Rurawhe AdrianADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Tēnā koe e Te Heamana o Te Komiti. Part 5 is all about governance and the new governance arrangements for Māori freehold land. Can I start with clause 154 the overview of provisions and just make an opening comment which is that a governance body can be managed by its kaitiaki. I did not get to speak on Part 1 but what I would have said is relevant right here around the terminology kaitiaki. A couple of things come to mind. Fundamentally this governance model is one that has been around but is now including Māori terminology over the top of it—well I hope it is over the top of it. My comment around that is that just putting a Māori name or term on to this role does not actually change the fact that it is like a trustee's role or a company director's role. When thinking about a governance model if it was a Māori governance model it would not quite look like this I do not think. My comment around that is putting this terminology on it does not make it that way.The Māori Land Court judges said that these arrangements were complex and uncertain. Some of the complexities I think in supporting what I have just said are that we have had around three decades of case law around all of this that is relevant to the existing Act the current Act and so that is now removed. The interesting thing for me looking at the new arrangements—and as the Minister said there is a wide range of options available to Māori land owners around which governance option they take including the existing ones. So the existing governance arrangements continue. We get these new terminologies so we have another layer and some new types of entities coming into force overlaid by this concept that it will be managed by its kaitiaki whether it comes from the current legislation or the new legislation. My question is: just how many types of entities are we going to end up with? I support my colleague Nanaia Mahuta's comment on the previous part. These new arrangements are meant to make the governance of Māori freehold land easier and more simplistic and yet from my view having the number of entities or possible entities is going to be difficult for our people or anyone to navigate—so those who are in the 5000 existing trusts that are moving under the new regime to having a rangatōpū or remaining where they are but with the overlay of these new concepts and new way of operating.In clause 156 under Rights of owners of Māori freehold land managed under governance agreement" I was interested in subclause (2)(a). It says that an owner of Māori freehold land basically "(a) retains beneficial ownership but not legal ownership of the land while it is managed under the agreement;". I wondered why it was that option because there are other potential or possible arrangements that could have been. Once it is taken over by this new governance entity why exactly is it that the owner of the land becomes the beneficial owner and not the legal owner? Because I would have thought that you could have other options like a custodian trust to take that responsibility so that the governance body could still operate under the terms of its governance and the owner would have their rights protected as well. I am not saying that it will not be protected. I am just not sure and I just do not understand why you could not retain legal ownership and still be the beneficiary of that land.I want to jump to subpart 2 clause 189 "Court may appoint kaiwhakahaere" and again it is my hope that where we apply Māori terminology to this new role which as the Minister said is really to act as an agent I hope that in future the court recognises that. I want to say in this debate that that is what kaiwhakahaere is for this purpose but that is not what kaiwhakahaere is in my understanding of the terminology. That is the first point that I want to make.I want to look at clause 190 "Purposes for which kaiwhakahaere may be appointed". One of them is in subclause (2)(b)—that is how you say it—"to set or negotiate the terms of a sale of the land under section 100(4)(c):". I am wondering why you would need a kaiwhakahaere for that purpose. If the decision has already been made to sell that land why would it be that the court needs to appoint a kaiwhakahaere for that purpose when you would think that to get to that decision the owners and the relevant governance organisation would have already gone through a robust and rigorous process to get to that point and so I wondered why that would be the case.I want to speak in support of my colleague Peeni Henare's Supplementary Order Paper 322 that replaces clause 197(1). It basically means when the court in appointing a kaiwhakahaere for that purpose—the clause says it may require the chief executive to arrange a meeting of the owners. This change compels the chief executive to do that so "… it must—(a) direct the chief executive to arrange a meeting of the owners in accordance with"—those relevant clauses and it must—"(b) direct the kaiwhakahaere to report to the owners at the meeting on any matter referred to in section 196(1)." So I support this Supplementary Order Paper 322. It is really important that the owners have confidence in those arrangements that are being carried out by the kaiwhakahaere. It is critically important that the owners of the land actually feel like they have been reported back to and so I support Supplementary Order Paper 322."