Te Ture Whenua Māori Bill

We are deliberating Part 6, and I would like to start off talking about clause 202, “Powers, duties, and responsibilities of governance bodies”. I will start off with clause 202(1)(aa), which has been inserted, just so that people understand what the powers, duties, and responsibilities of the governance bodies are to be. Clause 202(1)(a) says: “manage the asset base in accordance with the objects of the body as stated in the governance agreement;”. Of course, that makes total sense in that every organisation should have objects or objectives that they work to meet. Then 202(1)(aa) says: “hold and manage an asset base for the benefit of the owners of the Māori freehold land managed under the governance agreement;”.

I just want to clarify there, too, whom we are talking about when we speak about owners, because, according to clause 156(1), “A governance body is the legal owner of the asset base that it manages …”, but 156(2) says: “An owner of Māori freehold land managed under a governance agreement—(a) retains beneficial ownership, but not legal ownership,”. So the governance body is the legal owner, but the people who own the land—the asset—themselves, they are the beneficial owners. I think we just have to keep reminding people of that so that there is no confusion around who the beneficial owners are, compared with who the legal owners are, who happen to be the governance body.

Clause 202(1)(b) says it must “operate in a manner that is consistent with the governance agreement;”. Clause 202(1)(c) says: “operate in a manner that does not, and is not likely to, create a substantial risk of serious loss to—(i) the owners;”. Now, this is very, very important, because this is where we would be concerned that those beneficial owners, who have put their faith into a governance body—we do not want that faith to be misplaced if the governance body does not actually manage or operate the governance body in the way it should. So this clause 202 is just talking about the powers and duties of the governance body. It is very important.

For example, clause 202(1)(d) says it must “be satisfied, before incurring an obligation or a liability, that there is a reasonable prospect of the governance body being able to meet the obligation or liability …”. So, in other words, it is saying that this governance body cannot enter into any sort of work or go purchasing anything or set up any sort of liability without first knowing that it can meet the liability. Again, this is because the beneficial owners are putting their faith into these governance bodies to make sure that they actually grow the asset and grow the wealth of the organisation.

In the submissions, groups have said that this is a positive step towards more owner groups ensuring suitably qualified people are appointed to manage their land assets. In other words, the people who are appointed must be able to fulfil these very functions that I have been talking about, such as being able to run an organisation, making sure that when they enter into any sort of business transaction they know what the potential liabilities and obligations are, and that, as clause 202(2) says: “For the purpose of performing its role, a governance body”, i.e., the people on that governance body, “has—(a) full capacity to carry on or undertake any activity or business, do any act, or enter into any transaction; and (b) for the purpose of paragraph (a), full rights, powers, and privileges.” It is really important that landowners understand that the governance bodies have full rights, powers, and privileges.

Clause 203 talks about the “Duties and responsibilities of kaitiaki”. As we talked about last night, a kaitiaki—although the Māori translation means like a caregiver, for the purposes of this bill a kaitiaki is somebody who has the powers, basically, of a director of a company. In their role, a kaitiaki of a governance body must act honestly and in good faith. That is most important, and they must “act for a proper purpose;”—this is clause 203(ab). It is very important that the kaitiaki of any board or any governance body is acting for the right reasons. Again, a submitter says: “It is not clear to us if any distinction is intended between the duties and responsibilities for kaitiaki of different types of governing bodies, for example for kaitiaki governing a body corporate compared to kaitiaki governing a trust.”

I will just carry on. There is a concern that the new Act may not fit with other legislation—when I say “fit”, for example the duties and liabilities for directors under the Companies Act of 1993 and how they apply to kaitiaki governing a company, under this bill that we are debating.

Also, it was raised that the fiduciary obligations of kaitiaki are not clear—for example, to act in the best interests of the governing body and/or the landowners. The bill says it must “act honestly and in good faith”, but it is not clear whether they must act in the best interests of the governing body or the landowners. There was concern that there was no obligation placed on kaitiaki to act in the best interests of the beneficial owners. So it is just not quite explicit in here, and that is a concern, I guess. By looking at the duties and responsibilities, we would assume that that is the case, although, as I say, it is not actually explicit.

