The purpose of this Act is to give effect to certain provisions of the deeds of settlement that settle the historical claims of Ngāti Kōata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu, and Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui.

The provisions of this Act take effect on the settlement date unless a provision states otherwise.

Before the date on which a provision takes effect, a person may prepare or sign a document or do anything else that is required—

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 the deeds of settlement.

This Part—

Part 2 provides for cultural redress, including—

Part 3 provides for commercial redress, including—

Part 4 provides for the reorganisation of the governance arrangements of Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu, including—

There are 5 schedules, as follows:

Section 8 summarises the historical account from the deed of settlement for Ngāti Kōata, which provides a background to the deed of settlement.

Sections 9 and 10 record the acknowledgements and the apology given by the Crown to Ngāti Kōata in the deed of settlement for Ngāti Kōata.

Section 11 summarises the historical account from the deed of settlement for Ngāti Rārua, which provides a background to the deed of settlement.

Sections 12 and 13 record the acknowledgements and the apology given by the Crown to Ngāti Rārua in the deed of settlement for Ngāti Rārua.

Section 14 summarises the historical account from the deed of settlement for Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu, which provides a background to the deed of settlement.

Sections 15 and 16 record the acknowledgements and the apology given by the Crown to Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu in the deed of settlement for Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu.

Section 17 summarises the historical account from the deed of settlement for Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui, which provides a background to the deed of settlement.

Sections 18 and 19 record the acknowledgements and the apology given by the Crown to Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui in the deed of settlement for Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui.

The historical account set out in the deed of settlement for Ngāti Kōata is summarised as follows:

Ngāti Kōata first came to Te Tau Ihu (the northern South Island) in the mid-1820s after receiving a tuku of land from Tūtepourangi, and also as part of an invasion. Ngāti Kōata primarily settled at Rangitoto Island, Croisilles, Whakapuaka, and Whakatū.

In 1839 the New Zealand Company signed deeds with other iwi that purported to purchase the entire northern South Island. The following year several Ngāti Kōata chiefs signed the Treaty of Waitangi at Rangitoto Island.

In 1842 the Company presented gifts to local Māori upon establishing its Nelson settlement. In 1844 a Crown-appointed commissioner investigated the Company’s purchases. He heard only one Māori witness in Nelson before suspending the inquiry to enable the Company to negotiate a settlement. Māori signed deeds of release in return for accepting payments described by the commissioner as gifts to assist settlement rather than payments for the land.

In 1845, on the commissioner’s recommendation, the Crown prepared a Company grant of 151 000 acres in Tasman and Golden Bays, which would have reserved 15 100 acres for Māori. However, the Company objected to several aspects of this grant. In 1848 the Company accepted a new Crown grant for a larger area of land that reserved only 5 053 acres at Nelson and Motueka, and areas in the Wairau and Golden Bay.

Ngāti Kōata had negligible involvement in the administration of the Nelson and Motueka reserves, known as “Tenths”, which were leased to settlers to generate income that was spent on Māori purposes. From 1887 the Tenths were let under perpetually renewable leases. Rentals were infrequently reviewed and over time inflation reduced rental returns. During the twentieth century the Tenths were reduced by the compulsory acquisition of uneconomic shares and the sale of reserves.

In 1852 the Crown purchased the mineral-rich Pakawau block and paid only for its agricultural value. In 1853 the Crown signed the Waipounamu deed with other iwi, and purported to have purchased most of the remaining Māori land in Te Tau Ihu. Ngāti Kōata did not sign the deed, but were to receive a share of the purchase money. The Crown used the 1853 deed as the basis for negotiations with resident Ngāti Kōata in 1856, which led to the alienation of most of their remaining interests for £100. Rangitoto Island was excluded from this purchase.

The reserves created for Ngāti Kōata from the Waipounamu sale were mostly inadequate for customary use or effective development. In 1883 and 1892 the Native Land Court awarded ownership of the reserves and Rangitoto Island to individual Ngāti Kōata. Over time, sales and successions to the titles made the lands increasingly fragmented and uneconomic.

In 1883 Ngāti Kōata participated in the Native Land Court’s title investigation of Whakapuaka. Ngāti Kōata claimed interests on the basis of the tuku and ongoing occupation. The Court deemed that Ngāti Kōata did not have interests and they were excluded from ownership. Ngāti Kōata were again excluded at a rehearing of the block in 1937.

By the late nineteenth century, some Ngāti Kōata were virtually landless. In 1894 the Crown allocated some landless Ngāti Kōata individuals land at Te Māpou and Te Raetihi, but did not issue titles to them until 1968.

Ngāti Kōata struggled to secure safe drinking water and social services on their reserves and Rangitoto Island well into the twentieth century. Many Ngāti Kōata came to Nelson for work and educational and health purposes. A Māori hostel in Nelson used by Ngāti Kōata families was frequently overcrowded resulting in unhygienic conditions.

By the end of the twentieth century most of Ngāti Kōata’s remaining land, including their reserves and Rangitoto Island, had been sold. Ngāti Kōata had also lost ownership or access to several islands surrounding Rangitoto and in Croisilles Harbour. Virtual landlessness has meant that Ngāti Kōata has lost connection and access to many of their traditional resources and sites, and the demise of a strong cultural base.

The text of the acknowledgements set out in the deed of settlement for Ngāti Kōata is as follows:

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

The Crown acknowledges that it failed to adequately inform itself of and protect the interests, including the ongoing needs, of Ngāti Kōata during the process by which land was granted to the New Zealand Company in 1848, and this failure was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

The Crown acknowledges that in the reserves that became known as the Nelson and Motueka “tenths” it failed to ensure that the area ultimately reserved was sufficient for the ongoing use and benefit of Ngāti Kōata. The Crown acknowledges that this failure was in breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

The Crown acknowledges that—

The Crown acknowledges that certain actions and omissions with respect to the administration of the Nelson and Motueka tenths reserves, including the imposition of a regime of perpetually renewable leases, and permitting the Māori Trustee to sell “uneconomic interests” and tenths land in the twentieth century, resulted in prejudice to those Ngāti Kōata who held a beneficial interest in the tenths reserves fund and were in breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

The Crown acknowledges that in 1852 it sought to purchase the Pakawau block before Ngāti Kōata and other Māori became aware of the full potential value of its minerals, and the price paid reflected the agricultural value of the land only.

The Crown acknowledges that when it purchased most of the remaining Māori land in Te Tau Ihu between 1853 and 1856—

The Crown acknowledges that it failed to adequately protect the interests of Ngāti Kōata when purchasing their land and this was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

The Crown acknowledges that the operation and impact of the native land laws on the remaining lands of Ngāti Kōata, in particular the awarding of land to individual Ngāti Kōata rather than to iwi or hapū, made those lands more susceptible to partition, fragmentation, and alienation. This further contributed to the erosion of the traditional tribal structures of Ngāti Kōata. The Crown failed to take adequate steps to protect those structures and this was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

The Crown acknowledges that the alienation of the Whakapuaka block has remained a significant grievance for Ngāti Kōata down to the present day. The Crown also acknowledges that it did not take steps to effect a reinvestigation of the Whakapuaka case until 1936.

