Whaitiri MekaMEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Thank you for the introductory comments made by Minister Flavell in relation to Part 4 Dispositions of Māori freehold land and other land". I thought I might just make some reference to the submitters who made some submissions on this particular clause clause 96 in terms of the definition of "preferred entity". The Minister has alluded to Marise Lant and of course Professor Richard Boast from Kensington Swan again where he talks about the use of tikanga in determining association with land. He makes a really good point around whether this view could arguably alienate urban Māori who may not have a strong tikanga relationship with their whenua but no less have a whakapapa relationship to the land. I am sure my colleague Peeni Henare will have something to say to expand on that. There are some questions in this part particularly around clause 96(2) where there is this introduction of a "representative entity" and I would be really keen to hear from the Minister on clause 96(2)(b) where it talks about disposal of land to "a representative entity for the land for disposition". I ask whether he could give some examples of what he means by a representative entity. Clearly this bill was talking about defining preferred recipients and I want to acknowledge the work of the Māori Affairs Committee on extending that definition to include "children grandchildren and other descendants" of Māori owners. There has been some work at the select committee and I want to acknowledge the Minister for signing and extending the definition of "preferred recipients". Of course we also talk about the preferred entities so there is a question around explaining what a representative entity is because it is not clear. In Part 9 where we talk about the dispute over preferred recipient entities Part 9 does not actually cover this. It makes reference in this Part 4 that if there is a dispute or whether it goes to a preferred recipient or a preferred entity in the bill it says it is covered under Part 9 but when I read Part 9 I actually could not see how that is going to be sorted out in terms of who gets the say when it comes down to whether it goes to a recipient or whether it goes to the entity. Perhaps the Minister could clarify that. Also in clause 97 there is the provision there that the kaiwhakahaere can dispose of land if permitted. If we remember the kaiwhakahaere is appointed by the chief executive of the Māori Land Service obviously supported by the Māori Land Court. But Minister I just wanted to make sure what protection mechanisms there were around the kaiwhakahaere in clause 97 in terms of disposing of land if permitted. Then we go on to the court appointing the kaiwhakahaere and who can be eligible in clause 189 and that is just ensuring that there is some consistency around who can be a kaiwhakahaere. Who is eligible? That is the question and it does not clearly state that in this particular clause.The other concerns I have with this—obviously it is going to be when it comes to disposal a big issue for landowners around the process. Again I will draw that comment I made around how without having the Māori Land Service we do not know the actual process that it will follow. Perhaps the Minister could give some clarity around that. I am sure other members on this side will have some contribution around Part 4 and disposal. It is a very important part of this bill. We need clarity to safeguard all Māori land interests wherever it comes and however it comes to ensure that the land is not lost that they are clearly on the preferred list—and how they get on the preferred list if they are not on it—and whether the recipients trump the entities or the entities trump the recipients. It is not clear under this particular part. Thank you."