There is immunity for kaitiaki from personal liability. This is clause 204: “A kaitiaki of a governance body is not, by reason only of being a kaitiaki, personally liable for—(a) any obligation of the governance body; or (b) any act done or not done by the governance body in good faith in the performance or intended performance of the duties and responsibilities of the governance body.”

I guess that is in there because if kaitiaki were actually liable for deeds done in good faith, that actually might be a disincentive for good people to want to become kaitiaki. In terms of immunity, it is good. I just hope—and, obviously, this goes for any sort of organisation—that those people in those positions of responsibility do actually do things in good faith, but also make sure, as I said earlier on, that they have the full capacity to carry on or undertake business activities and that they know, before they make decisions about incurring obligations or liabilities, that they actually have the prospect of the governance bodies being able to meet those obligations or liabilities.

So, with that, I will end there. There is plenty more for our members to talk about, just here on Part 6. It would be lovely to see members from the Government—this is a substantial piece of legislation affecting Māori land. It would be lovely to hear the points of view, the questions, and the incisive insights of members on the other side of the House, since it does affect all our Māori land. So I will leave it there for now.

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.

I really welcome this in depth and part-by-part debate, to be honest. I think that we owe it to our people. I do appreciate the fact that we are all in the same boat, where we are sifting through quite complex legislation, going back and forth, probably getting things wrong here and there—but this is what this House is supposed to be about. I really would appreciate the Minister in the chair, the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell, and all members of the Committee taking the opportunity to actually debate these clauses, for our people. This is incredibly important.

Part 6—I think I am at clause 210, in Part 6. I wanted to pick up on something. Again, I welcome the Minister’s comment on this. Part 6 is “Operation of governance bodies”. Part 6 concentrates on the operation of governance bodies over land. We go to clause 210, which talks about the requirements for a land management plan. If we are talking about operations of governance bodies, and if we go to clause 210, “Requirements for land management plan”—now, I am quite interested in this particular part of the legislation. This clause says: “(1) This section applies”—and then it outlines how this particular land management plan requirement would apply. If we go to clause 210(3), it says “The governance body must have in place a land management plan that—”, and then it laundry-lists the types of things that the legislation stipulates should be in the land management plan. I am interested in this, and I welcome the Minister’s response while having this debate here in the Committee about what the things are about this land management plan.

For example, if I just pull out a few of these, subclause (3) says: “The governance body must have in place a land management plan that—(a) identifies the Māori freehold land that is managed under the governance agreement; and (b) sets out any proposed changes that affect the Māori freehold land”. If we go down, I was particularly interested in clause 210(3)(f), where the land management plan “sets out the risks of adopting, as well as the risks of not adopting, the land management plan; and (g) in respect of a proposed disposition of a parcel of Māori freehold land, sets out—(i) why the disposition [might be] necessary”. And so on and so forth. This is a land management plan that, I am assuming, is to be available for our people to see how our land is going to be managed by these governance bodies mandated under Part 6 of this legislation. I think this is really interesting and should be debated here in this Committee. Let us pull this apart. Let us have a look. On the face of it, this looks like it could be a worthwhile thing.

I think it is relevant to all parts of this bill, but I would like to take the liberty to say that I represent one of many Māori who do not have a lot of experience in whenua and land issues. Some people in this House have some incredible experience, which I acknowledge and has been important in the deliberations of the Māori Affairs Committee on this bill. I am, probably like most of our people—you know what? To be honest, I do not even know whether I am part and parcel to any landownership. There are a lot of us in this country who would be in a similar position. I know that we have had a clause-by-clause debate in the Māori Affairs Committee, but that is very different to having the debate here in public, which is what this House is for. I look at this—wow, there is a land management plan. There are many of us who do not even know whether we are part of any land management plan, whether we are descendants of land, and then we are talking about the opportunity to have a land management plan in front us. This is really, really important stuff, and I really would welcome the Minister and all members to take all opportunities. We are all in the same boat. Look at this. This is huge. It goes all over the place.