The Crown acknowledges that it failed to issue title to the Ngāti Kōata owners of the Te Māpou and Te Raetihi “landless natives” reserves until 1968. The Crown’s failure to implement the scheme effectively meant that it did nothing to alleviate the landless position of those Ngāti Kōata in Te Tau Ihu and this was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

The Crown acknowledges that since 1856 much of Ngāti Kōata’s reserve land, Rangitoto Island, and its surrounding islands, including Puangiangi and Whakaterepapanui, have been alienated from Ngāti Kōata ownership. This included the Crown’s acquisition of Takapourewa Island for public works purposes and purchase of part of Whangarae reserve for scenery preservation purposes.

The Crown acknowledges that several islands at the entrance to Croisilles Harbour continued to be used by Ngāti Kōata as mahinga kai following their sale to the Crown in 1856. The Crown also acknowledges that when it declared the islands as scenic reserves in 1980 this detrimentally impacted on Ngāti Kōata’s customary use of the islands.

The Crown acknowledges that it made several attempts to acquire ownership of Kurupongi Island from Ngāti Kōata. The Crown also acknowledges that by gazetting Kurupongi as a wildlife sanctuary in 1957 the Crown took effective control of the island, although Ngāti Kōata retained ownership and mutton-birding rights.

The Crown acknowledges that the cumulative effect of the Crown’s actions and omissions left Ngāti Kōata virtually landless. The Crown’s failure to ensure that Ngāti Kōata retained sufficient land was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

The Crown acknowledges that the discouragement of the use of Te Reo Māori in Native Schools established in areas where Ngāti Kōata lived detrimentally impacted on the retention of Ngāti Kōata culture.

The Crown acknowledges that the isolation and poor quality of their reserve land at Croisilles and Rangitoto, and the lack or slow delivery of social services in these areas, resulted in poor economic and health conditions for Ngāti Kōata communities. The Crown also acknowledges that these circumstances forced many Ngāti Kōata to leave their land and seek economic, social, and educational opportunities elsewhere, including outside of Te Tau Ihu.

The Crown acknowledges that through the alienation of most of their land Ngāti Kōata have lost control over many of their significant sites and resources. This has had an ongoing impact on the ability of Ngāti Kōata to maintain spiritual connections to their ancestral lands.

The text of the apology set out in the deed of settlement for Ngāti Kōata is as follows:

The Crown makes the following apology to Ngāti Kōata, to their ancestors, and to their descendants.

When Ngāti Kōata rangatira signed the Treaty of Waitangi at Rangitoto Island in May 1840, they entered into a relationship with the Crown based on hope and mutual respect. However, the Crown accepts and is deeply sorry that it has not always fulfilled its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi and, for this, unreservedly apologises to Ngāti Kōata.

The Crown regrets and apologises for its failure to properly respect the rangatiratanga of Ngāti Kōata. Crown actions, moreover, left Ngāti Kōata virtually landless in Te Tau Ihu and alienated them from many of their most sacred sites. For this too the Crown apologises. Their disconnection from their lands marginalised Ngāti Kōata in the economic development of Te Tau Ihu, and had devastating consequences for the social, cultural, and spiritual well-being of Ngāti Kōata. Those consequences continue to be felt today.

With this apology and settlement the Crown seeks to atone for its wrongs. The Crown hopes that through this apology and settlement it can build a new, positive, and enduring relationship with Ngāti Kōata based on mutual trust and co-operation and respect for the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

The historical account set out in the deed of settlement for Ngāti Rārua is summarised as follows:

Ngāti Rārua came to the northern South Island in the late 1820s. Ngāti Rārua established pā and kainga at Te Tai Tapu, Golden Bay, Tasman Bay, and Wairau.

In 1839 the New Zealand Company signed deeds with Māori that purported to purchase the entire northern South Island. No Ngāti Rārua resident in the west of the northern South Island signed the Company deeds. In 1842 the Company presented gifts to local Māori, including Ngāti Rārua, upon establishing its Nelson settlement. Ngāti Rārua expressed an interest in European settlement, but denied that the 1839 transactions had effected a sale of their land.

In 1844 a Crown-appointed commissioner investigated the Company’s purchases. He heard from only one Māori witness in Nelson, who was Ngāti Rārua, before suspending the inquiry to enable the company to negotiate a settlement. Local Māori signed deeds of release in return for accepting payments described by the commissioner as gifts to assist settlement rather than payments for the land. A share of the money was set aside for Golden Bay Ngāti Rārua not present at the commissioner’s hearing or arbitration.

In 1845, on the commissioner’s recommendation, the Crown prepared a grant to the New Zealand Company of 151 000 acres of land in Tasman and Golden Bays, which would have reserved 15 100 acres for Māori. However, the Company objected to several aspects of this grant. In 1848 the Company accepted a new Crown grant for a larger area of land that reserved only 5 053 acres at Nelson and Motueka, and areas in Wairau and Golden Bay.

Ngāti Rārua had negligible involvement in the administration of the Nelson and Motueka reserves, known as “Tenths”. Most were leased to settlers to generate income that was spent on Māori purposes. In the 1850s and 1860s the Crown allocated a number of Motueka Tenths sections to Ngāti Rārua for their occupation. However, ownership of these lands was not granted separately to Ngāti Rārua. From 1887 the Tenths were leased under perpetually renewable leases. Rentals were infrequently reviewed and over time inflation reduced rental returns. During the twentieth century the Tenths were reduced by the compulsory acquisition of uneconomic shares and the sale of reserves.

In 1847 the Crown purchased the Wairau district from three North Island chiefs. No other right holders, including Ngāti Rārua, were consulted or involved in the transaction. In 1852, the Crown purchased the mineral-rich Pakawau block, paying only for its agricultural value. The 1853 Te Waipounamu deed purported to purchase all remaining land in the region. Ngāti Rārua in the west of the northern South Island did not sign the deed, but were to receive a share of the purchase money. Ngāti Rārua protested the Crown’s actions, but it was not until 1855 that the Crown met with resident Māori to finalise the purchase. During these negotiations the Crown applied pressure on Ngāti Rārua, including presenting their land as already sold. Ngāti Rārua and another iwi were paid £600 for their remaining interests in Te Waipounamu. The reserves created by the Crown for Ngāti Rārua from the Waipounamu purchase, particularly at Wairau and Pukatea, were generally inadequate for customary use or agricultural farming.

Ngāti Rārua had excluded the 88 350 acre Te Tai Tapu block from the Waipounamu sale. In 1873 the Crown took effective control of Te Tai Tapu to regulate gold mining on the land. However, Ngāti Rārua obtained little financial benefit from the arrangement. In 1883 Ngāti Rārua sold the block.

By the late nineteenth century, Ngāti Rārua were virtually landless. At this time the Crown allocated landless Ngāti Rārua individuals land on Stewart Island, but never granted them title to the land.

In the decades following the major land purchases of the mid-nineteenth century, the socio-economic position of Ngāti Rārua and the Māori population of the northern South Island became characterised by marginal economic status, poor health, and low educational attainment.

