Mahuta NanaiaHon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): Thank you Mr Chair for letting me make a small contribution. Look Part 3 was probably one of the areas of the bill that exercised much of our conversation because it goes something like this: when is a decision a decision? A decision is a decision if you have a specified majority but if you do not have a governance agreement it is not a decision. So when might a decision not be a decision? Well it might not be a decision if you do not meet the participating thresholds that are set out in the bill—very complex. So could a decision really be a decision if you do not meet the decision-making thresholds do not have a governance agreement? No it is not a decision.So you know you can see where the Māori Affairs Committee got to when we were looking at the complexity of this bill Minister and trying to think that actually if we were just a humble Māori land owner wanting to do something on our whānau land we would blimmin need a lawyer to navigate our way through just this one clause clause 51. It is very difficult to try to get a feel for just how easily it was intended to ensure that decisions could be made might be made should be made—however you need to understand the complexity around the participating thresholds.The other issue is that it is not a decision if you do not meet certain provisions so you get a second chance at a decision. These are the things that we debated at length and we thought to ourselves: It's not that easy." It is not that easy for people to understand the way in which the law is intended to ensure that decisions for decision's sake can be made with a level of clarity that landowners know what threshold they need to meet to get an outcome. If you need a lawyer to navigate your way through a simple thing like making a decision this is not the clause to be looking at—in fact far from it.However Minister if you would take a call there were some aspects of the second-chance provision that I think were a matter that you reflected on around improving the way in which it operated for decision makers landowners. It would be quite useful to see whether or not in light of the complexities of this clause you believe Minister that the second-chance decision-making process will actually be some gain for landowners or actually much more difficult to prove that a decision has been made.The other aspect was the inclusion of the participating thresholds in the bill. That was something that clearly needed to be done because it was really difficult to understand at what point certain thresholds need to apply. If you take for example the issues around disposition—sale and exchange or gifting of land boundary adjustments partitions and amalgamations—if all those things become quite contentious then it would be absolutely necessary to have the participating thresholds outlined in the bill in the way that it has been.But can I just come back to clause 51(2)—actually all the way through—and just highlight the difficulty if you were navigating your way around the decision-making process. Clause 51(2) says: "If the parcel is managed under a governance agreement the decision must be made using the decision-making process required by the agreement." OK then it sets out what that looks like. A participation threshold—going on to clause 51A it states that for a decision by participating owners the requirements of clause 51A or 51B which relate to a participation threshold must be satisfied in addition to the specified majority requirement prescribed by subclause (9)—more difficult. Go on to subclause (10): "See the following provisions for the specified majorities of owners who must agree to certain decisions about Māori freehold land:".You can see the dilemma a Māori land owner would be in if they just navigated their way through this Act by themselves and thought: "Oh my gosh how is this going to work?". They will have to get a lawyer with money they do not have to be able to understand what to do. I really think that of all the complexities in the bill it is the way in which such a simple thing—making a decision—can or cannot be achieved under the portents of this particular bill. So Minister it would be good to get your view on the second-chance provision. Will it be a total-sum gain to the landowner or not?"