3 Purpose

• The purpose of Parts 1 to 3 is to give effect to certain provisions of the deeds of settlement that settle the historical claims of Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō, Ngāti Kuia, and Rangitāne o Wairau.

4 Provisions take effect on settlement date

• (1) The provisions of Parts 1 to 3 take effect on the settlement date unless a provision states otherwise.

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

  • (a) for the provision to have full effect on that date; or

  • (b) for a power to be exercised, or for a duty to be performed, under the provision on that date.

5 Act binds the Crown

• Parts 1 to 3 bind the Crown.

6 Outline

• (1) This section is a guide to the overall scheme and effect of Parts 1 to 3, but does not affect the interpretation or application of the other provisions of Parts 1 to 3 or the deeds of settlement.

  (2) This Part—

  • (a) sets out the purpose of Parts 1 to 3 and specifies that Parts 1 to 3 bind the Crown; and

  • (b) provides that the provisions of Parts 1 to 3 take effect on the settlement date unless a provision states otherwise; and

  • (c) specifies that Parts 1 to 3 bind the Crown; and

  • (d) summarises the historical accounts from the deeds of settlement and records the acknowledgements and the apology given by the Crown in the deeds; and

  • (e) defines terms used in Parts 1 to 3, including key terms such as Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō, Ngāti Kuia, Rangitāne o Wairau, and historical claims; and

  • (f) provides that the settlement of the historical claims is final; and

  • (g) provides for—

    • (i) the effect of the settlement on the jurisdiction of a court, tribunal, or other judicial body in respect of the historical claims; and

    • (ii) a consequential amendment to the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975; and

    • (iii) the effect of the settlement on certain memorials; and

    • (iv) the exclusion of the law against perpetuities; and

    • (v) access to the deeds of settlement.

  (3) Part 2 provides for cultural redress, including—

  • (a) the issuing of protocols to the trustees of the settlement trusts by the Minister of Conservation, the Minister for Primary Industries, the Minister of Energy and Resources, and the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage; and

  • (b) a statutory acknowledgement by the Crown of the statements made by the settlement iwi of their cultural, spiritual, historical, and traditional associations with certain statutory areas; and

  • (c) provision for deeds of recognition issued by the Crown to the trustees of the settlement trusts; and

  • (d) the application of an overlay classification to certain overlay sites by the Crown's acknowledgement of the values of the settlement iwi in relation to the relevant sites; and

  • (e) the vesting of cultural redress properties in the trustees of each settlement trust, in some cases jointly with each other or with the trustees of trusts for iwi under related settlements; and

  • (f) the vesting of the alpine tarns in the trustees of the Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō Trust, and the vesting of the tarns back to the Crown as a gift from the trustees; and

  • (g) the vesting of Te Tai Tapu in the trustees of the Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō Trust (jointly with the trustees of trusts for iwi under a related settlement), and the vesting of the site back to the Crown as a gift from the trustees; and

  • (h) the alteration and assignment of names for certain geographic features; and

  • (i) the Crown's acknowledgement of the association of Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō with eels in the part of the Nelson Lakes National Park within the Ngāti Apa conservation protocol area, and provision for customary use of the eels; and

  • (j) the Crown's acknowledgement of the association of Ngāti Kuia and Rangitāne o Wairau with pakohe, provision for iwi members to remove pakohe from certain riverbeds by hand, and a requirement for the Director-General to consult in relation to pakohe; and

  • (k) provision for members of the settlement iwi to remove natural material from certain riverbeds by hand; and

  • (l) the appointment of the trustees of the Te Runanga o Ngāti Kuia Trust as statutory kaitiaki of Tītī Island and the Chetwode Islands, and provision for the customary use of tītī by members of Ngāti Kuia and Rangitāne o Wairau; and

  • (m) the Crown's recognition of the historical association of Rangitāne o Wairau with Endeavour Inlet; and

  • (n) the establishment of an iwi advisory committee to provide advice on the management of rivers and fresh water within the regions of certain councils, with members appointed by the trustees of the settlement trusts, the related settlement trusts, and the Toa Rangatira Trust; and

  • (o) the preparation of a conservation management plan for the historic reserve being created over the Wairau Boulder Bank, with certain decisions about the plan being made jointly by the Nelson/Marlborough Conservation Board and the trustees of the Rangitāne o Wairau Settlement Trust.

  (4) Part 3 provides for commercial redress, including—

  • (a) authorisation for the transfer of commercial properties, deferred selection properties (which may include the unlicensed land), and any Woodbourne land to the trustees of each settlement trust to give effect to the deeds of settlement; and

  • (b) provision for a right of access to certain protected sites on the unlicensed land; and

  • (c) a right of first refusal in relation to RFR land that may be exercised by the trustees of the settlement trusts (and, in some cases, the trustees of the related settlement trusts and the Toa Rangatira Trust).

