This Act is the Ngāti Whare Claims Settlement Act 2012.

This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.

The purpose of this Act is—

This Act binds the Crown.

This section is a guide to the overall scheme and effect of this Act, but does not affect the interpretation or application of the other provisions of this Act or of the deed of settlement.

Section 6 sets out the historical account given in Part 2 of the deed of settlement.

Sections 3, 4, and 7 to 19—

This Act provides for cultural redress, including—

There are 3 schedules that—

This is an account of the historical events upon which the Crown’s acknowledgements and apology in sections 7 and 8 are based.

Ngāti Whare are the descendants of Toi Te Huatahi. Ngāti Whare take their name from their most prominent ancestor, Wharepakau-Tao-Tao-Ki-Te-Kapua (Wharepakau) of the ancient Tini-o-Toi, who had settled around the Bay of Plenty. After a series of heke, Wharepakau and his whānau migrated to the Rangitaiki and Te Whāiti-Nui-a-Toi area. Together, Wharepakau and his nephew Tangiharuru fought and defeated Te Marangaranga, the original occupants of the land. When the fighting ceased Wharepakau and his whānau took up residence with Te Marangaranga on lands along the Whirinaki River, bordered by a great expanse of ancient forest rich in resources. From that time the descendants of Wharepakau and Te Marangaranga adopted the name “Ngāti Whare” in recognition of their common ancestor.

Over time the descendants of Wharepakau increased in number and prospered, and in the process formed hapū. New pā and kāinga were erected. Patterns of seasonal resource use were developed through Te Whāiti-Nui-a-Toi and neighbouring areas. Strategic marriages were also made with the descendants of Tangiharuru, to whom Ngāti Whare remained closely connected, as well as with others such as the descendants of Ngā Potiki, Tuhoe and Apa Hapai-Taketake. Occasionally persons from outside hapū were invited by Ngāti Whare to reside with them and through intermarriage these groups were incorporated as new hapū into Ngāti Whare.

The hapū of Ngāti Whare comprise Ngāti Kohiwi, Ngāti Te Karaha, Ngāi Te Au, Ngāti Tuahiwi, Ngāti Whare ki Ngā Potiki, Ngāti Mahanga, Ngāti Hamua ki Te Whāiti and Warahoe ki Te Whāiti.

Ngāti Whare held their land and resources under collective tribal and hapū custodianship. Their land tenure system did not operate on fixed iwi and hapū boundaries. Ngāti Whare practised a system where the rights of hapū or whānau to travel through, to gather resources from, to cultivate upon, or to occupy lands depended to a great extent on the genealogical, social and political relationships between different kin groups.

Ngāti Whare generally lived in peace with their neighbours. At times, however, Ngāti Whare hapū fought against their neighbours and sometimes they allied with their neighbours against common foes. In the 1820s Ngāti Whare were drawn into the wars which ranged throughout New Zealand, as access to muskets upset existing relationships between hapū and iwi. The disruption caused by the fighting and the complex alliances that were made and remade in this period was considerable. By the mid 1830s more stable relationships between Ngāti Whare and their neighbours were reinstated, often with the assistance of peace-making marriages. Ngāti Whare continued to occupy their lands largely as before.

Ngāti Whare did not sign the Treaty of Waitangi. Ngāti Whare visited places of early European settlement, such as Whakatane, Tūranganui-a-Kiwa and Ahuriri in the Hawke’s Bay where they were exposed to new ideas and practices such as literacy. They also worked and traded goods in the developing colonial economy.

In the two decades following the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi the Crown did not try to exercise any form of authority in the Urewera region, including over Ngāti Whare. Ngāti Whare did not sell any of their land. The only European presence was the missionary James Preece and his family, from 1847 to 1852, who resided on land that Ngāti Whare gifted near their kāinga Ahikereru. After Preece’s departure Ngāti Whare continued to practise the Christian faith, led by their own teachers.

The first visit by a government official to the area took place in 1862. It was only after war broke out between the Crown and Māori in the early 1860s in Taranaki and later in the Waikato that the arrival of the Crown had any real impact upon Ngāti Whare. Following the Crown’s unjust invasion of the Waikato in 1863 the Kingitanga was pushed down the Waikato River. In early 1864, senior emissaries of the King sought support from the tribes of Te Urewera. Ngāti Whare and Ngāti Manawa held a hui and decided that the two iwi would divide, one to go with the Māori King, the other to go with the Government. In late March 1864 approximately 20 Ngāti Whare went to the Waikato and fought with their whanaunga against the Crown at Orakau. A number of Ngāti Whare people were killed but others managed to return home. Ngāti Whare had no further involvement in the Waikato War.

In 1862, the Taranaki spiritual leader Te Ua Haumene developed the peaceful, biblically based doctrines of the Pai Mārire faith. In the context of warfare his doctrines were misinterpreted and misapplied by some of his emissaries. In February 1865 a group of Pai Mārire emissaries, including Kereopa Te Rau and Patara Raukatauri, arrived at Tauaroa pā near Te Whāiti en route to Tūranga. Te Urewera Māori were divided on whether to accept the new religion. Many Ngāti Whare embraced its teachings while other iwi rejected them.

Kereopa and Patara proceeded to Whakatane and Opotiki later that month and on 2 March 1865 Kereopa led the group that killed Reverend Volkner at Opotiki. Ngāti Whare played no part in his death. In April 1865 the Government proclaimed that it would use all the means in its power to suppress Pai Mārire and called upon all “well disposed” persons to assist them.

In June 1865, members of Ngāti Whare and another iwi resolved to accompany many of the Pai Mārire emissaries back to the Taranaki region. Ngāti Manawa, who had previously warned Pai Mārire not to enter their rohe, sought to stop them. They fortified Te Tāpiri and demanded to know the whereabouts of Kereopa. Ngāti Whare and their allies took offence at these actions and besieged Te Tāpiri. Over the period of a fortnight reinforcements arrived to support the besiegers. Kereopa was with one of these groups. After some fighting and loss of life on both sides, the defenders evacuated the pā and escaped to Rotorua.

In July 1865, a Crown commander visited the recently erected Ngāti Whare pā at Te Whāiti called Te Harema. He concluded that Ngāti Whare were not taking any further role in Kereopa’s campaign. Kereopa remained in the region until his capture in late 1871. Ngāti Whare continued to practise the Pai Mārire faith and lived in relative peace for three years.

In June 1868 Te Kooti Arikirangi Te Turuki led the escape of several hundred Māori, who had been held for two and a half years without trial on the Chatham Islands following fighting on the East Coast between Crown forces and Pai Mārire adherents. Te Kooti and his followers (known as the Whakarau) landed south of Tūranga and hoped to find sanctuary in Taupo.

The Crown set out to apprehend the Whakarau and a number of skirmishes were fought through July and August 1868. Te Kooti attacked Matawhero in early November 1868, where a considerable number of Māori and Pākehā men, women, and children were killed. Following this Crown forces besieged and defeated the Whakarau at Ngatapa pā. Some escaped, but a considerable number of Māori men, women, and children were killed. This included the execution of prisoners by Crown forces without trial.

In January 1869, Te Kooti sought refuge in the Urewera region. Ngāti Whare joined neighbours in an agreement to support Te Kooti and his followers seeing him as a prophet and identifying with the injustice of his detention without trial by the Crown. Some Ngāti Whare took part in an attack, led by Te Kooti, on Mohaka in April 1869, in which a significant number of Māori and Pākehā men, women, and children were killed. Following this the Crown planned a three-pronged military operation into Te Urewera in an effort to capture or kill Te Kooti and to punish those who supported him.

In pursuit of Te Kooti, a Crown force led by the same officer who had overseen the execution of prisoners at Ngatapa, made a surprise attack on the Ngāti Whare pā Te Harema at Ahikereru on 6 May 1869. Te Kooti was not there nor were most of the Ngāti Whare fighting force. In total five or six Ngāti Whare men were killed. Some were shot as they resisted the attackers, while others were shot down as they tried to retreat from the pā “hampered with their women and children”. Some of the men shot were elderly. A few men managed to escape. As many as 50 women and children were taken prisoner.

According to Ngāti Whare oral tradition, women were raped in the attack and as a consequence some committed suicide by drowning themselves in the Whirinaki River. The captured women and children were handed over to Māori troops fighting alongside the Crown, and taken from their rohe. The Commander of the Crown forces commented that he had done this “so that this hapū will be destroyed”. Those Ngāti Whare remaining in Te Urewera were told that they could surrender and join their women in exile, where they were to remain. Te Harema pā was destroyed, leaving it in a “mass of flames”. The Crown forces also looted and destroyed all other kāinga, cultivations, and provisions in the valley.

Members of Ngāti Whare accompanied Te Kooti to Taupo and Te Rohe Potae during 1869 and 1870, where Te Kooti sought an audience with the Māori King. King Tawhiao refused to receive him. Te Kooti and his followers, including some members of Ngāti Whare, subsequently fought Crown forces at Te Ponanga and Te Porere before being pursued around the central North Island and slipping back into Te Urewera on 8 February 1870.