The text of the acknowledgements set out in the deed of settlement for Ngāti Rārua is as follows:

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

The Crown acknowledges that it failed to adequately inform itself of and protect the interests, including the ongoing needs, of Ngāti Rārua during the process by which land was granted to the New Zealand Company in 1848, and this failure was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

The Crown acknowledges that when it purchased most of the remaining Māori land in Te Tau Ihu between 1847 and 1856—

The Crown acknowledges that it failed to adequately protect the interests of Ngāti Rārua when purchasing their land and this was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

The Crown acknowledges that it sought to purchase the Pakawau block before Ngāti Rārua and other Māori became aware of the full potential value of its minerals, and the price paid reflected the agricultural value of the land only.

The Crown acknowledges that the absence of defined interior boundaries in the 1855 Te Waipounamu deed with Ngāti Rārua contributed to later uncertainty among Ngāti Rārua over what they had alienated and numerous applications to the Native Land Court in 1883 for land they considered they had not sold.

The Crown acknowledges that in the reserves that became known as the Nelson and Motueka “tenths” it failed to adequately provide for Ngāti Rārua to control those lands they occupied and used, and failed to ensure that the area ultimately reserved was sufficient for the ongoing use and benefit of Ngāti Rārua. The Crown acknowledges that these failures were in breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

The Crown acknowledges that the grant of tenths land at Whakarewa in 1853 meant that some Ngāti Rārua whanau had to move from land they were occupying at the time. The Crown further acknowledges that despite protests from Māori beginning in 1881 the Whakarewa lands were not returned until 1993.

The Crown acknowledges that—

The Crown acknowledges that certain actions and omissions with respect to the administration of the Nelson and Motueka tenths reserves, including the imposition of a regime of perpetually renewable leases, and permitting the Māori Trustee to sell “uneconomic interests” and tenths land in the twentieth century, resulted in prejudice to those Ngāti Rārua who held a beneficial interest in the tenths reserves fund and were in breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

The Crown acknowledges that the operation and impact of the native land laws on the remaining lands of Ngāti Rārua, in particular the awarding of land to individual Ngāti Rārua rather than to iwi or hapū, made those lands more susceptible to partition, fragmentation, and alienation. This further contributed to the erosion of the traditional tribal structures of Ngāti Rārua. The Crown failed to take adequate steps to protect those structures and this was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

The Crown acknowledges that the Wairau reserve had only a small area of cultivatable land and its flood-prone nature limited the effectiveness of the development scheme that operated on the reserve during the mid-twentieth century.

The Crown acknowledges that owing to its isolation and poor quality the Pukatea reserve provided little return to the Ngāti Rārua owners. The Crown further acknowledges that Ngāti Rārua felt that considerable public pressure contributed to their decision to sell their land at Pukatea to the Crown in the 1950s.

The Crown acknowledges that—

The Crown acknowledges that the cumulative effect of the Crown’s actions and omissions left Ngāti Rārua virtually landless. The Crown’s failure to ensure that Ngāti Rārua retained sufficient land was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

The Crown acknowledges that members of Ngāti Rārua were never issued title to land allocated to them on Stewart Island under the “landless natives” scheme. The Crown’s failure to implement the scheme effectively meant that it did nothing to alleviate the landless position of those Ngāti Rārua in Te Tau Ihu and this was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

The text of the apology set out in the deed of settlement for Ngāti Rārua is as follows:

The Crown sincerely offers the following apology to Ngāti Rārua, to their tūpuna, and to their descendants.

The Crown recognises the efforts and struggles of Ngāti Rārua and their tūpuna over several generations in pursuit of justice.

The Crown is deeply sorry that it has not fulfilled its obligations to Ngāti Rārua under Te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi and, for this, unreservedly apologises to Ngāti Rārua.

The Crown admits it did not include Ngāti Rārua in its purchase of the Wairau district in 1847, and only belatedly recognised Ngāti Rārua interests in its Te Waipounamu purchase. The Crown apologises for these failures to recognise the rangatiratanga of Ngāti Rārua and protect their interests.

The Crown is sorry that its actions rendered Ngāti Rārua virtually landless in their rohe. This had a devastating impact on the social and cultural well-being of the people of Ngāti Rārua that continues to be seen today. The Crown also accepts that the loss of their land and their restriction to inadequate reserves has significantly marginalised Ngāti Rārua from the benefits of economic development, and limited the autonomy and ability of the iwi to exercise customary rights and responsibilities throughout the Ngāti Rārua rohe.

The Crown with this settlement acknowledges the rangatiratanga of Ngāti Rārua and seeks to restore the Crown’s honour. The Crown hopes this apology and settlement will mark the beginning of a renewed and enduring relationship with Ngāti Rārua based on mutual trust, co-operation, and respect for Te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

The historical account set out in the deed of settlement for Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu (Ngāti Tama) is summarised as follows:

Ngāti Tama came to Te Tau Ihu o te Waka a Maui (the northern South Island) in the late 1820s and established pā and kainga at several localities in Te Tau Ihu including Te Tai Tapu, Golden Bay, and Wakapuaka.

In 1839 the New Zealand Company signed deeds with Māori that purported to purchase the entire northern South Island. No Ngāti Tama signed the Company’s deeds. In 1842 the New Zealand Company established its Nelson settlement and distributed gifts to local Māori, including Ngāti Tama, as “a present upon settling on the land”. Some Ngāti Tama from Wakapuaka who received gifts also objected to their land being sold by the 1839 deeds.

In 1844 a Crown-appointed Commissioner investigated the Company’s purchases. He heard from only one Māori witness in Nelson before suspending the inquiry to enable the Company to negotiate a settlement. Māori, including Ngāti Tama, signed deeds of release in return for payments which the Commissioner described as gifts to assist settlement rather than payments for the land. Golden Bay Ngāti Tama were not present at the Commissioner’s hearing or arbitration. Nonetheless a share of the money was set aside for them.

In 1845, on the Commissioner’s recommendation, the Crown prepared a grant to the New Zealand Company of 151 000 acres of land in Tasman and Golden Bays which would have reserved 15 100 acres for Māori. However, the Company objected to several aspects of this grant. In 1848 the Company accepted a new Crown grant for a larger area of land in Te Tau Ihu that reserved only 5 053 acres of land at Nelson and Motueka, as well as areas in Golden Bay and Wairau.

Ngāti Tama had negligible involvement in the administration of the Nelson and Motueka reserves, known as the “Tenths”. Most were leased to settlers to generate income that was spent on Māori purposes. In 1862 the Crown allocated parts of at least four Motueka Tenths sections for Ngāti Tama occupation. However, ownership of these lands was not separately granted to Ngāti Tama. From 1887 the Tenths were leased under perpetually renewable leases. Rentals were infrequently reviewed and over time inflation reduced the value of rental returns. During the twentieth century the Tenths reserves were reduced by the compulsory acquisition of uneconomic shares and the sale of reserves.

In 1853 the Crown granted land at Motueka to the Church of England to establish a school. The grant comprised 160 acres of Crown land and 918 acres of Tenths reserves. Ngāti Tama whanau had to move from the reserves when the school was established. The school was closed in 1881 but the land was not restored to Māori until 1993. Ngāti Tama were not included in the trust established to administer the land.