  (5) There are 4 schedules, as follows:

  • (a) Schedule 1 describes the statutory areas to which the statutory acknowledgement relates and, in some cases, for which deeds of recognition are issued:

  • (b) Schedule 2 describes the overlay sites to which the overlay classification applies:

  • (c) Schedule 3 describes the cultural redress properties:

  • (d) Schedule 4 sets out provisions that apply to notices given in relation to RFR land.

7 Historical accounts and the Crown's acknowledgements and apologies

• (1) Section 8 summarises the historical account from the deed of settlement for Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō, which provides a background to the deed of settlement.

  (2) Sections 9 and 10 record the acknowledgements and the apology given by the Crown to Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō in the deed of settlement for Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō.

  (3) Section 11 summarises the historical account from the deed of settlement for Ngāti Kuia, which provides a background to the deed of settlement.

  (4) Sections 12 and 13 record the acknowledgements and the apology given by the Crown to Ngāti Kuia in the deed of settlement for Ngāti Kuia.

  (5) Section 14 summarises the historical account from the deed of settlement for Rangitāne o Wairau, which provides a background to the deed of settlement.

  (6) Sections 15 and 16 record the acknowledgements and the apology given by the Crown to Rangitāne o Wairau in the deed of settlement for Rangitāne o Wairau.

8 Summary of historical account for Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō

• The historical account set out in the deed of settlement for Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō (Ngāti Apa) is summarised as follows:

  (1) Ngāti Apa have resided in the northern South Island for many generations. At 1820 Ngāti Apa occupied and used resources in the outer Marlborough Sounds at Anamahanga (Port Gore), Waimea, Whakatu (Nelson), Te Tai Aorere (Golden Bay), Te Tai Tapu (Tasman Bay, Whanganui and the northern West Coast) and down to the Kawatiri region. In the 1820s and 1830s iwi from the North Island invaded and settled in the northern South Island. Although Ngāti Apa no longer had exclusive possession of all their territory they retained their tribal structures, chiefly lines and ancestral connections to the land. There was also opportunity for the recovery of status and the revival of rights as British rule began to take effect after 1840.

  (2) In 1839 the New Zealand Company signed deeds with Māori that purported to purchase the entire northern South Island. Ngāti Apa were not consulted by the Company. The validity of the Company's purchases was investigated in 1844 by a Crown-appointed Commissioner. The Commissioner found that the Company had made a limited purchase of land in the northern South Island and recommended a grant of 151 000 acres. The Crown failed to investigate the rights of Ngāti Apa before granting land to the Company. The Company also made an additional payment to Te Tau Ihu Māori in 1844. Ngāti Apa did not directly receive a share of this payment for their interests or a share in the Nelson Tenths reserves that were set aside from the land granted to the Company.

  (3) Between 1847 and 1856 the Crown sought to purchase most of the remaining Māori land in the northern South Island. Despite the Crown being aware that Ngāti Apa claimed rights in some of the areas that were being purchased, Ngāti Apa were not included in any of the transactions. Consequently Ngāti Apa, in contrast to all the other northern South Island iwi, received no payment for the alienation of their land, and no reserves were set aside for them.

  (4) Ngāti Apa received some recognition in the 1860 Arahura (West Coast) purchase. The Ngāti Apa rangatira Pūaha Te Rangi was a signatory to the deed. Ngāti Apa received a small share of the purchase price and several occupation reserves were set aside for them. The reserves were insufficient for the present and future needs of the iwi. In the first half of the twentieth century Ngāti Apa obtained a beneficial share in several endowment reserves on the West Coast. For various reasons, including inefficient Māori and Public Trustee administration, Ngāti Apa did not obtain significant economic benefit from these reserves. During the twentieth century Ngāti Apa occupation and endowment reserves were reduced through public works and scenery preservation takings and sales by their owners.

  (5) In 1977 the remaining reserves on the West Coast were transferred to the Mawhera Incorporation. This included the Westport town sections in which Ngāti Apa held a nine-tenths interest. The 1973 Commission of Inquiry into Māori Reserved Lands had earlier put forward two options for the future management of the Westport sections—if the owners desired, the lands might be included in an incorporation, together with other West Coast reserves; or two owner representatives might work with the Māori Trustee to determine the future administration of the sections. The Crown did not consult separately with the Ngāti Apa owners and did not offer them the option of working with the Māori Trustee. Following the transfer of the Westport and other Ngāti Apa reserves to Mawhera the Ngāti Apa owners became shareholders in the Incorporation but no longer controlled the land and could not utilise it for tribal or community purposes.