Te Kooti was never captured, but was pardoned in 1883 and returned to Te Whāiti in 1884 to acknowledge those who had sheltered him by opening the new meeting house, Eripitana.

During early 1870 the members of Ngāti Whare who accompanied Te Kooti returned to Ahikereru. Crown officers then negotiated with Ngāti Whare to surrender. The Defence Minister offered immunity from prosecution to those who did so voluntarily. They had to surrender their weapons and leave Te Urewera. On 25 April 1870, 18 Ngāti Whare surrendered including six men, three women and nine children. On 20 May 1870, the Ngāti Whare chief Hapurona Kohi surrendered, taking the remaining Ngāti Whare with him. They joined the prisoners taken at Te Harema and were placed under the control of Crown allies at Te Pūtere.

While kept at Te Pūtere, Ngāti Whare had to supplement insufficient government rations by growing and catching their own food, despite the limited and poor quality of the land made available to them. In February 1871, Hapurona Kohi and Hamiora Potakurua complained of their difficulties producing food at Te Pūtere. The Defence Minister promised officials would look for other land and said that “they should have a supply of clothing and also of food”. The Minister informed chiefs at Te Pūtere that they could return home on 15 April 1872. Ngāti Whare gradually returned to Te Whāiti between 1872 and 1874.

Some Ngāti Whare women remained near the coast because of the shame they felt in consequence of the circumstances of their capture and imprisonment.

The Ringatu Church, established by Te Kooti, spread through the region and Pai Mārire was abandoned.

In 1872 Urewera hapū and iwi established a confederation—Te Whitu Tekau—to coordinate decision-making in the region. Ngāti Whare participated in and usually supported the confederation. It objected to lands being surveyed and title being determined by the Native Land Court, as in other places this had led to land alienation.

The Native Land Court was established under the Native Land Acts of 1862 and 1865 to determine the owners of Māori land “according to Native Custom” and to convert customary title into title derived from the Crown.

The Court’s investigation of title for land could be initiated with an application in writing by any Māori. The Court did not act on all applications but in some instances surveys or investigations of title proceeded without the support of all of the hapū who claimed interests in the lands. In most cases the land was surveyed and then the Court would hear the claims of the claimants and any counter-claimants. Those the Court determined were owners received a certificate of title.

In the late 1870s the Native Land Court began to investigate title to lands along the western side of Te Urewera. These lands became known by the block names Heruiwi, Heruiwi 4, Kaingaroa 1 and 2, Kuhawaea, Whirinaki, Rūnanga, Pukahunui, and Pohokura.

Ngāti Whare maintained opposition to the Court and did not actively participate in hearings or contest the title investigations, even though they had interests in these blocks. Ngāti Whare interests were later acknowledged by a leading rangatira of another iwi that was awarded a share of the titles to most of these blocks. The Native Land Court awarded all the blocks to other iwi, even though—

Some Ngāti Whare names were included in the titles to most of these blocks when other iwi chose to include them in the lists of owners they handed into the Court. While these individuals were possibly seen as representatives of Ngāti Whare interests, or the interests of Ngāti Whare hapū, they did not in law have a trustee capacity for all Ngāti Whare.

Following the Native Land Court hearings those awarded interests in the blocks sold much of the land to the Crown. Kuhawaea 1 block was sold to a private purchaser, as were parts of Pukahunui, Pohokura and Kaingaroa 2 blocks. In 1907 a Ngāti Whare rangatira denied that Ngāti Whare received any money from these sales. The rapid alienation of these blocks left Ngāti Whare eager to protect their remaining lands from sale.

In 1894 a delegation led by Premier Richard Seddon travelled through Te Urewera. Seddon wanted to hear the views of Urewera groups on a range of issues. All land in Te Urewera was still held under Māori customary title and Seddon also wanted to explain Crown policy on issues relating to Māori land and prosperity, in particular in relation to the determination of title. When visiting Ngāti Whare, Seddon argued that benefits would flow to Ngāti Whare if title to their lands was determined. He stated that the Crown would act as a ‘protector’ for Ngāti Whare, as set out in the Treaty of Waitangi. Ngāti Whare responded positively to these suggestions and agreed to enter further discussions.

Crown officials met with Te Urewera leaders in Ruatoki in January 1895 and advised that trigonometrical survey work would be carried out through Te Urewera in the near future. Survey work began in April 1895. Ngāti Whare and other Urewera Māori were fearful that consequences of the surveying would be land loss. Ngāti Whare obstructed the survey party at Te Whāiti. The Crown responded by sending soldiers to occupy Te Whāiti among other places.

These events served as a catalyst for meetings in September 1895 between the Crown and Urewera leaders. Te Urewera leaders sought self-government and protection of their lands from alienation. The Premier offered Ngāti Whare and other Urewera Māori:

Decisions for the use and alienation of land would be made collectively and according to Māori custom. Seddon also made statements about protecting birds and forests and providing trout to stock waterways.

Parliament enacted the Urewera District Native Reserve Act 1896 to give effect to these agreements. The Act provided for an alternative to the Native Land Court to determine ownership of customary lands in a reserve of 656,000 acres, including the remaining lands of Ngāti Whare. Title was to be held at hapū level and would be determined by a Commission, comprised of five Tūhoe and two Pākehā commissioners. The Crown would pay the survey and other costs involved in determining title. In addition, local block committees would be set up to administer land and a General Committee established to deal with local affairs including making decisions about the alienation of land.

Ngāti Whare believed this system would protect their lands in the Reserve from sale.

The determination of land titles by the two Urewera Commissions was a drawn out process and proved difficult for Ngāti Whare. The first Urewera Commission investigated title to a series of blocks around Te Whāiti in 1901–1902. The Te Whāiti block was awarded to Ngāti Whare and another iwi, with a third iwi missing out. Other blocks around Te Whāiti included the Maraetahia, Otairi and Tawhiuau blocks, which were separately awarded to hapū of Ngāti Whare and another iwi.

The Second Urewera Commission (1906–1907) heard nineteen appeals against the Te Whāiti block award. The original title was overturned. Ngāti Whare and the neighbouring iwi who had been excluded in 1902 were together awarded title. In total 318 Ngāti Whare individuals were granted title, along with 189 individuals from the neighbouring iwi. The Commission rejected some of the names Ngāti Whare put forward for inclusion on the title. In 1913 the Native Land Court on appeal added a further 65 Ngāti Whare names to the title.

The key aim of the Urewera District Native Reserve Act 1896 was to establish local Māori governance but no formal body was established for more than a decade. There was also considerable delay in establishing functioning Block Committees. In 1902, the first Urewera Commission appointed provisional block committees. They were not subsequently approved by the Crown because of the outstanding appeals to the Commission’s decisions on owners. A second group of provisional block committees were approved after the publication of the Commission’s 1907 awards.

The Crown subsequently amended the Act in ways which undermined the system of self-government it provided for the Reserve. The first General Committee was elected in 1908. Later that year the Crown gave itself power to appoint and dismiss members of the Committee. Coupled with other amendments, this undermined the original democratic structure of the Reserve.

The Crown appointed an Urewera General Committee, which included Wharepapa Whatanui of Ngāti Whare, as the governing body of the Reserve in March 1909. The Crown made no move to assist the Committee to prepare regulations for the running of the Reserve.

In 1909 legislation was enacted empowering the Crown to declare individual blocks in the Reserve subject to the jurisdiction of the Native Land Court. Ngāti Whare were not consulted over these amendments to the 1896 Act.

Ngāti Whare suffered poverty in the early twentieth century. Regular food shortages, combined with poor housing, exacerbated the impact of introduced diseases such as influenza, smallpox, measles, and typhoid. Aside from seasonal work outside Te Urewera there were few sources of income available to Ngāti Whare. In 1898 a series of unseasonal frosts swept through Te Urewera leading to total crop destruction.

Other crop failures took place periodically to the 1910s, creating an environment of considerable economic and social stress for Ngāti Whare. Teachers at Te Whāiti Native School regularly informed the Crown about such issues.

Ngāti Whare were, however, asset rich in the timber that grew on the Te Whāiti block. From the later nineteenth century they sought opportunities to sell some of the timber to generate an income, including limited harvesting of totara for fence posts. In 1909 Te Whāiti owners negotiated the sale of timber cutting rights with a private party, with the intention of establishing a sawmill. However, the Crown prevented the sale.

In 1910 some Ngāti Whare offered to sell 6000 acres in the Te Whāiti block to the Crown. The Crown wanted to secure land in the area and agreed to advances of two shillings per acre. That year, a Crown adviser suggested that the Te Whāiti block be subdivided to end disputes between Ngāti Whare and the other iwi with whom they shared the block. In 1913 the block was partitioned and Ngāti Whare received Te Whāiti 1 block of 45,048 acres.

Ngāti Whare continued to pursue their economic options, taking their timber selling proposal to two meetings of the General Committee in 1914. The General Committee approved their proposal in April 1914, but the Crown did not endorse their decision effectively preventing the lease from taking place.

