Henare PeeniClause 4 Section 2 amended (Interpretation)PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe Mr Chair. Thank you very much once again for this opportunity. In clause 4(1) there are some relatively minor changes to the definitions: In section 2 repeal the definitions of Church of England and financial year.". I think those ones are pretty straightforward—they make the financial year a 12-month period and of course in redefining the Church of England it says that it "(a) means the Bishop appointed under that title by the Anglican Church in Aotearoa New Zealand and Polynesia commonly known as the Church of England or the Bishop of any replacement diocese; and (b) includes any person acting as the Bishop when the Bishop is for any reason unavailable". There are bishops spread out across the country but the Bishop of Te Upoko o Te Ika interestingly enough has a slightly different significance nationally. I say that with respect to all of the bishops across the country but the one here in Te Upoko o Te Ika tends to be the head of the church nationally—the head of the church nationally—and we know as my esteemed colleague here Mr Tirikatene pointed out what happens in the replacement situation. We know that when the Bishop of Te Upoko o Te Ika is unable to perform their duties for whatever reason another bishop steps in. In the past I know for a fact that that bishop has been the Bishop of Te Tai Tokerau or the bishop of the other end of the fish that my colleague Mr Davis was referring to a man by the name of Bishop Kito Pīkaahu—a good man who has fulfilled those duties quite well. But I wonder—just putting it out here—whether in the failure of the Bishop of Te Upoko o Te Ika to fulfil those duties anyone who steps into that role in this particular instance is fully aware of what is required of them under this particular amendment bill. That is one question I have. The other points I want to make on this particular clause are pretty straightforward but I do want to pick up the point made by my colleague Mr Davis around tangata whenua of Wairarapa: "means an individual who has a whakapapa to the tīpuna rangatira who established historical kinship groups in Wairarapa". I say that in respect of the history of te Papawai Marae and it might interest the member in the chair Mr Scott that one of the pou that surrounds the marae at te Papawai is actually named after my great-grandfather and former member of Parliament Tau Henare. Tau Henare who attended as far as our historical records show some of the early hui held at te Papawai and has his figure carved in a pou at the marae. And I wonder—I wonder—whether there is any relationship or any ability for me to look into my whakapapa and see whether or not I become eligible for some of the scholarships there—certainly not me but my tamariki. I say that in respect of a theme I have been carrying currently in the Committee and it is about making sure that when you seek to define heritage when you seek to define lineage in pieces of legislation one has to be very very careful. One has to be very very careful. I will give an example. If I am living in Wairarapa and I consider myself tangata whenua: I was born there I was raised there I have lineage there and then I play a crucial service in my whānau and take a tamaiti whāngai—I adopt a child; I adopt a child into my family—does this make that particular child a tangata whenua of Wairarapa? Does it make them eligible for the types of benefits that are intended with the amendment of this particular bill? That is just another question I have and it may sound—what was my expression earlier—a bit patu kutu a bit nit-picky but it is these kinds of issues that when whānau are looking for scholarships for their tamariki to go to whare wānanga to universities where you are asked to provide your link to that particular place it is often quite difficult—"