  (6) In 1883 and 1892 the Native Land Court investigated the ownership of land that had been excluded from Crown purchases and the Nelson Tenths reserves. Ngāti Apa made several claims before the Court. In the Te Tai Tapu and Nelson Tenths ownership investigations the Court deemed that Ngāti Apa did not have rights and they were excluded from ownership. In 1889 the Court granted Ngāti Apa two small reserves at Anamahanga (Port Gore). When the larger of the reserves was sold in 1929 the remaining reserve of 5 acres was the only land remaining in Ngāti Apa ownership outside the West Coast.

  (7) By the late nineteenth century, Ngāti Apa were landless. The Crown attempted to alleviate their position through the provision of “Landless Natives Reserves”. Hoani Mahuika of Ngāti Apa petitioned the Crown to provide additional land in the Kawatiri region. Ngāti Apa individuals were allocated land at Whakapoai on the West Coast but the Crown never granted them title to the land. Ultimately the reserves scheme did nothing to alleviate the landless position of Ngāti Apa in the northern South Island.

9 Text of acknowledgements for Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō

• The text of the acknowledgements set out in the deed of settlement for Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō (Ngāti Apa) is as follows:

  (1) The Crown acknowledges that it has failed to deal with the long-standing grievances of Ngāti Apa in an appropriate way and that recognition of these grievances is long overdue. The Crown further acknowledges that at relevant times it has failed to carry out an adequate inquiry into the nature and extent of Ngāti Apa customary rights and interests. This meant that the Crown failed to recognise or protect Ngāti Apa rights and interests to their full extent, which resulted in prejudice to the iwi. This was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

  (2) The Crown acknowledges that it failed to adequately investigate the customary rights of Ngāti Apa before granting land to the New Zealand Company. As a result the Crown did not consult, negotiate with, and compensate Ngāti Apa for their rights in those lands. The Crown failed to actively protect the interests of Ngāti Apa and this was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

  (3) The Crown failed to adequately protect the interests of Ngāti Apa when it arranged the completion of the New Zealand Company's Nelson purchase and did not establish a process in a timely manner that ensured Ngāti Apa received consideration, including a share in the tenths, for this purchase. This was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

  (4) The Crown acknowledges that its failure to adequately investigate the rights of Ngāti Apa at the time of the Spain Commission and protect the interests of Ngāti Apa when completing the Company's Nelson purchase had an ongoing effect on Ngāti Apa. From this point, the ability of Ngāti Apa to represent and protect their interests, including at pivotal Native Land Court cases in 1883 and 1892, and to maintain their connections to the whenua, was significantly impacted. The Crown acknowledges that this negative impact has continued down to the present day.

  (5) The Crown acknowledges that it failed to investigate and recognise Ngāti Apa customary rights or deal with the iwi when it embarked on a series of purchases in Te Tau Ihu between 1847 and 1856. Ngāti Apa were afforded minimal recognition in the 1860 Arahura purchase. The Crown acknowledges that—

  • (a) Ngāti Apa received no payment for the alienation of their land in Crown purchases carried out between 1847–1856; and

  • (b) it did not acquire the Ngāti Apa interests in land it later treated as purchased; and

  • (c) no reserves were set aside for Ngāti Apa from the Crown's Waipounamu purchase; and

  • (d) the occupation reserves set aside for Ngāti Apa in connection with the Crown's Arahura purchase were insufficient for the present and future needs of Ngāti Apa and that over time these reserves were subject to further alienation.

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

  (6) The Crown acknowledges that in purchasing almost the entire Te Tau Ihu region, Ngāti Apa were the only iwi in Te Tau Ihu the Crown did not sign a purchase deed with or provide with reserves.

  (7) The Crown acknowledges that Ngāti Apa received little economic return from the endowment reserves granted to them on the West Coast.

  (8) The Crown acknowledges that it failed to adequately consult the Ngāti Apa owners of West Coast reserves between Kahurangi Point and Westport about the future management of those lands. This included failing to present the Westport town section owners with the full range of options recommended by the 1973 Commission of Inquiry into Maori Reserved Land. All Ngāti Apa's remaining West Coast reserves were subsequently vested in the Greymouth-based Mawhera Incorporation. Ngāti Apa owners became shareholders in the Incorporation, but lost control of their lands. This gave rise to a grievance which is still keenly felt by Ngāti Apa today.