Later that year, the Crown started purchasing the land interests of individuals in Te Urewera without seeking approval of the General Committee. This was illegal under the Urewera District Native Reserve Act 1896. The Crown’s land purchase agent was informed by the Native Department that future legislation would be required to “validate these purchases, the present state of the law plainly requiring that all purchases should be made through the General Committee of the Urewera Natives”.

In May 1915 the Crown resolved to purchase the Te Whāiti blocks. The Crown’s decision to purchase individual shares in the two Te Whāiti blocks prevented private leases from being completed and thus prevented Ngāti Whare from gaining any direct economic benefit from their land, other than sale to the Crown, for well over a decade.

Under the Urewera District Native Reserve Act 1896, the final say in leasing and sale of the land or its timber was held by the General Committee. The law required the Crown to hold a meeting of the assembled owners of a land block, before beginning negotiations to purchase individual interests in the land. The Crown did not hold such a meeting in its negotiations for Te Whāiti and nothing was done to ensure that those selling their interests were left with sufficient land for their subsistence.

Through the period of Crown purchase the Crown used a number of techniques to maximise sales in the Te Whāiti blocks. Resident non-sellers were actively restrained by the Crown from cutting timber for fence posts. The Crown worked to prevent hearing of applications made to the Māori Land Court by non-selling owners to partition out their interests so that they could utilise their own land as they saw fit. Absentee owners were more likely to sell their interests, although a good number of resident owners sold part of their interests. Such sales were likely driven by economic necessity.

In 1916 legislation was enacted that allowed the Crown to purchase individual interests in the Reserve. In 1921 further legislation was enacted to retrospectively legalise Crown purchases in Te Urewera, including purchases in the Te Whāiti block. The General Committee was not consulted on these departures from the 1895 agreement and its powers were extinguished in the 1921 legislation.

The Crown’s purchase of Te Whāiti 1 was based on its 1915 valuation of £18,687 for the 45,048 acres or 8s 3d per acre. The valuation was not tested on the open market and there was no independent review of the valuation. The owners considered the land and its timber were worth between £5 to £10 per acre, while the Crown land purchaser considered Ngāti Whare had “a very exaggerated idea of the value” of the timber. The value attributed to the land by the Crown was the value at which purchases were made.

Surveys undertaken in the 1990s revealed the 1915 valuation had considerably underestimated the amount of productive timber on the block and overstated the development costs of the land. There is no evidence that the Crown deliberately underestimated the volume of timber on the block, but it benefited from a poor valuation. Ngāti Whare owners later protested the low valuation given for the timber.

By 1919 the rate of sale of individual interests in the Reserve had decreased considerably. The Crown’s policy of acquiring individual interests in blocks throughout the Reserve had left both the Crown and Māori without clear title to any blocks and unable to develop the land they owned. Both faced expensive and extended court processes to partition out their respective interests. The Crown continued purchasing interests in the Te Whāiti block, but also began organising a scheme to consolidate interests throughout the Reserve to create economic units for Māori non-sellers and incoming settlers. It also aimed to set aside areas for soil conservation and scenic reserves.

Under the scheme individual owners had their interest in blocks across the Reserve consolidated into what were expected to be whānau blocks in single locations. Because most Ngāti Whare non-sellers only had interests in the Te Whāiti series blocks, an attempt to shift them to blocks where they had no customary interests failed. Non-sellers in the Te Whāiti series blocks were eventually consolidated into 10 groups in subdivisions, as well as residue blocks.

The Ngāti Whare and other non-sellers were awarded 14,466 acres of the original 71,340 acre block. This was later reduced to 10,840 acres to cover costs of survey and roads. The Urewera District Native Reserves Act 1896 had sought to avert such losses. The Crown was awarded almost all of the valuable timber land in the Te Whāiti block.

In 1926 titles were awarded. Ngāti Whare were then able to utilise the resources on their remaining land. In 1928 they began selling timber cutting rights to commercial millers.

In 1928 the first sawmill opened at Te Whāiti. At this time the Crown had granted the Waiariki District Māori Land Board authority to grant cutting rights over Ngāti Whare owned lands. Neither the Board nor the sawmillers gained the consent of the Commissioner of Forests, whose written consent was required before cutting on Māori land took place. Ngāti Whare notified the Crown that the millers were cutting timber in a wasteful way. The Commissioner of Forests considered the owners had been treated unfairly and “that this invalid contract should be terminated as soon as possible”. However, neither the Māori Land Court nor the Forest Service intervened to safeguard the interests of landowners. Consequently the amount of saleable timber on Māori owned land at Te Whāiti decreased rapidly in the first years of the Depression. The State Forest Service withheld its consent when another private company applied for cutting rights so the mill remained the only company allowed to mill at Te Whāiti.

In 1935 Crown officers recommended that all felling in Te Urewera stop, except in the Whirinaki Valley in which the Te Whāiti block sat. The officers also suggested that Māori should be compensated adequately if they were prevented from logging their forests. In 1936 the Crown offered to purchase the Te Whāiti Residue No 2 block from Ngāti Whare to preserve the forest. Landowners expressed distrust because of past Crown actions and did not want to sell their lands.

In 1938 landowners accepted a Crown offer to exchange the Te Whāiti Residue B block for nearby Crown land that was suitable for farming but which was lying idle. Māori landowners wanted to proceed immediately. For 15 years the Crown promised to exchange the Te Whāiti Residue B block and neighbouring Māori blocks with Crown land, but this never transpired. Ngāti Whare finally sold cutting rights on the Te Whāiti Residue B in 1954.

In the 1930s the State Forest Service, concerned about the destructive practices employed by private sawmillers, decided to carry out its own logging using a system of selective logging to manage the forest on a sustained yield basis. The scheme began in 1938 in podocarp stands in the Whirinaki valley on the border of State Forest 58.

The Forest Service established a model village at Minginui in 1948. By mid-1950, 69 houses had been built, and by 1980 there were a total of 94 houses at Minginui. Between 1951 and 1981 Minginui supported a population that fluctuated between 374 and 444 persons.

The Forest Service contracted to supply timber to three privately-owned sawmills in 1946. The demand for timber continued after World War II and in 1950 the Forest Service completed a management plan. Endorsing the ongoing felling of podocarp timber, it aimed to retain the viability of forests and the communities that depended on them.

The Forest Service administration of Minginui from the late 1940s to 1984 had a positive impact on Ngāti Whare’s social and health conditions, with improved social and health services, good employment, better housing, and new schools.

From the 1940s to the 1960s Ngāti Whare were keen to develop their remaining lands and sought to have them included in Crown operated development schemes for Māori owned land. Because of the small amount of land left in Ngāti Whare ownership and the prioritisation of areas where greater levels of Māori land was retained, the Crown did not begin assisting Ngāti Whare in this way until the 1970s.

The Crown began drafting plans to develop Te Whāiti lands from 1971. By this time the Crown considered that Ngāti Whare’s remaining land would be more suited to forestry than pastoral farming. At this stage Ngāti Whare hoped to use exotic forestry to fund much needed repairs to their marae, promote tribal employment, protect their wāhi tapu, and gain an income from the land. For its part, the Crown wanted to utilise underdeveloped Māori land, make a profit from the trees, provide a return for the owners, and enhance the recreation and environmental value of the land.

In January 1974, the Māori Land Court consolidated much of the remaining Ngāti Whare land in a new block, named Te Whāiti-Nui-a-Toi. The Court vested the 7,777 acre block in the Māori Trustee under section 438 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953. Out of this block, 4,983 acres were to be leased for forestry purposes. The remaining acres, unsuitable for forestry or farming due to their broken and steep nature, were to be used and managed or alienated at the discretion of the Māori Trustee.

The Māori Trustee negotiated the forestry lease on behalf of the owners. Ngāti Whare needed revenue for their marae and could not wait until the trees were harvested 30 years later. Nor did they want to lose control over their lands for the usual period in forest leases of 99 years. Six of the beneficial owners were Advisory Trustees to the Māori Trustee, but they were not always kept informed of key developments.

For most of the negotiations the draft lease included provisions for Ngāti Whare and the Crown to share profits from the harvest of the trees, while also providing some income for the owners in its early years. Without any explanation being made to the Advisory Trustees, profit sharing provisions were dropped from negotiations in August 1975. At that time New Zealand was facing rising and unprecedented inflation.

The final 1976 lease was for 66 years, had no provision for profit sharing and paid the Ngāti Whare owners $8,100 per annum for the whole term of the lease adjusted annually by the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The lease did not contain a rental review clause. It was the only CPI adjusted rental lease entered into between the Crown and Māori. In August 1989 the Māori Land Court ordered the transfer of the Te Whāiti-Nui-a-Toi lease from the Māori Trustee to beneficial owner Trustees, establishing the Te Whāiti-Nui-a-Toi Trust in the process.

From 1994 the rapid acceleration of land values, relative to consumer prices, meant that the Te Whāiti-Nui-a-Toi owners’ return was significantly lower than that received by other forestry owners. As a result, the lease did not benefit the owners as much as anticipated. The Trustees were finally able to renegotiate an improved lease with the Crown in 2007.

