it is one that you raised in your opening comments Minister—is around the small shareholding interests and needing to amalgamate. If ever there was any example of the onerous aspects of trying to go to a whole lot of meetings to get a whole lot of whānau to agree to amalgamate their interests for a development purpose it would be around the East Coast and the projects that were led by Chris Insley to try to get I guess the economy of scale and the collective ownership focus on a broader development opportunity. It was done but it was done with much difficulty as I understand it. So that approach to try to consolidate lots of little ownership interests I think would work well. But again on the way through it is about giving assurance to those small owners that their interests and visibility over the decision making are actually really important and that they are not going to kind of get superseded in any shape or form.I know that I am kind of tackling these at a very global level but I do know Minister that you have a good knowledge of these particular issues and I would hope that you respond to the questions.