The regulatory impact assessment states—I read—that "Māori land tends to be more isolated, in smaller holdings and, less 'useable' than general land: for example, 80 per cent of Māori land is classified as being of lower quality and only 17 per cent of Māori land is considered suitable for arable use. Up to 20 per cent of land is considered landlocked, and about 16,000 (60 per cent) Māori land titles are smaller than five hectares, with approximately 11,000 (40 per cent) being smaller than one hectare." If Māori land is more isolated and classified as being of lower economic value, how does this amendment encourage the development of the land and make the land more accessible for productivity? We are not sure whether this bill will indeed achieve the objectives—that is, to support development of Māori land and support the development of housing on Māori land.