te Heuheu Georgina: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
te Heuheu Georgina: Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:627;Page:21794] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 National supports the second reading of this bill. As with other settlement bills its format is in keeping with what has gone before. Basically there is financial redress to the total value of $31 million a right of first refusal in favour of the Nga Rauru Kitahi governance entity over certain Crown-owned properties for a specified time and provision for a governance entity with the Crown in which the iwi can enter into an accord—I guess for Nga Rauru Kitahi to feel that they have some say over Government policy. I suppose I can agree with one thing the Green member said. She basically ridiculed it but I suppose that while in essence it is a nice feel-good touchy-touchy thing there is really no power to it. However I want to congratulate Nga Rauru Kitahi and give them credit for seriously considering their options and in the end for concluding that this is the best settlement they can get. They have shown leadership in accepting it and in concluding a settlement with the Crown—good on Nga Rauru Kitahi! It does take courage I think to take steps finally to put the grievance behind one and to look for ways to move on. 
In terms of the Maori Affairs Committee’s deliberations and consideration I can report that there were no problems really on the basic format of the settlement particularly since Nga Rauru Kitahi has concluded their settlement with the Crown. So it is their settlement; it is not ours. That is what is most important. However as my colleague Gerry Brownlee indicated there are three areas where National has concerns. They will probably turn out to be ongoing concerns because this Government does not have a great record of settling claims. I am still waiting because I would have liked to see a settlement bill come to this House for a settlement the Government had actually started and completed itself but I do not think I will see it because this Government will be going out of power. 
Moving on I say there are three areas Gerry Brownlee referred to and on which I want to make some comment—mostly because the Minister had some comments to make and I want to comment on some of the things he said. 
Firstly there is the matter of the mandate. It is not as if National wants to ridicule at all those numbers of the iwi who first of all ratified the provision for the governance entity and then of course accepted the settlement. It is that we like every party in this House that supports these claims want to be sure that there is no basis for an iwi to come back in the future on the same kaupapa on the basis that they did not all agree in the past. So that is the underlying reason why National continues to raise the issue of mandate. Hopefully if we continue to raise it it will keep the Office of Treaty Settlements on its toes and make it strive harder with each settlement to make sure we increase the buy-in of the iwi that is participating in the particular settlement. 
In relation to the issue of whangai and adopted children again I think my colleague Gerry Brownlee in raising this issue also raises a good point. The fact of the matter is that on the one hand we are acknowledging supposedly the mana of Nga Rauru Kitahi by acknowledging the harm the hurt and the injustice that has been done to them. Therefore we want to make reparation for that and to provide a base in order for them to move on. But on the other hand legislation is also in place that takes away their right their responsibility and their mandate to define who should benefit from this settlement. So the issue of whangai and adopted children so far as the Adoption Act of 1955 and also the Human Rights Act are concerned is a real issue. According to tikanga Maori one’s right to inherit is based on bloodlines and where adopted children are being considered then clearly bloodlines are not in the picture. So that will be an ongoing issue for tribes as they settle their claims. 
Of course the situation can be reached I guess where a Maori family may have adopted a person from another country and culture altogether. That is fine; nobody would wish to stop that and it is happening. But if one’s tribal tikanga says that the way one inherits is because one is descended through whakapapa and blood then someone who has become part of a family through legal adoption clearly does not fit into that category. Again that is an issue. 
Even Mahara Okeroa in his wisdom said he sees the anomaly in that—the situation when a person who is outside the bloodlines of the iwi we are talking about can be included. In fact he described that as a difficult situation. I have to agree with him and unless the Government can address its mind to it—and we in the National Government in a few months’ time certainly will address our minds to it—in the end it is not a viable situation where on the one hand as I say we are trying to recognise the mana of the tribe and on the other hand we are telling them who should be included in their tribe. It just will not jell I do not think. 
The third area concerns the area in which National joined with New Zealand First to include a minority view in the report back. It will not be fatal in terms of our support of the bill but it is something we think that if the Government does not give serious thought to then certainly National in Government will do so—that is where this Parliament legislates for the cosmology the spiritual beliefs—[ 
Interruption 
] My colleague Wayne Mapp can describe it as he sees fit. I certainly think that it is entirely unnecessary. 
 The unnecessary nature of it was shown up when largely due to the input of National in the Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill—now an Act—a statutory acknowledgment was taken out of the statute because quite frankly the association of an iwi is recognised quite adequately in the deed of settlement. 
Just because Parliament says: “This is your cosmology.” that does not make it any more lawful or any more legal. There are some tribes that would say: “Whether Parliament recognises it or not this is my cosmological inheritance these are my spiritual beliefs I don’t need Parliament to recognise that.” 
The issue is I acknowledge—as referred to by the Minister—that it was done in the Ngai Tahu settlement. That may be so but as we move on through this process we learn more and we think maybe we could have done that differently. I think that is the way we deal with difficult issues and it is likely that when National is in Government it will look at this issue. If it can be properly recognised in the deed of settlement then we ask why on earth would we need to then put it into law. Iwi should be asking themselves why they need Parliament to recognise those things that are part of them.