Then if we stick with clause 210(3)(a), after it talks about “land management plan” this part of the legislation then says that for a governance body’s decision to put in place a land management plan—and then it refers us to clause 13 of schedule 4. This is because what it says is that the land management plan—it talks about the thresholds where the land management plan applies in certain situations, including dispossession. So then if we go from clause 210(3)(a) and refer to clause 13 of schedule 4, and we go down to clause 13(3), “The decisions for which a minimum level of owner agreement is required” for example, and this also goes back to clause 201(3)(a), it says: “The agreement of owners who together hold 75% or more of the participating owners’ …”.

For some pieces of land that could be a handful, for some other pieces of land that could be a large number of people. But this stuff is incredibly relevant. There are more than likely situations where our land is being dispossessed, managed, planned, traded, worked, and developed with descendants who are part of that particular piece of land, and we have no idea. We have no idea, and so this is interesting stuff. How are we going actually going to address the disconnection that most of our people have to whether we even own land or not? How are we going to have our people participating in setting up these land management plans? Seventy-five percent, on the face of it, seems like a safe threshold, but, actually, I think we should be aiming higher. I am not saying that that is a legislative change for me personally, but I think I am trying to address—you know, there are opportunities here in this legislation, we are debating them, this is important, and I wish the Committee would debate them fully.

In my last time—and I welcome being corrected on this—I understand that my colleague Meka Whaitiri’s has tabled amendments. I do not know how to refer to these—on Wednesday, 5 July at 3 p.m. it has got “1” and “2”. I hope that is sufficient reference and I hope that I am right that they do fall under Part 6. I welcome correction. It has got clause 206, because I wanted again—OK, bear with me, clause 206, Meka Whaitiri’s tabled amendment. It goes down to clause 206(2). She is proposing to replace the words “As soon as practicable after making the decision, the governance body must—”. She proposes to change the words instead to “Within one month after making the decision,”. She is giving it a time frame and, on the face of it, the Green Party would definitely support this.

I would like to know what reasons the Minister in the chair, the Hon Te Ururoa Flavell, might actually have if he is planning on not supporting this amendment. I would appreciate an explanation as to why we would not think about putting an actual time frame on that particular clause, and I probably should outline that the clause 206 relates to “Requirements if governance body decides to hold land as Māori freehold land”. On the face of it, this seems good and the Greens will be supporting it. I would appreciate some insight from the Minister if he does not plan on supporting it.

Likewise, and again I will welcome correction, there is Meka Whaitiri’s tabled amendment No. 2, Wednesday, 5 July, clause 207. Again, just to capture the point, it puts a time frame. It replaces the wording “as soon as practicable after the sale” with “Within one month after the sale—”. On the face of it, I think it sets out clearer objectives for making those decisions. We would support that. I would really like to understand whether the Minister is planning on supporting that and if not, why. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair, kia ora tātau katoa, ā, ka mihi rā mō ngā kōrero.

[Thank you, Mr Chair; greetings to us all. I do acknowledge the contributions indeed.]

Can I just make a couple of opening points and then move towards addressing concerns raised by members. Firstly, can I say that so many of the issues that have been raised have actually been addressed by way of the select committee report, which was delivered to this House. In fact, as the Minister responsible, I have actually addressed pretty much most of those concerns because of the fact that I agreed with, and took up all the amendments from, the select committee. So that is the first point, which addresses many of the concerns that members are raising.

The second issue I raise is that much of this bill retains the general principles of the original legislation and therefore members are often going back and forward, arguing about the original legislation, etc. Actually, the bill retains in some ways many of the principles that are set out in the former Act.

The third point I would raise is this. There are a number of clauses, and some of the ones that are mentioned this afternoon are actually set against current legislation—we are lining this legislation up with current legislation or adopting principles that are already currently in legislation anyway for equivalent actions in other parts of law. People need to know that.

Fourthly, it pretty much helps if members read the legislation, because if I take the question about “owner” and the issue raised by Kelvin Davis, the issue of an owner is clearly defined in clause 7 of the bill. So rather than raise that, actually have a look at the bill because it is pretty much there.

If I can go to Meka Whaitiri’s concerns around clause 206 of the legislation and just clarify for her that a governance body can have subsidiaries to hold investment land but not Māori freehold land. The examples of that are Mangatū and Whakatū, which have been doing that sort of proposal for years.

