Prebble Richard: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Prebble Richard: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:21886] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I am obliged to the last two members. I am not a member of the Maori Affairs Committee but in reading the bill it does appear that the statements with regard to adoption are correct. The legal argument that both put up seems to me to be quite clear and correct too. That is what we have said the adoption should be—that the children should apply. However I think Mr Tamihere might be mistaken in his view that just because there are exemptions with regard to matrimonial property and Maori land that necessarily means that all property created under this bill is exempt. It appears to me to be that Mr Tamihere—and I might be misinterpreting what he told the Committee—appears to be under the impression that property rights created under this bill are not affected. Well I am not sure that that is so because more property rights are created than just Maori land. In fact quite considerable property rights are created here and it would seem to me that the Property (Relationships) Act may well apply. 
So I would be interested to know from the Minister in the chair Mita Ririnui whether the officials have turned their minds to that because again as Mr Brownlee pointed out to the Committee we have to be very careful when we are passing bills of this sort that we do not in fact for the best possible reasons end up creating a further grievance and argument that is raised later. I would be interested to know whether these sorts of rights and property have been contested. No doubt they have been contested in some matrimonial property cases and for the sake of the claimants it would be useful if the Minister would let the Committee know whether they have been—even though there is as Mr Tamihere said within the Property (Relationships) Act and in the property settlement legislation some provisions in relation to Maori land. We are not dealing here just with Maori land are we? 
 In fact we are dealing with quite considerable assets including cash. So is that in or is that out? If one is a beneficiary and a shareholder in the cash—and it is $200 million or so—and parts from one’s spouse can he or she put in a claim against the person for his or her say one thirty-thousandth of that share? If they cannot under what principle can they not because there does not appear to me to be any provision here saying they cannot. If the matrimonial court is capable of making such a settlement what will the effect of that be upon the claimants and again given the rate of marriage break-up in New Zealand and the fact that this settlement is supposed to last forever what will its effect be in say 100 years’ time? People might think that that is a ridiculous statement but people will look at this in 100 years’ time and say that 100 years ago it should have been obvious with the rate of matrimonial settlements and the like that this settlement would be completely diluted by the result of some other statute. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: By the result of marriage break-ups. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Yes over 100 years. This is supposed to be a settlement forever is it not? Well if it is is that an aspect that has been taken into account? If it has I would be interested to know what the Minister thinks its impact would be and if it has not the House ought to record that this was a matter that the Government did not turn its attention to and no doubt in 30 or 40 years’ time it will be the basis of yet another claim. 
Part 3 agreed to.