In 1984 the Whirinaki Conservation Park (commonly referred to as the Whirinaki Forest Park) was established and shortly thereafter the Crown stopped the felling of indigenous timber. From early 1985 the Forest Service was restructured, ultimately into three new organisations: the Ministry of Forestry, the New Zealand Forestry Corporation and the Department of Conservation. In 1987 most of the Whirinaki Conservation Park was transferred to the Department of Conservation to be preserved as an ecological reserve. The balance of the Park was allocated to ongoing commercial use under the Crown Forestry Licence regime set out in the Crown Forest Assets Act 1989.

The New Zealand Forestry Corporation, established on 1 April 1987, did not wish to provide housing for their employees and support forestry communities such as Minginui. Minginui residents who had been employed by the Forest Service were no longer required. There were significant job losses as a result. Unemployment in Minginui was recorded at 51 percent in April 1987 and estimated at 95 percent in late 1988 after the last private mill closed. Many of those made redundant were Ngāti Whare.

After four decades of relative prosperity, only a handful of Ngāti Whare were able to earn a living in their own rohe. Many left and those who chose to remain on their traditional lands became, and remain, largely dependent on benefits. This, and a dramatic decline in services, had a significant impact on Ngāti Whare and the community, including greater poverty and poorer health conditions.

In 1987, the Crown and Ngāti Whare began discussions on the future of Minginui Village. Ngāti Whare wanted to regain ownership of their ancestral land. They also wanted to protect the houses in the village and to administer it as a papakainga. The Crown sought to support Māori living on their tribal lands and avoid the considerable social costs of relocating the community. Minginui’s infrastructure (roads, footpaths, sewerage system, stormwater, water supply, and street lighting) was below government standards. The Whakatane District Council was reluctant to take over administration of the village if these deficiencies were not addressed. The Crown was aware that the cost of bringing the town’s infrastructure up to standard was estimated at over a million dollars.

In March 1988, the Te Whāiti-Nui-a-Toi Trust in conjunction with the Minginui Village Council sought to take over the running of the village. The Crown agreed. On 29 March 1989, the Māori Land Court vested Minginui in Wharepakau, the eponymous ancestor of Ngāti Whare. A new body—the Ngāti Whare Trust—was established to hold the land, with day to day operations being carried out by a subsidiary, Minginui Village Council Ltd.

Minginui Village did not prosper after 1989. The Crown made a $100,000 contribution for the upgrading of infrastructure, but the Trust responsible for administering Minginui Village had few resources to meet infrastructure needs. Infrastructure problems identified in 1987 went largely unaddressed for twenty years. Ngāti Whare have sought for a number of years to engage with the Crown about the ongoing socio-economic and infrastructural needs of Minginui Village. The Crown and Ngāti Whare are currently working on resolving these issues.

The Crown acknowledges that it has failed to address the long standing grievances of Ngāti Whare in an appropriate way and that recognition of these grievances is long overdue.

The Crown acknowledges that Ngāti Whare did not sign the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840 and that by 1864, when Ngāti Whare were involved in fighting against the Crown alongside the Kingitanga, Ngāti Whare and the Crown had not established a relationship from which Ngāti Whare felt a meaningful duty of allegiance to the Crown could be derived.

The Crown acknowledges that from 1868 war was brought to Te Urewera as the Crown sought to apprehend Te Kooti and Ngāti Whare chose to support Te Kooti, seeing him as a prophet and identifying with the injustice of his detention without trial by the Crown.

The Crown’s actions during and after its 1869 attack on Te Harema pā included:

The Crown acknowledges that its actions during and after its 1869 attack on Te Harema pā as set out in subsection (4) had a destructive effect on the mana, social structure, and well-being of Ngāti Whare. The Crown acknowledges that its conduct showed reckless disregard for Ngāti Whare, went beyond what was necessary or appropriate in these circumstances, and was in breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

The Crown acknowledges the sense of grievance suffered by Ngāti Whare and the distress to generations of Ngāti Whare who have carried the stigma of being labelled rebels by the Crown.

The Crown acknowledges that—

The Crown acknowledges that its 1894–1895 discussions with Ngāti Whare and other Urewera Māori were conducted in good faith by both parties. The resulting Urewera District Native Reserve Act 1896 sought to promote tribal autonomy and good governance and to protect land ownership.

The Crown acknowledges that, in implementing the Urewera District Native Reserve Act 1896, the Crown—

The Crown acknowledges that the actions set out in subsection (9) undermined the Crown’s relationship with Ngāti Whare and were a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

The Crown acknowledges that its purchasing of individual interests in the Te Whāiti block left Ngāti Whare virtually landless and that their land holdings were further diminished as a result of the Urewera Consolidation Scheme when the Crown required those Ngāti Whare who managed to retain their lands to pay for survey and roading costs in land.

The Crown acknowledges that the cumulative effect of its actions has alienated Ngāti Whare from their lands hindering their economic, social, and cultural development. The Crown acknowledges that its failure to ensure that Ngāti Whare retained sufficient land for their present and future needs was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

The Crown acknowledges that the people of New Zealand benefited from the milling of timber on lands alienated from Ngāti Whare and that, following the creation of Whirinaki Conservation Park in 1984, all of New Zealand has benefited from the preservation of the native forest and promotion of the conservation of those lands.

The Crown acknowledges the generosity of spirit shown by Ngāti Whare in their desire to ensure ongoing public access and use of the Whirinaki Conservation Park.

The Crown acknowledges that Ngāti Whare sought its assistance to develop their remaining land from the 1940s and that the original Te Whāiti-Nui-a-Toi lease that was agreed in 1976 for this purpose did not benefit Ngāti Whare as anticipated.

The Crown acknowledges that its cessation of indigenous logging in the Whirinaki Forest and its subsequent corporatisation of the New Zealand Forest Service resulted in high unemployment rates for Minginui Village, a significant decline in services, and an increase in poverty. This had a devastating and lasting impact on Minginui Village and the people of Ngāti Whare, which was compounded by the return of Minginui Village to Ngāti Whare without adequate resources or support.

The Crown recognises that until now it has failed to address the longstanding grievances of Ngāti Whare in an appropriate way and that the Crown’s recognition of these grievances is long overdue. Accordingly, the Crown makes the following apology to Ngāti Whare and to their ancestors and descendants.

The Crown profoundly regrets and unreservedly apologises to Ngāti Whare for the breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi, and its principles, acknowledged above.

The Crown deeply regrets the loss of lives, destruction, and harm inflicted on Ngāti Whare during and after its 1869 attack on Te Harema pā and unreservedly apologises to Ngāti Whare for its actions.

The Crown regrets that Ngāti Whare have borne the stigma of being labelled rebels.

The Crown profoundly regrets and apologises for the cumulative effect of its actions and omissions over generations which have resulted in the virtual landlessness of Ngāti Whare to the present day.

The Crown apologises to Ngāti Whare for the detrimental effects of its actions on them, their access to customary resources and significant sites, their economic and social development, and their physical, cultural, and spiritual wellbeing.

Through this apology the Crown seeks to atone for these past wrongs, restore its honour which has been tarnished by its actions, and begin the process of healing. The Crown looks forward to building a lasting relationship based on mutual trust and cooperation with Ngāti Whare.

It is the intention of Parliament that the provisions of this Act are interpreted in a manner that best furthers the agreements expressed in the deed of settlement.

In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—

In this Act, Ngāti Whare—

For the purpose of subsection (1)(a), a person is descended from another person if descended from the other person by any 1 or more of the following:

In this Act, historical claim has the meaning given to it in this section.

Historical claim means every claim that—

Historical claim includes—

Historical claim does not include—

The historical claims are settled.

The settlement of the historical claims is final and, on and from the settlement date, the Crown is released and discharged from all obligations and liabilities in respect of those claims.

Subsections (1) and (2) do not—

The rights referred to in subsection (3)(b)—

Despite any other enactment or rule of law, on and from the settlement date, the courts, the Waitangi Tribunal, or any other judicial bodies or tribunals do not have jurisdiction (including the jurisdiction to inquire into, or make a finding or recommendation) in respect of,—

Subsection (5) does not exclude the jurisdiction of the courts, the Waitangi Tribunal, or any other judicial bodies and tribunals in respect of the interpretation or implementation of the deed of settlement or this Act.

Despite subsection (5)(a), the Waitangi Tribunal—

This section amends the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975.

Schedule 3 is amended by inserting the following item in its appropriate alphabetical order: “Ngāti Whare Claims Settlement Act 2012, section 13(3) to (6)”.

Nothing in the enactments listed in subsection (2) applies—

The enactments are—

The chief executive of LINZ must issue to the Registrar-General a certificate that identifies (by reference to the relevant legal description, certificate of title, or computer register) each allotment that is—

The chief executive of LINZ must issue a certificate under subsection (1) as soon as is reasonably practicable after the settlement date.

Each certificate must state that is it issued under this section.

The Registrar-General must, as soon as is reasonably practicable after receiving a certificate issued under subsection (1),—

Neither the rule against perpetuities nor the Perpetuities Act 1964 prescribes or restricts the period during which—

Neither the rule against perpetuities nor the Perpetuities Act 1964 applies to a document entered into to give effect to the deed of settlement if the application of the rule or the Act would make the document invalid or ineffective or a right conferred by the document invalid or ineffective.