The member also talked about clause 207 and asked some questions about that particular piece of legislation. I can tell the member that this is carrying forward existing legislation in section 137 of the 1993 Act. It says that you can sell Māori land only if buying replacement land, and it does not apply to investment land, i.e., non-Māori land. So again that is in the current legislation.

If I take and address the issues that Marama Davidson spoke to, in particular around Meka Whaitiri’s amendment, I can say that, talking about governance bodies and withholding requested information—I can tell the Committee that there is already a clear regime, actually, for this handling of information requests in the bill, based on equivalent regimes for local authorities. Again, there are equivalent regimes in other parts of law, so there is no reason actually to support that legislation and, for my part, we will not be.

Marama Davidson talked about clause 210 and in particular subclause 3(a). I can tell the member that in clause 210(3)(a), for purposes of clarity, a land management plan needs owner agreement. The equivalent is in section 137 of the current Act. It does not require owner agreement. Governance bodies do not have to have a land management plan unless they intend to sell Māori land to buy other land or improve other land or partition or amalgamate Māori freehold land, for purposes of clarity to the member. This is an existing regime, again, in the 1993 Act but has stricter requirements around it.

So I hope that addresses some of the concerns raised by the member Marama Davidson. It certainly gives the position in respect of Meka Whaitiri’s amendment and addresses some of the other concerns raised this evening.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. This is a bill that is incredibly important, and so I too would like to comment specifically about two clauses and the relationship between those two clauses. Part 6 is about the powers, duties, and responsibilities of governance bodies, and I just want to highlight that a duty is a moral or legal obligation. It is a task that one is required to perform, so I am specifically interested in clause 202(1)(e), which reads: “endeavour to keep the owners informed about the asset base and activities relating to the asset base;”.

I would have thought that a duty, under this clause, should be more than “endeavour to”, because to endeavour to is to try hard; it is not a “must”. So the governors under this section are not required—I would have thought that they must keep the owners informed about the asset base and activities relating to the asset base. I just wonder why that duty on the governance body, which in some instances will not be the beneficial owners themselves—they may be the Māori trustee who has been entrusted by the court to undertake the duties as a governance body—is not “must keep the owners informed”. Would the Minister, Te Ururoa Flavell, like to comment on that?

I am also interested in how they are going to do that. How are they going to keep the owners informed? Is that via an annual report? What sort of communication do we expect as a duty—as I said, a moral or legal obligation—of those governance entities to ensure that the owners are kept informed about the asset base and activities related to the asset base?

For me, it is specifically relevant to clauses 214(1) and 214(2), which are about the owners being provided with information. So that is the relationship between those two clauses. On one hand, we are saying that the governance entity has a responsibility to keep the owners informed, but in clause 214 there is an assumption that the owners have not been kept informed. So the owners have to go through a process to request information from the governance body or governance entity.

But, in addition to that, there is an issue I want to bring up for the Minister’s contemplation, and, hopefully, he can explain it. I will read it. Clause 214(4)(b)(ii) says: “notify the owner in writing that the information will be provided”—and here is the proviso I want some clarification about—“only if the owner pays a reasonable charge to meet the cost of providing the information;”. I do not think that is right. That is why I have asked him questions about the duty of the governance entity to keep the owners informed—because the assumption of an owner requesting information is that they have not been kept informed. Nowhere does it outline what we would expect to be a natural requirement of a governance entity—to inform their beneficial owners.

So I think there is an inherent conflict between those two particular clauses, and it would be really good to get some clarification. I have not put forward a Supplementary Order Paper. We may or may not finish Part 6 tonight, but if we have not, I have to say I think it is unreasonable, unless the Minister can justify why it is reasonable, for an owner to have to pay for information that they are legally entitled to.

That is why, going back to clause 202(1)(e), I also want to know what type of information and how often—you know, what is an acceptable level of engagement between the governance entity and the beneficial owners, because if there are any issues in this area, we still have an opportunity to fix them. I am not on the Māori Affairs Committee. I noted that the Minister talked earlier about how all the amendments that the select committee proposed were adopted, but I seriously think that we have got a problem in this area. Kia ora.

