I note from the select committee report that there were quite a few submissions on clause 4—in particular, to widen the definition of what defines a relevant iwi, and that was to include hapū and whānau in its interpretation. When I read clause 4, it says, "In section 4, insert in its appropriate alphabetical order: relevant iwi, in relation to an allocation of assets, means those iwi in a region who, in the trustee's opinion, are directly affected by the allocation". I think to say that is a broad definition is a pretty fair statement. That doesn't really define it at all. All it actually means is it swings completely on the trustee's opinion. There is no direction to the trustee. It is merely their opinion and yet it was quite clearly an intention from submitters to have a wider definition to allow iwi and hapū. So my question to the Minister is: is the advice that that definition does, in fact, include whānau and hapū in that definition or what does it actually mean, and is the potential here for actually muddying the waters—no pun intended—quite substantially in that this could, in fact, cause more claims to be lodged in the future as a result of the opaqueness of this particular clause? So I really look forward to hearing from the Minister.