However, if the trust established by the Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare trust deed is or becomes a charitable trust, whether and how the rule against perpetuities or the Perpetuities Act 1964 applies must be determined under the general law.

Actions or matters occurring under this Act occur or take effect on and from the settlement date.

However, if a provision of this Act requires an action or matter to occur or take effect on a date other than the settlement date, that action or matter occurs or takes effect on and from that other date.

On and from the settlement date, the chief executive of the Ministry of Justice must make copies of the deed of settlement available in the following ways:

The Crown acknowledges the significance of the Whirinaki Te Pua-a-Tāne Conservation Park to Ngāti Whare as the kaitiaki of the park.

A conservation management plan for the Whirinaki Te Pua-a-Tāne Conservation Park must be prepared and approved using the process in sections 22 to 31.

Within 6 months of the settlement date, the Director-General must commence the preparation of a draft Whirinaki Plan in consultation with trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare, the Conservation Board, and any other persons or organisations that the Director-General considers practicable and appropriate.

No later than 6 months after the commencement of the preparation of the draft plan under section 22, the Director-General must—

The notice must—

After consulting the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare, and the Conservation Board, the Director-General may obtain opinion from any other person or organisation on the draft plan by any other means.

From the date of the notice under section 23, the Director-General must make the draft plan available for reading by the public during normal office hours in the places, and in the quantities, that are likely to encourage public participation in the development of the draft plan.

Any person may make a written submission on the draft plan to the Director-General at the place and before the date specified in the notice under section 23(2).

A submission must include a statement as to whether the person wishes to be heard in support of the submission.

The Director-General must give persons who ask to be heard in support of a submission a reasonable opportunity of appearing before a meeting of representatives of the Director-General, the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare, and the Conservation Board.

Representatives of the Director-General, the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare, and the Conservation Board may also hear submissions from any other persons or organisations that have been consulted on the draft plan under section 23(3).

The Director-General, the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare, and the Conservation Board shall determine the procedures at any hearing under this section.

The hearing of submissions must be concluded no later than 2 months after the date specified in the notice under section 23(2).

No later than 1 month after the hearing of submissions has concluded, the Director-General must—

After considering the submissions and any opinion expressed by any other persons or organisations under section 23(3), the Director-General must revise the draft plan in consultation with the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare, and the Conservation Board who heard the submissions.

No later than 4 months after the hearing of submissions has concluded, the Director-General must provide the revised draft plan to trustees of the Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare and the Conservation Board.

When the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare and the Conservation Board receive the revised draft plan, they—

No later than 2 months after receiving a request to do so, the Director-General must revise the draft plan further and send the further revised draft plan to the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare and the Conservation Board.

In sections 27 to 30, references to the draft plan mean the revised draft (see subsection (2)) or the further revised draft (see subsection (5)), depending on which draft trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare and the Conservation Board decide to proceed with.

The trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare and the Conservation Board must send the draft plan and the summary of submissions and other opinions to—

No later than 4 months after receiving the draft plan and summary, the Conservation Authority and the Minister must provide any comments they have on the draft plan to the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare and the Conservation Board.

After considering the comments on the draft plan from the Conservation Authority and the Minister of Conservation, the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare and the Conservation Board may, no later than 2 months after receiving such comments,—

No later than 3 months after the Conservation Authority receives a notice under section 28(b), it must—

The trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare and the Conservation Board must try to resolve the matter of disagreement, taking the recommendation into account.

This section applies if the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare and the Conservation Board have received a recommendation from the Conservation Authority under section 29.

If the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare and the Conservation Board have not resolved the matter of disagreement within 2 months of receiving the recommendation, the recommendation becomes binding on them.

The trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare and the Conservation Board must approve the draft plan no later than 4 months after receiving the recommendation.

No later than 3 months after the settlement date, the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare, the Conservation Board, and the Director-General—

If a disagreement arises between any of the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare, the Conservation Board, and the Director-General during the process set out in sections 22 to 30, the parties to the disagreement must seek to resolve the matter in a co-operative, open-minded, and timely manner before resorting to mediation under this section.

If the parties remain unable to resolve the disagreement, any of the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare, the Conservation Board, and the Director-General may refer the disagreement to mediation.

The party who refers the disagreement to mediation must give written notice to the mediator and the other parties.

All parties must—

The mediation must be completed no later than 3 months after the date of the notice given under subsection (4).

The 3-month period for mediation referred to in subsection (6) is not counted for the purposes of the timeframes in sections 22 to 30 and subsection (1).

While mediation is occurring, the parties must use their best endeavours to continue with the process for the preparation and approval of the Whirinaki Plan.

The parties to the mediation must—

The trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare or the Conservation Board may request the Director-General to initiate a review of the Whirinaki Plan or any part of it.

The Director-General may initiate a review of the Whirinaki Plan or any part of it after receiving a request under subsection (1) or after consulting the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare and the Conservation Board.

The Director-General must review the Whirinaki Plan as a whole no later than—

A review of the Whirinaki Plan must be carried out in accordance with sections 22 to 30, with any necessary modifications.

The Director-General may initiate an amendment of the Whirinaki Plan or any part of it, after consulting the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare and the Conservation Board.

An amendment of the Whirinaki Plan must be carried out in accordance with sections 22 to 30, with any necessary modifications.

However, the Director-General may, instead of complying with subsection (2), send the proposed amendment to the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare and the Conservation Board for approval, if the Director-General, the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare, and the Conservation Board consider that the proposed amendment is of such a nature that it would not materially affect the objectives or policies expressed in the Whirinaki Plan or the public interest in the area concerned.

The Whirinaki Plan is a management plan for the purposes of section 17D(8) of the Conservation Act 1987.

This Act is an Act for the purposes of section 17D(4)(a) of the Conservation Act 1987.

The Conservation Act 1987 applies to the Whirinaki Plan as if it were a conservation management plan under the Act’s provisions, except for sections 17F, 17G, 17H, 17I, 49(2) and (3).

If a conservation management strategy is prepared under section 17F of the Conservation Act 1987, the Director-General, Conservation Authority, Conservation Board, and Minister of Conservation must have regard to the cultural, historical, and spiritual significance of the Whirinaki Te Pua-a-Tāne Conservation Park to Ngāti Whare.

This section applies to the following areas, as shown on the Department of Conservation Whirinaki Te Pua-a-Tāne Conservation Park plan set out in Part 7 of the schedule of the deed of settlement:

The areas are included in and form part of the Whirinaki Te Pua-a-Tāne Conservation Park.

As soon as reasonably practicable after the settlement date, the Minister of Conservation must set out the areas added to the Whirinaki Te Pua-a-Tāne Conservation Park in a notice in the Gazette.

The Crown acknowledges—

Te Whāiti-Nui-a-Toi Canyon is deemed to be a specially protected area under section 18 of the Conservation Act 1987 for the purposes of—

Tūwatawata is deemed to be a specially protected area under section 18 of the Conservation Act 1987 for the purposes of—

With the agreement of the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare, the Minister of Conservation may impose restrictions on activities in the Te Whāiti-Nui-a-Toi Canyon and Tūwatawata specially protected areas.

The Minister must impose the restrictions by notice in the Gazette.

Nothing in this Act affects—

The Te Pua o Whirinaki Regeneration Trust holds and administers the regeneration land for the purposes set out in the Te Pua o Whirinaki Regeneration Trust Deed.

The responsible Minister—

A protocol may be amended or cancelled under subsection (1) at the initiative of either—

The responsible Minister may amend or cancel a protocol only after consulting with, and having particular regard to the views of, the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare.

The conservation accord may be varied by agreement between the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare and the responsible Minister.

The conservation accord and protocols do not restrict—

The Crown must comply with the conservation accord or a protocol while it is in force.

If the Crown fails, without good cause, to comply with the accord or a protocol, the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare may, subject to the Crown Proceedings Act 1950, enforce the accord or protocol.

Despite subsection (2), damages or any form of monetary compensation are not available as a remedy for a failure by the Crown to comply with the accord or a protocol.

To avoid doubt,—

A summary of the terms of the conservation accord must be noted in the conservation documents affecting the conservation accord area.

The noting of the conservation accord is—

The conservation accord does not have the effect of creating, granting, or providing evidence of an estate or interest in, or rights relating to, land held, managed, or administered, or flora or fauna managed or administered, under the—

A summary of the terms of the fisheries protocol must be noted in fisheries plans affecting the fisheries protocol area.

The noting of the fisheries protocol is—

In this section, fisheries plan means a plan approved or amended under section 11A of the Fisheries Act 1996.

The fisheries protocol does not have the effect of granting, creating, or providing evidence of an estate or interest in, or rights relating to, assets or other property rights (including in respect of fish, aquatic life, and seaweed) held, managed, or administered under any of the following enactments:

The taonga tūturu protocol does not have the effect of creating, granting, or providing evidence of—

A summary of the terms of the Crown minerals protocol must be noted—

The noting of the Crown minerals protocol is—

The Crown minerals protocol does not have the effect of creating, granting, or providing evidence of an estate or interest in, or rights relating to, any Crown owned mineral.

