Part 5 of the act also addresses what rights secured and unsecured creditors maintain, and what extent may the share be of unsecured credits a spouse or partner has. The proceeding thus deals with general to more specific issues relating to the division of property but ultimately aims to maintain legal equity and 'fairness' in ultimatum. The 2001 amendment mainly addressed the recent legislative additions to the definition of a 'relationship' within New Zealand. The purpose of this act is to "reform the law relating to the property of married couples...recognize the equal contributions of husband and wife...and of de-facto partnership" and "...to provide for a just division of the relationship property...". The reformed principles of the act follow the guide that: "men and women have equal status", "all forms of contribution...[to the relationship]...have equal status", that a "just division of relationship property has regard to [socio-economic status]" and that "relationship property should be resolved as inexpensively, simply and speedily as is consistent with justice". There has been much academic criticism regarding the effectiveness of the act in cases of agriculture, native land and the general 'effectiveness' of the 2001 amendment. One of the main areas of criticism within the act has been the alleged prevalence of 'sham trusts', 'alter-ego' trusts, the bundle of rights doctrine and 'illusory trusts'. There is a common call for the clarification of definitions to include such cases. There is a growth in the idea that these issues do not allow the legislation to fulfil its original intention. Criticism has also been placed upon the lack of modernity the current amended act entails. Criticism regarding the balance of equity within the act has also been deconstructed. While the amendment balances gender position and re-defines relationship to broaden the individuals involved with property, some inconsistency regarding de facto pairings has been cited. Under the act's amendments, both married and civil union couples maintain higher access to compensation than unmarried de facto couples. The policy of the legislative landscape maintains itself under the guise of equal sharing and the definition and place of de facto relationships within the act therefore somewhat contradicts this. The de facto couple's place outlined in the amendment therefore incites conflict with the core directive of the Property (Relationships) Act. Therefore, the basis of this criticism stems from the contradiction of the act's purpose in maintaining equal sharing for both parties of a relationship against the lack of compensation in de facto pairings. This had led to proposition for change in up-holding policy purpose.