In 1852 the Crown purchased the mineral-rich Pakawau block paying only for its agricultural value. In 1853 the Crown purported to purchase all remaining Māori land in Te Tau Ihu through the Waipounamu deed. Ngāti Tama as an iwi was not involved in the negotiation and protested the Crown’s actions. The Crown did not meet with resident Māori to finalise the purchase until 1855 when Crown agents applied pressure on Ngāti Tama by presenting their land as already sold. Ngāti Tama and another iwi received £600 for their remaining interests in Te Waipounamu, although Ngāti Tama excluded Wakapuaka from the sale. Many of the reserves created for Ngāti Tama from the Waipounamu purchase were found over time to be inadequate for development in the new economy. Some reserves were quickly sold. In 1892 the Native Land Court awarded the remaining reserves to individual Ngāti Tama. Over time, ownership of the reserves became increasingly fragmented through successions to the interests of deceased owners.

In 1883 the Native Land Court awarded Wakapuaka to a sole Ngāti Tama individual. This disinherited other Ngāti Tama who had lived on Wakapuaka since the 1830s. Protests from Ngāti Tama eventually led the Crown to promote legislation authorising a reinvestigation of the remaining portions of Wakapuaka. In 1937 some Ngāti Tama were awarded interests, but not all Ngāti Tama whanau who had previously resided on Wakapuaka were admitted to the title.

By the end of the twentieth century the virtual landlessness of Ngāti Tama had contributed to some Ngāti Tama leaving Te Tau Ihu and losing their connection with their iwi and turangawaewae.

The text of the acknowledgements set out in the deed of settlement for Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu (Ngāti Tama) is as follows:

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

The Crown acknowledges that it failed to adequately inform itself of and protect the interests of Ngāti Tama, including their ongoing needs, during the process by which land was granted to the New Zealand Company in 1848. The Crown acknowledges that this failure was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

The Crown acknowledges that, in respect of the reserves that were formally established following the 1848 Crown grant of land to the New Zealand Company and which became known as the Nelson and Motueka “Tenths”,—

The Crown acknowledges that these failures were in breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles and that as a consequence Ngāti Tama was unable to fully benefit from the developing economy of Nelson and the wider Te Tau Ihu region.

The Crown acknowledges that the grant of Tenths land at Whakarewa in 1853 meant that some Ngāti Tama whanau had to move from land they were occupying at the time. The Crown further acknowledges that despite protests from Māori beginning in 1881 the Whakarewa lands were not returned until 1993.

The Crown acknowledges that in 1852 it sought to purchase the Pakawau block before Ngāti Tama and other Māori became aware of the full potential value of its minerals and that the price paid reflected the agricultural value of the land only.

The Crown acknowledges that it did not include Ngāti Tama in its negotiations in 1862 to regulate gold mining on the Te Tai Tapu block.

The Crown acknowledges that when it purchased most of the remaining Māori land in Te Tau Ihu between 1853 and 1856—

The Crown acknowledges that these failures meant that it failed to adequately protect the interests of Ngāti Tama when purchasing their land and this was in breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

The Crown acknowledges that the operation and impact of the native land laws on the remaining lands of Ngāti Tama and, in particular, the awarding of land to individuals, rather than to Ngāti Tama as an iwi,—

The Crown acknowledges that it failed to take adequate steps to protect the traditional social and cultural structures of Ngāti Tama and that this was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

The Crown acknowledges that it first became aware of protest by Ngāti Tama over the Native Land Court’s Wakapuaka decision in 1896, but that it did not take steps to effect a reinvestigation of the Wakapuaka case until 1936. The Crown also acknowledges that the alienation of the Wakapuaka block has remained a significant grievance for Ngāti Tama down to the present day.

The Crown acknowledges that—

The Crown acknowledges that certain actions and omissions with respect to the administration of the Nelson and Motueka Tenths reserves resulted in prejudice to those Ngāti Tama who held a beneficial interest in the Tenths reserves fund, including—

The Crown acknowledges that these actions and omissions were in breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

The Crown acknowledges that the loss of lands and resources over time has damaged the mana, social structure, and well-being of Ngāti Tama as an iwi. The Crown also acknowledges that this contributed to some Ngāti Tama leaving Te Tau Ihu and losing their connection with Ngāti Tama and their turangawaewae.

The Crown acknowledges that—

The Crown further acknowledges that the cumulative effect of these actions and omissions has—

The text of the apology set out in the deed of settlement for Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu (Ngāti Tama) is as follows:

The Crown makes the following apology to Ngāti Tama and to their ancestors and descendants.

The Crown profoundly regrets and unreservedly apologises for breaching its obligations to Ngāti Tama under the Treaty of Waitangi.

The Crown profoundly regrets and apologises for its cumulative acts and omissions which left Ngāti Tama virtually landless in Te Tau Ihu. The Crown deeply regrets and sincerely apologises that it did not adequately protect the interests of Ngāti Tama and appropriately respect Ngāti Tama rangatiratanga when purchasing their land.

The Crown is deeply remorseful for the significant damage that the alienation of Ngāti Tama from their whenua and customary resources in Golden and Tasman Bays has caused over many generations to the traditional social and cultural structures, mana, and well-being of Ngāti Tama.

The Crown is sincerely sorry that its actions and omissions have detrimentally affected the ability of Ngāti Tama to exercise customary rights and responsibilities within their rohe and contributed to their economic and social marginalisation in Te Tau Ihu.

With this apology the Crown seeks to atone for its past wrongs, restore its honour, which has been damaged by its actions, and begin the process of healing. With this settlement the Crown looks forward to beginning a renewed and enduring relationship with Ngāti Tama based on good faith, mutual trust and co-operation, and respect for the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

The historical account set out in the deed of settlement for Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui (Te Ātiawa) is summarised as follows:

Te Ātiawa came to Te Tau Ihu (the northern South Island) in the late 1820s. Te Ātiawa established pā and kainga at Queen Charlotte Sound (Totaranui), Tasman Bay, Golden Bay, and Te Tai Tapu.

In 1839 the New Zealand Company signed deeds with Māori that purported to purchase the entire northern South Island. In 1840 over twenty Te Ātiawa signed the Treaty of Waitangi at Totaranui.

In 1842 the Company presented gifts to local Māori, including Te Ātiawa, upon establishing its Nelson settlement. Te Ātiawa also contested the meaning of the Company’s 1839 transactions. In 1844 a Crown-appointed commissioner investigated the Company’s purchases. He heard from one Māori witness in Nelson before suspending the inquiry to enable the Company to negotiate a settlement. Māori signed deeds of release in return for accepting payments described by the commissioner as gifts to assist settlement rather than payments for the land. Some Te Ātiawa from Golden Bay were not present at the commissioner’s hearing.

In 1845, on the commissioner’s recommendation, the Crown prepared a grant to the New Zealand Company of 151 000 acres in Tasman and Golden Bays, which would have reserved 15 100 acres for Māori. However, the Company objected to several aspects of this grant. In 1848 the Company accepted a new Crown grant for a larger area of land that reserved only 5 053 acres at Nelson and Motueka, and areas in the Wairau and Golden Bay.

