te Heuheu Georgina: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
te Heuheu Georgina: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:627;Page:21885] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 That was a worthwhile contribution probably from John Tamihere but I do not know that it gets us over the hump we appear to be facing purely from looking at the information before us—first of all at the settlement bill itself and secondly at the advice that the Maori Affairs Committee received which I have now been able to get my hands on. I am not certain that John Tamihere’s explanations clever as they sounded actually helped my colleague and me. 
We are looking at the bill as was obviously the Hon Richard Prebble and on the face of it the bill defines Nga Rauru Kitahi in terms of the underlying premise of who can benefit from the settlement as whakapapa—blood lines. There is no doubt about that. Clause 13 appears to set that out very clearly. As I mentioned earlier the rights of adopted children was an issue that according to the advice given to the select committee was raised by the claimants themselves in their submission. It was a key negotiation issue. They requested of the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 2 years ago that the Adoption Act be overridden. That Minister declined that request. Some months later they again wrote to the Minister on the issue. The matter was discussed and on 1 July 2003 the Minister wrote to Nga Rauru Kitahi explaining that while she was sympathetic to their concerns she still considered it inappropriate to use settlement legislation to override the Adoption Act. On three separate occasions apparently the seriousness of this matter to the tribe was reiterated. 
The Office of Treaty Settlements requested the view of the Crown Law Office. Much as I would like the Hon Richard Prebble to help give some clarity here because of his long experience in the law I shall refer briefly to that advice. Part of the advice is that clause 13 defines Nga Rauru Kitahi and sets out that that means: “… the iwi or collective group composed of—(i) individuals descended from 1 or more Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi tupuna;”. The Crown Law Office makes the comment that in short the beneficiaries of the settlement are required to descend from Nga Rauru Kitahi tupuna. The advice further states that under the Adoption Act legally adopted children are to be treated as equivalent to birth children. Section 16(2)(a) of the Adoption Act provides that upon an adoption order being made the effect will be that adopted children are deemed to become the child of the adoptive parent and the adoptive parent shall be deemed to become the parent of the child as if that child had been born to the parent in wedlock—which is slotting that child in as if he or she were a blood relative of the parent. The adopted child shall be deemed to cease to be the child of his or her existing parent and be deemed to be the child of the new parent. In effect the advice from the Crown Law Office was that legally adopted children would under the bill as it stands fall within the word “descended”. 
So a very legitimate concern about the inclusion of adopted children having been raised on several occasions by the claimants by the settling tribe and it having been considered by the Minister the Office of Treaty Settlements and now the Crown Law Office whose opinion basically is that adopted children fall within the definition of “descendants” it seems to me to be clear that they are included. The Adoption Act is not overridden as the Hon Richard Prebble indicated. There is also an issue of the Human Rights Act.