In this section, minerals programme has the meaning given to it in section 2(1) of the Crown Minerals Act 1991.

The Crown acknowledges the statements of association.

In this Act, statements of association means the statements—

The only purposes of the statutory acknowledgements are to—

This section does not limit sections 59 to 61.

On and from the effective date, a relevant consent authority must have regard to the statutory acknowledgement relating to a statutory area in deciding, under section 95E of the Resource Management Act 1991, if the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare are affected persons in relation to an activity within, adjacent to, or directly affecting the statutory area for which an application for a resource consent has been made.

Subsection (1) does not limit the obligations of a relevant consent authority under the Resource Management Act 1991.

On and from the effective date, the Environment Court must have regard to the statutory acknowledgement relating to a statutory area in deciding, under section 274 of the Resource Management Act 1991, if the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare are persons who have an interest in proceedings that is greater than the interest the general public has in respect of an application for a resource consent for activities within, adjacent to, or directly affecting the statutory area.

Subsection (1) does not limit the obligations of the Environment Court under the Resource Management Act 1991.

If, on or after the effective date, an application is made under section 44, 56, or 61 of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 for an authority to undertake an activity that will or may modify or destroy an archaeological site within a statutory area,—

In this section, archaeological site has the meaning given in section 6 of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014.

On and from the effective date, each relevant consent authority must attach information recording the statutory acknowledgement to all statutory plans that wholly or partly cover a statutory area.

The information attached to a statutory plan must include the relevant provisions of sections 50 to 53 in full, the descriptions of the statutory areas, and the statements of association.

The attachment of information to a statutory plan under this section is for the purpose of public information only, and the information is not—

Each relevant consent authority must, for a period of 20 years from the effective date, forward to the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare, in the following form, a summary of resource consent applications received by that consent authority for activities within, adjacent to, or directly affecting a statutory area:

The information provided under subsection (1)(a) must be—

The trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare may, by notice in writing to a relevant consent authority,—

A copy of a notice of an application must be provided under subsection (1)(b) no later than 10 business days after the day on which the consent authority receives the notice.

This section does not affect a relevant consent authority’s obligation to decide—

The trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare and any members of Ngāti Whare may, as evidence of the association of Ngāti Whare with a statutory area, cite the statutory acknowledgement that relates to that area in submissions to, and in proceedings before, a relevant consent authority, the Environmental Protection Authority or a board of inquiry under Part 6AA of the Resource Management Act 1991, the Environment Court, or Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga concerning activities within, adjacent to, or directly affecting the statutory area.

The content of a statement of association is not, by virtue of the statutory acknowledgement, binding as fact on—

Despite subsection (2), the statutory acknowledgement may be taken into account by the bodies and persons specified in that subsection.

To avoid doubt,—

If a statutory acknowledgement or deed of recognition relates to a river, the river—

The Commissioner of Crown Lands must enter into a deed of recognition with the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare in respect of the Whirinaki River and tributaries statutory area.

The Minister of Conservation and the Director-General must enter into a deed of recognition with the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare in respect of the following statutory areas:

The deeds referred to in subsections (1) and (2) may be amended by the parties entering into a deed to amend the original deed.

In this section, deed of recognition means a deed—

Except as expressly provided in this Act,—

Subsection (1)(b) does not affect the operation of subsection (1)(a).

Except as expressly provided in this Act, the statutory acknowledgement and the deed of recognition do not affect the lawful rights or interests of any person who is not a party to the deed of settlement.

Except as expressly provided in this Act, the statutory acknowledgement and the deed of recognition do not have the effect of granting, creating, or providing evidence of an estate or interest in, or rights relating to, a statutory area.

This section amends the Resource Management Act 1991.

Schedule 11 is amended by inserting the following item in its appropriate alphabetical order: “Ngāti Whare Claims Settlement Act 2012”.

The Minister of Fisheries must appoint from the settlement date the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare as an advisory committee under section 21 of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Restructuring) Act 1995.

The Minister must consider the advice of the committee on all matters concerning the utilisation, while ensuring the sustainability, of aquatic life, fish, and seaweed administered by the Ministry of Fisheries under the Fisheries Act 1996 within the fisheries protocol area.

In considering the advice, the Minister must recognise and provide for the customary non-commercial interests of Ngāti Whare in all matters concerning the utilisation, while ensuring the sustainability, of aquatic life, fish, and seaweed administered by the Ministry of Fisheries under the Fisheries Act 1996 within the fisheries protocol area.

The Minister of Conservation must appoint the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare as an advisory committee from the settlement date under section 56 of the Conservation Act 1987.

The Minister must consider the advice of the committee on all matters concerning the conservation and management by the Department of Conservation of freshwater species in the conservation accord area to the extent that the species are under the department’s jurisdiction.

In sections 66 to 69,—

The existing official geographic name specified in the first column of the table set out in Part 6 of the schedule of the deed of settlement (at the settlement date) is altered to the new official geographic name specified in the second column of that table.

The alteration made under subsection (1) is to be treated as having been made by the New Zealand Geographic Board in accordance with the New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Act 2008.

The New Zealand Geographic Board must, as soon as practicable after the settlement date, comply with section 21(2) and (3) of the New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Act 2008 (which relate to public notice) as if the alteration under section 66 of this Act were a determination referred to in section 21(1) of that Act.

Despite the New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Act 2008, the New Zealand Geographic Board may, with the consent of the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare, alter any new official geographic name or its location.

Section 67 applies, with any necessary modifications, to an alteration made under subsection (1).

Place names altered under section 66 or 68 take effect on the date the Gazette notice is published under section 67.

The provision of the specified cultural redress does not prevent the Crown from doing anything that is consistent with that cultural redress, including—

However, subsection (1) is not an acknowledgement by the Crown or Ngāti Whare that any other iwi or group has interests in relation to land or an area to which any of the specified cultural redress relates.

In this section, specified cultural redress means the conservation accord, the protocols, the statutory acknowledgements, and the deeds of recognition.

The fee simple estate in the Pareranui site vests in the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare.

Subsection (1) is subject to section 101(3).

The fee simple estate in the Tauranga-o-Reti site vests in the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare.

Subsection (1) is subject to section 101(3).

The fee simple estate in the Te Teko site vests in the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare.

Subsection (1) is subject to section 101(3).

The fee simple estate in the Mangamate Kāinga site vests in the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare.

Subsection (1) is subject to section 101(3).

The fee simple estate in Wekanui Kāinga vests in the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare.

The fee simple estate in Otahi Kāinga vests in the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare.

The fee simple estate in Te Pukemohoao Kāinga vests in the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare.

The fee simple estate in Matuatahi Pā vests in the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare.

The fee simple estate in the Balance of the Regeneration Land vests in the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare.

Subsection (1) is subject to—

Immediately upon the fee simple estates in the regeneration land being vested in the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare, the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare will be deemed to have gifted the regeneration land to Te Pua o Whirinaki Regeneration Trust.

The fee simple estates in the regeneration land will vest in Te Pua o Whirinaki Regeneration Trust accordingly.

Subject to subsection (4), Te Pua o Whirinaki Regeneration Trust is the manager of all the marginal strip areas extending along and abutting the regeneration land as if appointed under section 24H of the Conservation Act 1987.

Subsection (3) does not apply to those marginal strip areas extending along and abutting areas of the regeneration land subject to the Crown forestry licence until the return date in respect of such areas, and until that time the rights and obligations of the licensee of the Crown forestry licence under section 24H of the Conservation Act 1987 are preserved.

The fee simple estate in the Otutakahiao site vests in the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare.

The fee simple estate in the Waimurupūhā site vests in the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare.

Subsection (1) is subject to section 101(3).

The part of the Mangamate Falls site that is a marginal strip under the Conservation Act 1987 ceases to be a marginal strip.

The fee simple estate in the Mangamate Falls site vests in the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare.

The Mangamate Falls site is declared a reserve and classified as a recreation reserve subject to section 17 of the Reserves Act 1977.

Despite section 16(10) of the Reserves Act 1977, the name of the reserve created under subsection (3) is Mangamate Falls Recreation Reserve.

Subsections (1) to (4) are subject to section 101(3).

Subsections (1) to (4) take effect on the later of the settlement date or the return date for the part of the Mangamate Falls site subject to the Crown forestry licence.

The parts of the Te Takanga-a-Wharepakau site that are marginal strips under the Conservation Act 1987 cease to be marginal strips.

The part of the Te Takanga-a-Wharepakau site that is a conservation area ceases to be a conservation area under the Conservation Act 1987.

The fee simple estate in the Te Takanga-a-Wharepakau site vests in the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare.

Section 3 SO 432338 is declared a reserve and classified as an historic reserve subject to section 18 of the Reserves Act 1977.

Despite section 16(10) of the Reserves Act 1977, the name of the reserve created under subsection (4) is Te Takanga-a-Wharepakau Historic Reserve.

Section 6 SO 432338 is declared a reserve and classified as a recreation reserve subject to section 17 of the Reserves Act 1977.

Despite section 16(10) of the Reserves Act 1977, the name of the reserve created under subsection (6) is Te Takanga-a-Wharepakau Recreation Reserve.