Te Ātiawa had negligible involvement in the administration of the Nelson and Motueka reserves, known as “Tenths”, which were leased to settlers to generate income that was spent on Māori purposes. In the 1850s and 1860s the Crown allocated a number of Motueka Tenths sections to Te Ātiawa for their occupation. However, ownership of these lands was not granted separately to Te Ātiawa. From 1887 the Tenths were leased under perpetually renewable leases. Rentals were infrequently reviewed and over time inflation reduced rental returns. During the twentieth century the Tenths were reduced by the compulsory acquisition of uneconomic shares and the sale of reserves.

Between 1848 and 1850 the Crown assisted the New Zealand Company to purchase Waitohi (now known as Picton), the principal settlement of Te Ātiawa in Totaranui. As part of the sale Te Ātiawa relocated to a reserve at Waikawa that had less suitable soil for cultivation than Waitohi.

In 1852, the Crown purchased the mineral-rich Pakawau block. The Crown only paid for the agricultural value of Pakawau. In 1853, the Crown signed the Waipounamu deed with other iwi, and purported to have purchased most of the remaining Māori land in Te Tau Ihu. Te Ātiawa did not sign the deed, but were to receive a share of the purchase money. The Crown used the 1853 deed to pressure resident Te Ātiawa to agree to the sale and the alienation of their land. Resident Te Ātiawa received £613 for the Waipounamu purchase compared with £900 paid to non-resident Te Ātiawa. The reserves created for Te Ātiawa were generally inadequate for customary use or agricultural or pastoral farming. Over time most Te Ātiawa reserves in Totaranui and Golden Bay were alienated, including several hundred acres taken by the Crown for public works and scenery preservation purposes.

By the late nineteenth century, Te Ātiawa were virtually landless. At this time the Crown allocated landless Te Ātiawa individuals land on Stewart Island and on the West Coast, but never granted them title to the land.

The loss of land and poor quality reserves have contributed to socio-economic hardship for Te Ātiawa. Crown policies of assimilation and integration as well as urbanisation exacerbated cultural dislocation. Te Ātiawa have lost connection with many significant sites and resources, which has had a detrimental effect on their spiritual, economic, and cultural well-being.

The text of the acknowledgements set out in the deed of settlement for Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui (Te Ātiawa) is as follows:

The Crown acknowledges that it has failed to deal with the long-standing grievances of Te Ātiawa in an appropriate way and that recognition of these grievances is long overdue.

The Crown acknowledges that it failed to adequately inform itself of and protect the interests, including the ongoing needs, of Te Ātiawa during the process by which land was granted to the New Zealand Company in 1848, and this failure was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

The Crown acknowledges that Waitohi, at the head of Totaranui (Queen Charlotte Sound), was Te Ātiawa’s principal settlement on the mainland, and that—

The Crown acknowledges the sense of grievance felt by Te Ātiawa at having to relocate from Waitohi to Waikawa and that this grievance exists to the present day.

The Crown acknowledges that it sought to purchase the Pakawau block before Te Ātiawa and other Māori became aware of the potential value of its minerals, and the price paid reflected the agricultural value of the land only.

The Crown acknowledges that when it purchased most of the remaining Māori land in Te Tau Ihu between 1847 and 1856:—

The Crown acknowledges that it failed to adequately protect the interests of Te Ātiawa when purchasing their land and that this was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

The Crown acknowledges that it did not include Te Ātiawa in its negotiations in 1862 to regulate gold mining on the Taitapu block.

The Crown acknowledges that in the reserves that became known as the Nelson and Motueka “tenths” it failed to adequately provide for Te Ātiawa to control those lands they occupied and used, and failed to ensure that the area ultimately reserved was sufficient for the ongoing use and benefit of Te Ātiawa. The Crown acknowledges that these failures were in breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

The Crown acknowledges that the grant of tenths land at Whakarewa in 1853 meant that some Te Ātiawa whanau had to move from land they were occupying at the time. The Crown further acknowledges that despite protests from Māori beginning in 1881 the Whakarewa lands were not returned until 1993.

The Crown acknowledges that—

The Crown acknowledges that certain actions and omissions with respect to the administration of the Nelson and Motueka tenths reserves, including the imposition of a regime of perpetually renewable leases, and permitting the Māori Trustee to sell “uneconomic interests” and tenths land in the twentieth century, resulted in prejudice to those Te Ātiawa who held a beneficial interest in the tenths reserves fund and were in breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

The Crown acknowledges that the operation and impact of the native land laws on the reserves granted to Te Ātiawa, in particular the awarding of land to individual Te Ātiawa rather than to iwi or hapū, made those lands more susceptible to partition, fragmentation, and alienation. This further contributed to the erosion of the traditional tribal structures of Te Ātiawa. The Crown failed to take adequate steps to protect those structures and this was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

The Crown acknowledges that most of the reserves set aside for Te Ātiawa from the Waitohi and Te Waipounamu purchases have over time been alienated from Te Ātiawa ownership, including through Crown takings from their Waikawa reserve for public works, and from their Queen Charlotte Sound reserves for scenery preservation purposes.

The Crown acknowledges that members of Te Ātiawa were never issued title to land allocated to them on Stewart Island and at Whakapoai under the “landless natives” scheme. The Crown’s failure to implement the scheme effectively meant that it did nothing to alleviate the landless position of those Te Ātiawa in Te Tau Ihu and this was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

The Crown acknowledges that the cumulative effect of Crown actions and omissions left Te Ātiawa virtually landless. The Crown’s failure to ensure that Te Ātiawa retained sufficient land for their present and future needs was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

The Crown acknowledges that environmental modification and degradation, particularly in the Marlborough Sounds, has had a detrimental impact on sites of cultural and spiritual significance to Te Ātiawa and limited the ability of Te Ātiawa to access some of their traditional land and sea resources.

The text of the apology set out in the deed of settlement for Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui (Te Ātiawa) is as follows:

The Crown makes the following apology to Te Ātiawa, and to their ancestors and descendants.

The Crown is deeply sorry that it has failed to live up to the obligations it accepted when more than twenty Te Ātiawa rangatira signed the Treaty of Waitangi at Totaranui (Queen Charlotte Sound) in May 1840.

The Crown profoundly regrets and apologises for its actions, which left Te Ātiawa virtually landless in Te Tau Ihu. The Crown recognises that by 1860 Crown land purchases in Te Tau Ihu had largely restricted Te Ātiawa to isolated reserves and marginalised the iwi from the new emerging economy. In particular the Crown regrets that when it arranged the purchase of Waitohi as the site of a town for settlers, this meant Te Ātiawa had to forsake their principal settlement in Totaranui.

The Crown acknowledges that it has failed to appropriately respect Te Ātiawa rangatiratanga. It is greatly remorseful that, over the generations to the present day, Crown actions have undermined your social and traditional structures, and your autonomy and ability to exercise your customary rights and responsibilities.

