Whaitiri MekaMEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe Mr Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to make some comments on Part 6. Of course the Minister explained last night the purpose of Part 6 and I will not rehash what he explained. But it is a critical part of this piece of legislation. This is the part that talks about the role of the governance body. It talks about their responsibilities. It talks about the kaitiaki or the trustees who are appointed to the governance roles. It talks about the distribution of dividends that may be conjured up. So this Part 6—it is really critical that we examine it in the way that it deserves to be examined. It is clear that Māori owners have been told through this particular clause how to manage their land. That is what they have been told. So it is important as much as we possibly can to ask questions for clarity to the Minister in the chair around the particular clauses that I am about to go into.I do not want to repeat my colleague Kelvin Davis but when he went through clause 202 in terms of the question around which owners—so we are talking about clause 202(1)(aa) where we mention the benefit of the owners". My question to the Minister is: which owner are we talking about? Are we talking about the legal owner or the beneficiary owner? I draw the Minister's attention to clauses 47(1)(a) to 47(1)(d) in the bill where he outlines the rights of owners and in subclause (2)(a) he talks about land being managed by the governance body. So it would be really good to hear clarity from the Minister around whether we are talking about legal or beneficiary owners in relation to clause 202.I want to turn the Committee's attention to clause 204. Clause 204 talks about the trustees' kaitiaki's personal liability. It talks about obviously the kaitiaki or trustees of these governance bodies being personally exempt from liability. In clause 204 it explains that. Clause 205 then talks about the immunity of owners from personal liability. My question to the Minister is if the trustees on these governance boards which Māori land owners are going to be forced to have are not liable and if the owners under clause 205 are not personally liable then who is? Who is if something goes dreadfully wrong in terms of the governance board and the governance arrangement where there is something untoward? It is unclear in the part as to who is liable. So we are clear on who is not liable. My question to the Minister therefore is who is liable.I turn to clauses 206(1)(a) and 206(1)(b). Just so that I understood the question around certain parcels of land—as I read that and of course the Minister may be able to correct me—we have got clause 206(1)(a) where we talk about how the governance body can decide to hold Māori freehold land in one or more parcels or "land acquired or to be acquired by the body by way of purchase or gift". Then in subclause (1)(b) we talk about "1 or more parcels of land other than Māori freehold land that is already held by the body under a governance agreement."The question that came to me on that particular clause was does this protect the—I use the word "foundation" but the original owners within the governance group if the governance entity decides to set up a separate entity? Does this particular clause protect against the ability of a governance body to set up a separate entity? So I will just leave that there for the Minister to answer.Clause 206(2) "As soon as practicable after making …" is the beginning of that subclause. When you turn over the page to subclause (3) of clause 206 we have got "within 1 month after the later of …". There are quite a few clauses within this particular part that have specific times either within 1 month—and then in other clauses it had "as soon as possible". I will come to my tabled amendments because I have tried to offer up some suggestions to the Minister around where we are specifying time limits and where in other areas we are not. Clause 206(2) is an example of what I am talking about where we have the words "As soon as practicable after making the decision" whereas when you turn over the page to clause 206(3) we are saying "within 1 month after" to amend the governance agreement and send the amendment to the chief executive for registration. That is a question for the Minister.In clause 207 we talk about "Requirements if governance body sells or exchanges parcel of Māori freehold land". When I look at the definition in this particular clause I get that there is a bit of a mixing between selling and exchanging in the explanation of clause 207 simply because if the Minister looks at clause 207 and if we go down to "If a governance body sells a parcel of Māori freehold land"—this is subclause (2)—"the body must—(a) as soon as practicable after the sale—(i) use the net proceeds from the sale to acquire improve or acquire and improve the replacement land identified in the allocation scheme required under section 104(3)(b);". The question I have for the Minister is—to me that sounds like we are telling the governance body if it is selling land that it must do something with the sale and I am not too sure what part of the tino rangatiratanga principle those particular clauses clauses 207(2)(a)(i) and 207(2)(b) actually meets. The Minister may have some thoughts on that.If I move to clause 208 where we talk about "Requirements in cases of partition amalgamation or boundary adjustment of Māori freehold land managed under governance agreement"—when I look at clauses 208(1) and 208(2) the question I have because it talks about what the section applies to in terms of partition amalgamations and boundary adjustments is where is the notification and consultation with owners in terms of clause 208? It does not mention it. Of course I know it may be contained somewhere else in the bill but one of the considerations—I would have thought that the governance body has a duty to notify and consult with owners if we are going into partitions amalgamations or boundary adjustments of Māori freehold land. I will leave that for the Minister to answer.In clause 209(2)(c)(iii) we have got the statement that says: "in a way that is fair and equitable to all the owners." We are talking now about the allocation scheme about designing for the land that will be utilised the allocation or adjustment of the ownership of the parcel. Of course it talks about allocation or adjustment of the ownership of the parcel in a way that is fair and equitable to all owners. I guess the question I have for the Minister is what does that look like? How would "fair and equitable to all the owners" be tested? Again maybe the Minister will have a response in due time.Of course in clause 209(2)(a) we are talking about how clause 102(8) overrides subclauses (2)(b) and 2(c). I guess that when I read clause 102(8) and the subclauses (2)(b) and (2)(c) there does not appear to be any difference between what it is overriding. The question I have is why have we got that particular subclause (2)(a) in that particular clause?I am only on page 160 and in terms of Part 6 we have got another 18 pages to go. I am going to take my seat because I know some colleagues have got some questions but I do want to come back. I have got a suite like I said in my opening statement of tabled amendments for this particular part. I would like the opportunity to talk to all of them. They have been designed in a way to have some semblance across this part Part 6. Also I have some concerns that I have not yet raised but will hopefully get the opportunity to."