Subsections (1) and (3) as they relate to the part of the Te Takanga-a-Wharepakau site that is Section 3 SO 432338 and subsections (4) and (5) take effect on the date the licensee under the Crown forestry licence provides written notice to the Crown and the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare stating that the licensee’s rights under section 24H(6) of the Conservation Act 1987—

An undivided half share of the fee simple estate in the Hināmoki Pā site vests in the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare as a tenant in common.

The Okārea Pā site ceases to be part of the Oriuwaka ecological area.

The Okārea Pā site ceases to be a conservation area under the Conservation Act 1987.

An undivided half share of the fee simple estate in the Okārea Pā site vests in the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare as a tenant in common.

Subsections (1) to (3) are subject to the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare and the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa providing the Crown with a registrable covenant in relation to the site in the form set out in Part 11 of the schedule of the deed of settlement (the Okārea Pā site covenant).

The Okārea Pā site covenant is to be treated as a conservation covenant for the purposes of section 77 of the Reserves Act 1977.

An undivided half share of the fee simple estate in the Te Rake Pā site vests in the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare as a tenant in common.

Subsection (1) is subject to section 101(3).

The Te Tāpiri Pā site ceases to be a conservation area under the Conservation Act 1987.

An undivided half share of the fee simple estate in the Te Tāpiri Pā site vests in the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare as a tenant in common.

Subsections (1) and (2) are subject to the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare and the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa providing the Crown with a registrable covenant in relation to the site in the form set out in Part 11 of the schedule of the deed of settlement (the Te Tāpiri Pā site covenant).

The Te Tāpiri Pā site covenant is to be treated as a conservation covenant for the purposes of—

The jointly vested sites are set apart as 1 Māori reservation as a wāhi tapu and place of cultural and historical interest as if the sites were set apart under section 338(1) of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993.

The Māori reservation is held on trust by the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare and the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa for the benefit of Ngāti Manawa and Ngāti Whare.

The Māori reservation is held on the following terms as if the Māori Land Court had set out the terms of the trust under section 338(8) of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993:

The Māori Land Court has jurisdiction under section 338(8) of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 to amend the terms of the trust of the Māori reservation on a joint application from the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare and the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa, but must not amend or derogate from the terms in subsection (3).

No other provision of Part 17 of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 or regulations made under section 338(15) of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 applies to the Māori reservation.

In relation to the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, the jointly vested sites are rateable only under section 9 of the Act.

In relation to the Public Works Act 1981, the jointly vested sites may not be acquired or taken under the Act without the consent of the Minister of Conservation.

In relation to the Resource Management Act 1991, section 108(9) applies to the jointly vested sites as if the land were Māori land within the meaning of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993.

In relation to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993, sections 18(1)(c) and (d), 19(1)(a), 20, 24, 26, 194, and 342 apply to the jointly vested sites as if the land were Māori freehold land.

Section 51 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991 is amended by adding the following subsections:

For a jointly vested site, the Registrar-General must, in accordance with a written application by an authorised person,—

Subsection (1) applies subject to the completion of any survey necessary to create the computer freehold register.

Despite the jointly vested sites being registered in the name of Wharepakau,—

A computer freehold register must be created under this section—

Each cultural redress property vests under this Act subject to, or together with, any encumbrances listed in relation to the property in Schedule 3.

This section applies to the fee simple estate in a cultural redress property (other than a jointly vested property) vested in the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare under this Act.

The Registrar-General must, on written application by an authorised person, comply with subsections (3) and (4).

To the extent that a cultural redress property (other than the regeneration land) is all of the land contained in a computer freehold register, the Registrar-General must—

To the extent that a cultural redress property (other than the regeneration land) is not all of the land contained in a computer freehold register, or there is no computer freehold register for all or part of the property, the Registrar-General must, in accordance with an application received from an authorised person,—

For the regeneration land, the Registrar-General must, in accordance with a written application by an authorised person,—

Subsections (4) and (5) apply subject to the completion of any survey necessary to create the computer freehold register.

A computer freehold register must be created under this section as soon as is reasonably practicable after the settlement date, but no later than—

The vesting of the fee simple estate (or a share of the fee simple estate) in a cultural redress property under this Act is a disposition for the purposes of Part 4A of the Conservation Act 1987, but sections 24(2A), 24A, and 24AA of that Act do not apply to the disposition.

Despite subsection (1), the rest of section 24 of the Conservation Act 1987 does not apply to the vesting of a reserve site under this Act.

If the reservation under this Act of a reserve site is revoked in relation to all or part of the site, then the vesting of the site is no longer exempt from the rest of section 24 of the Conservation Act 1987 in relation to all or that part of the site, as the case may be.

The Registrar-General must record on the computer freehold register for—

A notification made under subsection (1) that land is subject to Part 4A of the Conservation Act 1987 is to be treated as having been made in compliance with section 24D(1) of that Act.

If the reservation under this Act of a reserve site is revoked in relation to—

The Registrar-General must comply with an application received in accordance with subsection (3)(a).

Section 11 and Part 10 of the Resource Management Act 1991 do not apply to—

The vesting of the fee simple estate (or a share of the fee simple estate) in a cultural redress property under this Act does not—

The permission of a council under section 348 of the Local Government Act 1974 is not required for laying out, forming, granting, or reserving a private road, private way, or right of way required to fulfil the terms of the deed of settlement in relation to a cultural redress property.

Subsection (5) applies if immediately before the vesting of a site under sections 71 to 88—

That official geographic name is discontinued and the New Zealand Geographic Board Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa must ensure that, as soon as is reasonably practicable, that official geographic name is removed from the Gazetteer.

However, if a site vested under sections 71 to 88 comprised only part of a reserve or conservation area to which an official geographic name had been assigned,—

If a site is vested under sections 71 to 88, and reserved and classified as a historic reserve under those sections, the historic reserve does not become a Crown protected area within the meaning of the New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Act 2008.

In this section, Gazetteer has the meaning given in section 4 of the New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Act 2008.

If a provision in this Act has the same effect for a jointly vested site as a provision in the Ngāti Manawa Claims Settlement Act 2012, the provisions must be given effect to only once as if they were 1 provision.

Sections 15, 16, 92, 93, 94(1), 95(1)(b) and (2), and 96 apply to the non-cultural redress properties as if each site were a cultural redress property.

The trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare are the administering body of a reserve site for the purposes of the Reserves Act 1977.

Despite sections 48A(6), 114(5), and 115(6) of the Reserves Act 1977, sections 48A, 114, and 115 of that Act apply to a reserve site.

Sections 78(1)(a), 79 to 81, and 88 of the Reserves Act 1977 do not apply in relation to a reserve site.

If the reservation under this Act of a reserve site is revoked under section 24 of the Reserves Act 1977 in relation to all or part of the site, section 25 of the Act, except subsection (2) of that provision, does not apply to the revocation.

Subsections (2) to (7) apply to all, or the part, of a reserve site that, at any time after vesting in the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare, remains a reserve under the Reserves Act 1977 (the reserve land).

The fee simple estate in the reserve land may be transferred to any other person only in accordance with subsections (3) to (7), despite any other enactment or rule of law.

The Minister of Conservation must give written consent to the transfer of the fee simple estate in the reserve land to another person or persons (the new owners) if, on written application, the registered proprietors of the reserve land satisfy the Minister of Conservation that the new owners are able to—

The Registrar-General must, upon receiving the documents specified in subsection (5), register the new owners as the proprietors of the fee simple estate in the reserve land.

The documents are—

The new owners, from the time of registration under subsection (4),—

Despite subsections (1) and (2), subsections (3) to (6) do not apply to the transfer of the fee simple estate in the reserve land if—

The CNI forests sites were vested in CNI Iwi Holdings Limited under the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Act 2008.

The vesting of the CNI forests sites under this Act is deemed to be a transfer from CNI Iwi Holdings Limited to the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare under paragraph 10 of Schedule 3 of the deed of trust, as defined in section 4 of the Central North Island Forests Land Collective Settlement Act 2008.

The vesting of the CNI forests sites under this Act is subject to the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare, and in relation to the Te Rake Pā site the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare and the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa, entering into a deed of covenant (or deeds of covenant as applicable), in the form set out in Part 9 of the schedule to the deed of settlement, under which, in assuming the owner’s interest in those sites, they agree in favour of the other parties to the Kaingaroa Forest Road Network deed dated 3 June 2009 and the deed in relation to reciprocal access over Bonisch Road and the Kaingaroa Forest Road Network dated 26 June 2009 (or any amended or replacement deeds) to be bound by the terms of those deeds, while those deeds each remain in force and to the extent applicable to those sites.

Upon the vesting of the former Crown forest land in the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare,—

This section applies to the former Crown forest land.

The Registrar-General must, in accordance with a written application from an authorised person, record the extinguishment of the public right of way easement over the former Crown forest land pursuant to section 101, on—

The authorised person must make the written application to the Registrar-General under subsection (2)—

Subsection (2) applies if the registered proprietor of a CNI forests site makes a written application to the Registrar-General—

The Registrar-General must remove the Crown forestry licence memorial from the computer freehold register or registers for the site.