The Crown unreservedly apologises to Te Ātiawa for failing to honour its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi. Through this apology the Crown seeks to atone for these wrongs and hopes that this settlement will mark the beginning of a new relationship with Te Ātiawa based on the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

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 deeds of settlement.

In this Act, unless the context requires another meaning,—

In this Act, a reference to a transfer or vesting of any land (being the fee simple estate in the land) to or in any trustees includes the transfer or vesting of an undivided share of the fee simple estate in the land.

Subsection (2) applies unless the context requires another meaning.

In this Act, unless the context requires another meaning,—

In this Act,—

In this section,—

In this Act, historical claims—

The historical claims are every claim that a settlement iwi or a representative entity had on or before the settlement date, or may have after the settlement date, and that—

The historical claims include—

The historical claims include—

The historical claims include—

The historical claims include—

However, the historical claims do not include—

A claim may be a historical claim whether or not the claim has arisen or been considered, researched, registered, notified, or made on or before the settlement date.

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 limit the acknowledgements expressed in, or the provisions of, the deeds of settlement.

Despite any other enactment or rule of law, on and from the settlement date, no court, tribunal, or other judicial body has jurisdiction (including the jurisdiction to inquire or further inquire, or to make a finding or recommendation) in respect of—

Subsection (4) does not exclude the jurisdiction of a court, tribunal, or other judicial body in respect of the interpretation or implementation of the deeds of settlement or this Act.

Subsections (1) to (5) do not affect—

To avoid doubt, subsection (6) does not preserve any claim by or on behalf of a person who is not a plaintiff.

In this section,—

This section amends the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975.

In Schedule 3, insert in its appropriate alphabetical order “Ngāti Kōata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu, and Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui Claims Settlement Act 2014, section 25(4) and (5)”.

The enactments listed in subsection (2) do not apply—

The enactments are—

The chief executive of LINZ must issue to the Registrar-General 1 or more certificates that specify each computer register for the Nelson Land District or Marlborough Land District that has a memorial recorded under any enactment listed in section 27(2).

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 it is issued under this section.

The Registrar-General must, as soon as is reasonably practicable after receiving a certificate issued under subsection (1), remove any memorial recorded under an enactment listed in section 27(2) from each computer register identified in the certificate.

No rule of law or provisions of an Act limiting the duration of a trust, including section 16 of the Trusts Act 2019,—

However, if a settlement trust is, or becomes, a charitable trust, the trust may continue indefinitely under section 16(6)(a) of the Trusts Act 2019.

The chief executive of the Ministry of Justice must make copies of the deeds of settlement available—

If a provision in this Act has the same effect as a provision in 1 or both of the Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō, Ngāti Kuia, and Rangitāne o Wairau Claims Settlement Act 2014 and the Ngati Toa Rangatira Claims Settlement Act 2014, the provisions must be given effect to only once as if they were 1 provision.

In this subpart, relevant trustees, for a protocol, means the trustees of a settlement trust to whom the protocol may be or has been issued.

Each responsible Minister—

The responsible Minister may amend or cancel a protocol at the initiative of—

The responsible Minister may amend or cancel a protocol only after consulting, and having particular regard to the views of, the relevant trustees.

Protocols do not restrict—

The Crown must comply with a protocol while it is in force.

If the Crown fails, without good cause, to comply with a protocol, the relevant trustees may, subject to the Crown Proceedings Act 1950, enforce the 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 a protocol.

To avoid doubt,—

A conservation protocol does not have the effect of granting, creating, or providing evidence of an estate or interest in, or rights relating to,—

A 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:

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

A taonga tūturu protocol does not have the effect of granting, creating, or providing evidence of an estate or interest in, or rights relating to, taonga tūturu.

A summary of the terms of a conservation protocol must be noted in the conservation documents affecting the conservation protocol area for that protocol.

The noting of a conservation protocol is—

In this section, conservation document means a conservation management plan, conservation management strategy, freshwater fisheries management plan, or national park management plan.

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

The noting of a fisheries protocol is—

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

A summary of the terms of a minerals protocol must be noted in—

The noting of a minerals protocol is—

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

In this Act, statutory acknowledgement means the acknowledgement made by the Crown in section 41 in respect of each statutory area, on the terms set out in this subpart.

In this subpart,—

The Crown acknowledges the statements of association and the statements of coastal values.

The only purposes of the statutory acknowledgement are—

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, whether the relevant trustees are affected persons in relation to an activity within, adjacent to, or directly affecting the statutory area and 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, whether the relevant trustees are persons who have an interest in proceedings that is greater than the interest that 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 attachment of information to a statutory plan under this section is for the purpose of public information only and, unless adopted by the relevant consent authority as part of the statutory plan, the information is not—

Each relevant consent authority must, for a period of 20 years starting on the effective date, provide the following to the relevant trustees for each resource consent application for an activity within, adjacent to, or directly affecting a statutory area:

The information provided in a summary of an application must be the same as would be given to an affected person by limited notification under section 95B of the Resource Management Act 1991, or as may be agreed between the relevant trustees and the relevant consent authority.

A summary of an application must be provided under subsection (1)(a)—

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

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

The relevant trustees and any member of the relevant iwi may, as evidence of the iwi’s association 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 or statement of coastal values is not, by virtue of the statutory acknowledgement, binding as fact on—

However, the bodies and persons specified in subsection (2) may take the statutory acknowledgement into account.

To avoid doubt,—

The relevant trustees may waive the right to be provided with summaries, and copies of notices, of resource consent applications under section 47 in relation to a statutory area.

The relevant trustees may waive the right to have a relevant consent authority, the Environment Court, or Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga have regard to the statutory acknowledgement under sections 43 to 45 in relation to the coastal statutory area.

Rights must be waived by written notice to the relevant consent authority, the Environment Court, or Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga stating—

An obligation under this subpart does not apply to the extent that the corresponding right has been waived under this section.

Deeds of recognition must be issued to the trustees of the settlement trust of an iwi in respect of the statutory areas with which the iwi has an association as listed in Schedule 1, except the areas referred to as—

The Minister of Conservation and the Director-General must issue a deed of recognition for the relevant statutory areas administered by the Department of Conservation.

The Commissioner of Crown Lands must issue a deed of recognition for the relevant statutory areas administered by the Commissioner.

A deed of recognition must be issued in the form set out in part 3 (or, for Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui, in part 2) of the documents schedule of the relevant deed of settlement.

The person or people who issue a deed of recognition to trustees may amend the deed, but only with the written consent of the trustees.

For the purposes only of issuing or amending a deed of recognition, Titi Island Nature Reserve is a statutory area (as if listed in Schedule 1)—

If any part of the statutory acknowledgement applies to a river or stream (including a tributary), that part of the acknowledgement—

If any part of a deed of recognition applies to a river or stream (including a tributary), that part of the deed—

The statutory acknowledgement and the deeds of recognition do not affect, and must not be taken into account by, a person exercising a power or performing a function or duty under legislation or a bylaw.

A person, in considering a matter or making a decision or recommendation under legislation or a bylaw, must not give greater or lesser weight to the association of the relevant iwi with a statutory area than that person would give if there were no statutory acknowledgement or deed of recognition for the statutory area.