I really appreciate the opportunity of talking to Part 6 of this bill. I want to just make comment about clauses 203, 204, and 205, and talk about the immunity that, obviously, kaitiaki and owners will have from personal liability. I just want to say that, from my experience being a trustee for Māori land, I have no doubt in my mind that, as a trustee, if I do something wrong, particularly if it is against the trust order, then I stand to be liable for that.

I just want to say that I do not believe that one who is appointed a kaitiaki for any Māori land should be exempt or be immune from any decision or any action that they might take in terms of the governance of Māori land, particularly if the actions run against the terms of the governance deed. We should not make any exemption for integrity, honesty, and, more importantly, owners having confidence in those persons who have been appointed as kaitiaki.

In so saying, I refer to the comments that my tuakana made in terms of Part 5, where he suggested a Supplementary Order Paper extending the 5-year requirement of previous misdemeanours being extended to a 10-year period. I can understand why he proposed the amendment. However, he was obviously not successful, although I supported his Supplementary Order Paper. As a previous speaker highlighted, under clause 202 a governance body must hold and manage an asset base for the benefit of the owners, and that suggests to me that they are holding it on behalf of themselves, because when a governance agreement is established it becomes the legal owner. So, in other words, why would you have to put this clause in here unless it is intended that it also refers to the beneficial owners? That might be a question that the Minister may like to address later on.

As we look at the duties and responsibilities of a kaitiaki, again he or she is required to act honestly and in good faith. Again, if they do act in those terms, then why should they be immune to any adverse action that they might take? I want to raise that point, because if we look at clause 201—sorry, I have already mentioned that. I think that because it is Māori land, there should be no exemption to the requirement of kaitiaki or kaiwhakahaere, whatever you would like to call them, being immune to personal liability in terms of any action that they might take.

The other point that I want to make is in terms of clause 207, “Requirements if governance body sells or exchanges parcel of Māori freehold land”, and, in particular, to subclause (2): “If a governance body sells a parcel of Māori freehold land, the body must,—(b) until the body complies with paragraph (a), do 1 or both of the following: (i) hold the net proceeds in a separate bank account for the benefit of the owners of the land:”—again, for its own benefit—“(ii) invest the net proceeds in 1 or more fixed term deposit products of 1 or more registered banks (as defined by section 2(1) of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act …”.

There is no reference made in terms of a time frame for which they are limited to holding or investing that money, although in paragraph (c) it says “within 1 month after the sale, amend the governance agreement and send the updated agreement to the chief executive for registration under section 163.” That is only in terms of amendment of the governance agreement, but there is no reference to how long they can hold that money, in either a bank account or an investment.

The other point I wanted to make is in regard to clause 208(2), which says: “The governance body must, within 1 month after the partition, amalgamation, or boundary adjustment, amend the governance agreement and send the updated agreement to the chief executive for registration …”. I am not quite sure whether that means registration within the proposed Māori Land Service or registration with the land transfer office. My understanding is that if it is to be registered with the land transfer office, then it requires the title to be surveyed. No mention of that is made in that clause, so I just wonder whether, in fact, the Minister might take a call in regard to that.

My tuahine from the Green Party made special reference to management claims, and I think that the points that she made are quite important, because if land is going to be subject to a governance agreement, then there has to be a purpose. I suspect that—well, I would suggest that that would be the role of the kaitiaki. Again, the role that that person takes is very important, and should they not follow the requirements of the governance agreement, then again I say that they should not be immune from any wrong actions that they might take. Indeed, because of this immunity clause, you may see people encouraged to operate outside the square, so to speak, and so it may encourage them to do things that they would probably not normally do if it was their own asset.

Again, I emphasise the importance of having the requirements for a land management plan, and I have not said this before, but I certainly agree with this part of the bill. In terms of the disposal of Māori land, I am a bit reluctant to allow governance bodies or the kaitiaki or the kaiwhakahaere to sell Māori land, because I understood that the purpose of this bill was to limit the sale of Māori land. In fact, encouragement should be made to acquire more land by governance entities and to retain the titles in Māori land. But, again, the bill—particularly this part—makes no reference to the requirement that land should remain Māori land, other than the option for governance entities to be able to retain it in Māori land. Kia ora.

I move, That the Chairperson report progress presently. The Committee will then move to consider the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Oranga Tamariki) Legislation Bill.