This section does not apply to the jointly vested sites.

Despite anything in the Land Transfer Act 1952, or any other enactment or rule of law, the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare may give the Registrar-General a written notice requiring that the fee simple estate in land that is registrable or registered under the Land Transfer Act 1952 in the names of the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare—

In relation to the wāhi tapu sites,—

If the Registrar-General receives a notice under subsection (2)(a), the Registrar-General must comply with it by—

If the Registrar-General receives a notice under subsection (2)(b), the Registrar-General must comply with it by—

If the Registrar-General receives a notice under subsection (3)(b), the Registrar-General must give effect to it by cancelling the notation made under subsection (4)(c).

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is sufficient evidence that the notice has been properly given to the Registrar-General under subsection (2)(a) or (b) or (3)(a) or (b) if the notice—

If the fee simple estate in land is registered in the name of Wharepakau,—

Despite this section, the rights and obligations of the licensee under the Crown forestry licence are preserved in respect of the Waimurupūhā site.

This section applies to protected land for so long as it is registered in the name of Wharepakau.

In relation to the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, protected land is rateable only under section 9 of the Act.

In relation to the Public Works Act 1981, protected land may not be acquired or taken under the Act without the consent of the Minister of Conservation.

In relation to the Resource Management Act 1991, section 108(9) applies to protected land as if it were Māori land within the meaning of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993.

In relation to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993, sections 18(1)(c) and (d), 19(1)(a), 20, 24, 26, 194, and 342 apply to protected land as if it were Māori freehold land.

Section 51 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991 is amended by adding the following subsections:

In sections 107 to 133,—

Crown acknowledges—

A statutory body called the Rangitaiki River Forum is established.

The purpose of the Forum is the protection and enhancement of the environmental, cultural, and spiritual health and wellbeing of the Rangitaiki River and its resources for the benefit of present and future generations.

Despite the composition of the Forum as described in section 112, the Forum is a joint committee of the Bay of Plenty Regional Council and the Whakatane District Council within the meaning of clause 30(1)(b) of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Despite Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002, the Forum—

The members of the Forum must act in a manner so as to achieve the purpose of the Forum.

The principal function of the Forum is to achieve its purpose.

The other functions of the Forum are to—

To avoid doubt, except as provided for in subsection (2)(a), the Forum has discretion to determine in any particular circumstances—

The Forum has full capacity to carry out its functions.

The provisions of the Local Government Act 2002, Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, and Local Authorities (Members’ Interests) Act 1968 apply to the Forum—

As at the settlement date, the Forum consists of 8 members as follows (each organisation being an appointer):

In appointing members to the Forum, appointers—

A member may be discharged by that member’s appointer.

A member appointed by an iwi may resign by giving written notice to that person’s appointer.

Where there is a vacancy on the Forum, the relevant appointer must fill that vacancy as soon as is reasonably practicable.

Clause 31(1) of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 applies only to the appointment and discharge of the members appointed by the local authorities.

Clauses 30(2), (3), (5), (7) and 31(2) to 31(6) of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 do not apply to the Forum.

To avoid doubt, members of the Forum who are appointed by iwi are not, by virtue of that membership, members of a local authority.

The Forum must appoint a chair at its first meeting.

The chair’s appointment is for a term of 3 years, unless the chair resigns or is removed by the Forum during that term.

The chair of the Forum may be reappointed or removed by the Forum.

The Forum may appoint a deputy chair, and if so, that appointment is subject to the same conditions as set out in subsections (1) to (3).

The Forum may appoint subcommittees that the Forum considers appropriate, and clause 30(4) of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 applies except that a reference to a committee in that clause is to be read as a reference to the Forum.

Clauses 26(3) and (4) of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 do not apply to the Forum.

The Forum must at its first meeting adopt a set of standing orders for the operation of the Forum.

The standing orders of the Forum must not contravene this Act, the Local Government Act 2002, the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, or any other Act.

A member of the Forum must comply with the standing orders of the Forum.

Clause 27 of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 does not apply to the Forum.

Clauses 19, 20, and 22 of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 apply to the Forum subject to—

The quorum for a meeting of the Forum is—

Clauses 23(3)(b) and 30(9)(b) of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 do not apply to the Forum.

The decisions of the Forum must be made by vote at a meeting.

A decision of the Forum may only be made by a 75% majority of those members present at a meeting of the Forum.

The chair of the Forum may vote on any matter but does not have a casting vote.

Clause 24 of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 does not apply to the Forum.

The members of the Forum must approach decision making in a manner that—

A member of the Forum is not precluded by the Local Authorities (Members’ Interests) Act 1968 from discussing or voting on a matter—

Despite clause 19(2) of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002, the members of the Forum appointed by iwi—

The Forum must operate in an open manner that is inclusive of those iwi with interests in the Rangitaiki River that are not represented on the Forum.

The Bay of Plenty Regional Council is responsible for the administrative support of the Forum.

The administrative support referred to in subsection (1) includes the provision of those services required for the Forum to carry out its functions, including under the settlement legislation, the Local Government Act 2002, or any other Act that applies to the conduct of the Forum.

The Bay of Plenty Regional Council must provide technical support to the Forum from existing work programmes, and must endeavour to accommodate unbudgeted resource requests from the Forum where possible.

The Forum must prepare and approve the Rangitaiki River Document in accordance with the process set out in sections 125 to 128.

The Forum must—

The Forum may decide to alter any of the timeframes set out in subsection (2).

In preparing the Rangitaiki River Document, the Forum must—

The obligation under subsection (4) applies only to the extent that is relative to the nature and contents of the Rangitaiki River Document.

The Rangitaiki River Document may contain—

In preparing or changing the Bay of Plenty regional policy statement, the Bay of Plenty Regional Council must recognise and provide for any vision, objectives, and desired outcomes contained in the Rangitaiki River Document.

The Bay of Plenty Regional Council must comply with subsection (1) each time that it prepares or changes the Bay of Plenty regional policy statement.

Until such time as the obligation under subsection (1) is complied with, where a local authority is preparing or changing a regional plan or district plan, that authority must have particular regard to the Rangitaiki River Document.

The obligations under subsections (1) to (3) apply only to the extent that—

Subsection (6) applies where—

Where subsection (5) applies, the Bay of Plenty Regional Council—

The obligation under subsection (6) applies only on the first occasion on which the Forum approves the Rangitaiki River Document.

In approving a conservation management strategy that is relevant to the Rangitaiki River, the New Zealand Conservation Authority must have particular regard to any vision, objectives, and desired outcomes contained in the Rangitaiki River Document.

The New Zealand Conservation Authority must comply with subsection (1) each time that it approves a conservation management strategy that is relevant to the Rangitaiki River.

Until such time as the obligation under subsection (1) is complied with, where a person is reviewing, preparing, or changing a relevant conservation management plan, that person must have particular regard to any vision, objectives, or desired outcomes contained in the Rangitaiki River Document.

The obligations under subsections (1) to (3) apply only to the extent that—

The following process applies to the preparation of a draft of the River Document:

When the Forum has prepared the draft River Document, it—

The public notice must—

Any person or organisation may make a written or electronic submission on the draft River Document in the manner described in the public notice.

The Forum must consider submissions made under section 126(3), to the extent that those submissions are consistent with the purpose of the River Document.

The Forum may then approve the River Document.

The Forum—

The public notice must—

The River Document—

The Forum may at any time review and, if necessary, amend the River Document or any component of the River Document.

The Forum must start a review of the River Document no later than 10 years after the later of—

In undertaking a review under subsections (1) and (2), the Forum must apply section 125, modified as necessary, to the review.

If the Forum considers as a result of the review that the River Document should be amended in a material way, the amendment must be prepared and approved in accordance with sections 125 to 127.

If the Forum considers the River Document should be amended in a way that is not material, the amendment may be approved under section 127(2), and the Forum must comply with section 127(3) to (5).

All persons exercising functions and powers under the Resource Management Act 1991 that affect the Rangitaiki River must have particular regard to the habitat of tuna (anguilla dieffenbachia and anguilla australis) in that river.

Where Ngāti Whare provide notice in writing to a local authority referred to in subsection (2) that a joint management agreement is to be entered into, such joint management agreement must be in force between that local authority and Ngāti no later than—

The reference to a local authority in subsection (1) is a reference to—

A joint management agreement referred to in section 130 may, subject to the agreement of the local authority and Ngāti Whare, cover any function, power, or duty of the local authority under the Resource Management Act 1991 that affect the Rangitaiki River.

Sections 36C and 36D of the Resource Management Act 1991 apply to a joint management agreement entered into under section 130.

Sections 36B and 36E of the Resource Management Act 1991 do not apply to a joint management agreement entered into under section 130.

Neither party has the right to terminate a joint management agreement without the agreement of the other party.

The joint management agreement with the Bay of Plenty Regional Council must include a section providing for the role of Ngāti Whare in the management by that Council under relevant statutory frameworks of the Horomanga Wash local purpose reserve (which is vested in the Bay of Plenty Regional Council and described by Gazette notice dated 8 April 2008).