Subsection (2) does not limit subsection (1).

This section is subject to—

The statutory acknowledgement and the deeds of recognition do not affect the lawful rights or interests of a person who is not a party to a deed of settlement.

This section is subject to the other provisions of this subpart.

The statutory acknowledgement and the deeds 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 is subject to the other provisions of this subpart.

This section amends the Resource Management Act 1991.

In Schedule 11, insert in its appropriate alphabetical order “the Ngāti Kōata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu, and Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui Claims Settlement Act 2014”.

In this Act, overlay classification—

In this subpart,—

Each site described in Schedule 2 is declared to be subject to the overlay classification.

The Crown acknowledges the statements of iwi values of the relevant iwi in relation to the overlay sites.

The only purposes of the overlay classification are—

The relevant trustees and the Minister of Conservation may agree on and publicise protection principles that are intended to prevent—

The protection principles set out in paragraph 4.1 of part 1 (or, for Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui, of part 3) of the documents schedule of a deed of settlement are to be treated as having been agreed by the relevant trustees and the Minister of Conservation.

The relevant trustees and the Minister of Conservation may agree in writing to any amendments to the protection principles.

When the New Zealand Conservation Authority or a Conservation Board considers or approves a conservation management strategy, conservation management plan, or national park management plan in relation to an overlay site, it must have particular regard to—

Before approving a conservation management strategy, conservation management plan, or national park management plan in relation to an overlay site, the New Zealand Conservation Authority or a Conservation Board must—

If the relevant trustees advise the New Zealand Conservation Authority in writing that they have significant concerns about a draft conservation management strategy in relation to an overlay site, the New Zealand Conservation Authority must, before approving the strategy, give the trustees an opportunity to make submissions in relation to those concerns.

The application of the overlay classification to an overlay site must be noted in any conservation management strategy, conservation management plan, or national park management plan affecting the site.

The noting of the overlay classification under subsection (1)—

The Minister of Conservation must notify the following in the Gazette:

The Director-General may notify in the Gazette any action (including any specified action) taken or intended to be taken under section 66 or 67.

The Director-General must take action in relation to the protection principles that relate to an overlay site, including the specified actions.

The Director-General retains complete discretion to determine the method and extent of the action to be taken.

The Director-General must notify the relevant trustees in writing of any action intended to be taken.

The Director-General may initiate an amendment to a conservation management strategy, conservation management plan, or national park management plan to incorporate objectives relating to the protection principles that relate to an overlay site.

The Director-General must consult any relevant Conservation Board before initiating an amendment under subsection (1).

An amendment initiated under subsection (1) is an amendment for the purposes of section 17I(1) to (3) of the Conservation Act 1987 or section 46(1) to (4) of the National Parks Act 1980, as the case may be.

The Governor-General may, by Order in Council made on the recommendation of the Minister of Conservation, make regulations for 1 or more of the following purposes:

The Minister of Conservation may make bylaws for 1 or more of the following purposes:

This section applies if the overlay classification applies to any land in—

The overlay classification does not affect—

The Governor-General may, by Order in Council made on the recommendation of the Minister of Conservation, declare that all or part of an overlay site is no longer subject to the overlay classification.

The Minister of Conservation must not make a recommendation for the purposes of subsection (1) unless—

Subsection (4) applies if—

The Crown must take reasonable steps to ensure that the relevant trustees continue to have input into the management of the relevant area.

The overlay classification does not affect, and must not be taken into account by, a person exercising a power or performing a function or duty under legislation or a bylaw.

A person, in considering a matter or making a decision or recommendation under legislation or a bylaw, must not give greater or lesser weight to the iwi values that relate to an overlay site than that person would give if the site were not subject to the overlay classification.

Subsection (2) does not limit subsection (1).

This section is subject to the other provisions of this subpart.

The overlay classification does not affect the lawful rights or interests of a person who is not a party to a deed of settlement.

This section is subject to the other provisions of this subpart.

The overlay classification does not have the effect of granting, creating, or providing evidence of an estate or interest in, or rights relating to, an overlay site.

This section is subject to the other provisions of this subpart.

In this Act, unless the context requires another meaning,—

Sites that vest in fee simple

Sites that vest in fee simple subject to conservation covenants

Sites that vest in fee simple to be administered as reserves

The reservation of Catherine Cove (being part of D’Urville Island Scenic Reserve) as a scenic reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977 is revoked.

The fee simple estate in Catherine Cove then vests in the trustees of Te Pātaka a Ngāti Kōata.

The reservation of Whangarae Bay (Okiwi Bay) (being part of Okiwi Bay & Moncrieff Scenic Reserve) as a scenic reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977 is revoked.

The fee simple estate in Whangarae Bay (Okiwi Bay) then vests in the trustees of Te Pātaka a Ngāti Kōata.

The trustees of Te Pātaka a Ngāti Kōata, as occupiers of Whangarae Bay (Okiwi Bay), are then bound by a fencing covenant (as defined in section 2 of the Fencing Act 1978) in favour of the Crown, as occupier of Section 3 SO 430484.

To avoid doubt, section 5(2) of the Fencing Act 1978 applies to the fencing covenant.

The Minister of Conservation must provide the trustees of Te Pātaka a Ngāti Kōata with a registrable easement for a right to convey water over the area shown as B on SO 430484 in favour of Whangarae Bay (Okiwi Bay) on the terms and conditions set out in part 5.1 of the documents schedule of the deed of settlement for Ngāti Kōata.

The easement—

Subsections (1) to (6) do not take effect until the trustees of Te Pātaka a Ngāti Kōata have provided the Crown with a registrable easement instrument (containing restrictive covenants) for Whangarae Bay (Okiwi Bay) in favour of Section 3 SO 430484 on the terms and conditions set out in part 5.2 of the documents schedule of the deed of settlement for Ngāti Kōata.

Any improvements in or on Whangarae Bay (Okiwi Bay) do not vest in the trustees of Te Pātaka a Ngāti Kōata, despite the vesting under subsection (2).

The reservation of Glenhope (Kawatiri) (being part of Glenhope Scenic Reserve) as a scenic reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977 is revoked.

The fee simple estate in Glenhope (Kawatiri) then vests in the trustees of the Ngāti Rārua Settlement Trust.

The Minister of Conservation must provide the trustees of the Ngāti Rārua Settlement Trust with a registrable right of way easement over the area shown as A on SO 427227 in favour of Glenhope (Kawatiri) on the terms and conditions set out in part 5.3 of the documents schedule of the deed of settlement for Ngāti Rārua.

The easement—

The reservation of Kawatiri Confluence (being part of Glenhope Scenic Reserve) as a scenic reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977 is revoked.

The fee simple estate in Kawatiri Confluence then vests in the trustees of the Ngāti Rārua Settlement Trust.

Wairau Pā ceases to be a marginal strip under Part 4A of the Conservation Act 1987.

The fee simple estate in Wairau Pā then vests in the trustees of the Ngāti Rārua Settlement Trust.

Rārangi (Ngāti Rārua) ceases to be a conservation area under the Conservation Act 1987.

The fee simple estate in Rārangi (Ngāti Rārua) then vests in the trustees of the Ngāti Rārua Settlement Trust.

Any part of Wainui urupā that is a conservation area under the Conservation Act 1987 ceases to be a conservation area.

The fee simple estate in Wainui urupā then vests in the trustees of the Ngāti Tama ki Te Waipounamu Trust.

The reservation of Tapu Bay (Kaiteriteri) (being part of Kaiteriteri Recreation Reserve) as a recreation reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977 is revoked.

The fee simple estate in Tapu Bay (Kaiteriteri) then vests in the trustees of the Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui Trust.

The reservation of Umukuri Bay urupā (Arapaoa Island) as a sounds foreshore reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977 is revoked.

The fee simple estate in Umukuri Bay urupā (Arapaoa Island) then vests in the trustees of the Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui Trust.

The reservation of Tapu Bay (Motueka) (being part of Kaiteriteri Recreation Reserve) as a recreation reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977 is revoked.

The fee simple estate in Tapu Bay (Motueka) then vests in the trustees of the Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui Trust.

Subsections (1) and (2) do not take effect until the trustees of the Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui Trust have provided the Crown with the following documents:

The reservation of Pūponga Farm, Cape House, (being part of Puponga Farm Park) as a recreation reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977 is revoked.

The fee simple estate in Pūponga Farm, Cape House, then vests as undivided third shares in the specified groups of trustees as tenants in common, as follows:

Subsections (1) and (2) do not take effect until the trustees referred to in subsection (2) have provided the Crown with a registrable easement for a right to convey water over the area shown as A on SO 426796 in favour of Section 3 SO 426796 and Part Section 14 SO 10390 on the terms and conditions set out in part 5.2 of the documents schedule of the relevant deed of settlement.

The reservation of Pūponga Farm, Triangle Flat, (being part of Puponga Farm Park) as a recreation reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977 is revoked.

The fee simple estate in Pūponga Farm, Triangle Flat, then vests as undivided third shares in the specified groups of trustees as tenants in common, as follows:

The stopped road shown as A on SO 12178, Nelson Land District, vests in the Crown as a recreation reserve subject to section 17 of the Reserves Act 1977.

The reservation of Puketawai (being part of Kaiteriteri Recreation Reserve) as a recreation reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977 is then revoked.

The fee simple estate in Puketawai then vests as undivided third shares in the specified groups of trustees as tenants in common, as follows:

Subsections (5) and (6) apply only if there is a historic monument at Puketawai on the settlement date.

Subsections (1) to (3) do not take effect until the trustees referred to in subsection (3) have provided the Crown with a registrable pedestrian right of way easement in gross over the area shown as A on SO 426273 on the terms and conditions set out in part 5.1 of the documents schedule of the relevant deed of settlement.

The historic monument at Puketawai does not vest in any of the trustees, despite the vesting under subsection (3).

The trustees are not liable for contamination of any land or other natural and physical resources if—

Subsection (1) does not exclude liability for contamination to the extent that the trustees’ intentional, reckless, or negligent act or omission caused the contamination.

This section applies despite any other enactment or any rule of law.

In this section,—

The reservation of Lucky Bay (being part of D’Urville Island Scenic Reserve) as a scenic reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977 is revoked.

The fee simple estate in Lucky Bay then vests in the trustees of Te Pātaka a Ngāti Kōata.

Subsections (1) and (2) do not take effect until the trustees of Te Pātaka a Ngāti Kōata have provided the Crown with a registrable covenant in relation to the part of Lucky Bay shown as A on SO 436126 on the terms and conditions set out in part 5.3 of the documents schedule of the deed of settlement for Ngāti Kōata.

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

The reservation of Whangarae Estuary (being part of Okiwi Bay & Moncrieff Scenic Reserve) as a scenic reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977 is revoked.

The fee simple estate in Whangarae Estuary then vests in the trustees of Te Pātaka a Ngāti Kōata.

Subsections (1) and (2) do not take effect until the trustees of Te Pātaka a Ngāti Kōata have provided the Crown with a registrable covenant in relation to the part of Whangarae Estuary shown as C on SO 430484 on the terms and conditions set out in part 5.4 of the documents schedule of the deed of settlement for Ngāti Kōata.

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

The reservation of Wharf Road (Okiwi Bay) (being part of Okiwi Bay & Moncrieff Scenic Reserve) as a scenic reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977 is revoked.

The fee simple estate in Wharf Road (Okiwi Bay) then vests in the trustees of Te Pātaka a Ngāti Kōata.

Subsections (1) and (2) do not take effect until the trustees of Te Pātaka a Ngāti Kōata have provided the Crown with a registrable covenant in relation to Wharf Road (Okiwi Bay) on the terms and conditions set out in part 5.5 of the documents schedule of the deed of settlement for Ngāti Kōata.

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

Te Tai Tapu (Snake Creek) (being part of North-west Nelson Forest Park) ceases to be a conservation area under the Conservation Act 1987.

The fee simple estate in Te Tai Tapu (Snake Creek) then vests in the trustees of the Ngāti Rārua Settlement Trust.

Subsections (1) and (2) do not take effect until the trustees of the Ngāti Rārua Settlement Trust have provided the Crown with—

The covenant is to be treated as a conservation covenant for the purposes of—

Coombe Rocks ceases to be a conservation area under the Conservation Act 1987.

The fee simple estate in Coombe Rocks then vests in the trustees of the Ngāti Rārua Settlement Trust.

Subsections (1) and (2) do not take effect until the trustees of the Ngāti Rārua Settlement Trust have provided the Crown with a registrable covenant in relation to Coombe Rocks on the terms and conditions set out in part 5.6 of the documents schedule of the deed of settlement for Ngāti Rārua.

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

Hori Bay (being part of Mt Richmond State Forest Park) ceases to be a conservation area under the Conservation Act 1987.

The fee simple estate in Hori Bay then vests in the trustees of the Ngāti Tama ki Te Waipounamu Trust.

Subsections (1) and (2) do not take effect until the trustees of the Ngāti Tama ki Te Waipounamu Trust have provided the Crown with—

The covenant is to be treated as a conservation covenant for the purposes of—

The reservation of Pakawau Inlet as a public utility reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977 is revoked.

The fee simple estate in Pakawau Inlet then vests in the trustees of the Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui Trust.

Subsections (1) and (2) do not take effect until the trustees of the Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui Trust have provided the Crown with a registrable covenant in relation to Pakawau Inlet on the terms and conditions set out in part 5.5 of the documents schedule of the deed of settlement for Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui.

The covenant is to be treated as a conservation covenant for the purposes of—

The reservation of Onauku Bay (Arapaoa Island) as a watering place and other purposes reserve subject to the Reserves Act 1977 is revoked.

The fee simple estate in Onauku Bay (Arapaoa Island) then vests in the trustees of the Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui Trust.

Subsections (1) and (2) do not take effect until the trustees of the Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui Trust have provided the Crown with a registrable covenant in relation to Onauku Bay (Arapaoa Island) on the terms and conditions set out in part 5.6 of the documents schedule of the deed of settlement for Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui.

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