  (9) The Crown acknowledges that members of Ngāti Apa were never issued title to land allocated to them at Whakapoai under the “landless natives” scheme. The Crown's failure to effectively implement the scheme meant that it did nothing to alleviate the landless position of Ngāti Apa in Te Tau Ihu. This failure was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

  (10) The Crown acknowledges that its actions have impacted on the ability of Ngāti Apa to access many of their traditional resources, including the rivers, lakes, forests, and wetlands. The Crown also acknowledges that Ngāti Apa have lost control of many of their significant sites, including wahi tapu, and that this has had an ongoing impact on their physical and spiritual relationship with the land.

  (11) The Crown acknowledges that by 1900 Ngāti Apa were a landless iwi. The Crown failed to ensure that Ngāti Apa were left with sufficient land for their present and future needs and this failure was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

10 Text of apology for Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō

• The text of the apology set out in the deed of settlement for Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō (Ngāti Apa) is as follows:

  (1) The Crown makes the following apology to Ngāti Apa, and to their ancestors and descendants.

  (2) The Crown is deeply sorry that it has not always fulfilled its obligations to Ngāti Apa under the Treaty of Waitangi and unreservedly apologises to Ngāti Apa for the breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles acknowledged above.

  (3) The Crown profoundly regrets its failure since 1840 to appropriately acknowledge the mana and rangatiratanga of Ngāti Apa. The Crown's failure to recognise Ngāti Apa in any land purchases in Te Tau Ihu quickly left Ngāti Apa landless and almost wrote the iwi out of the history of Te Tau Ihu. The Crown is deeply sorry that its failure to recognise and protect the interests of Ngāti Apa has had a devastating impact on the social and economic well-being and development of Ngāti Apa.

  (4) The Crown regrets and apologises for the cumulative effect of its actions and omissions, which have had a damaging impact on the social and traditional tribal structures of Ngāti Apa, their autonomy and ability to exercise customary rights and responsibilities, and their access to customary resources and sites of significance.

  (5) Through this apology the Crown seeks to atone for these wrongs, restore its honour, and begin the process of healing. The Crown looks forward to building a new relationship with Ngāti Apa that is based on mutual trust, co-operation, and respect for the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

11 Summary of historical account for Ngāti Kuia

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

  (1) Ngāti Kuia have resided in Te Tau Ihu o Te Waka a Maui (the northern South Island or the prow of the waka of Maui) for generations. By 1820 Ngāti Kuia were established primarily in the Kaituna, Te Hora, Te Hoiere (the Pelorus area), Rangitoto (D'Urville Island), Whangarae, Whakapuaka, and Whakatū (Nelson) districts. In the 1820s and 1830s iwi from the North Island invaded and settled in Te Tau Ihu. Although Ngāti Kuia no longer had exclusive possession of all their territory they retained their tribal structures, chiefly lines, and ancestral connections to the land. There was also opportunity for the recovery of status and the revival of rights as British rule began to take effect after 1840.

  (2) In 1839 the New Zealand Company signed deeds with Māori that purported to purchase the entire northern South Island. Ngāti Kuia were not consulted by the Company. The validity of the Company's purchases was investigated in 1844 by a Crown-appointed Commissioner. The Commissioner deemed that the Company had made a limited purchase of land in Te Tau Ihu and recommended a grant of 151 000 acres. However, the Crown failed to investigate the rights of Ngāti Kuia before granting land to the Company. The Company also made an additional payment to Te Tau Ihu Māori in 1844. Ngāti Kuia did not directly receive a share of this payment for their interests or a share in the Nelson Tenths reserves that were set aside from the land granted to the Company.

  (3) Between 1847 and 1856 the Crown sought to purchase most of the remaining Māori land in Te Tau Ihu. In 1853 the Crown signed with other iwi the Te Waipounamu deed that purported to purchase all remaining Māori land in the region. Ngāti Kuia were not present at negotiations or signatories to the deed. Under the deed a share of the purchase money was to be distributed among resident Te Tau Ihu Māori. In 1854 Ngāti Kuia at Te Hoiere disputed the idea the Waipounamu deed had acquired their interests in the land and demanded a fair payment directly from the Government. The Crown did not meet with resident Māori to finalise the Te Waipounamu purchase until 1856. The Crown used the 1853 deed to pressure resident Māori, including Ngāti Kuia, to agree to the alienation of their land. In 1856 Ngāti Kuia signed a deed with the Crown and were paid £100 for their interests in Te Tau Ihu and granted reserves in the Te Hoiere district.

  (4) The 790 acres of reserves provided to Ngāti Kuia were insufficient for the iwi to either maintain their customary practices of resource use or develop effectively in the new economy. As a result Ngāti Kuia became economically marginalised. In 1889 the Native Land Court determined ownership of the reserves granted to Ngāti Kuia. Title to the land was given to individual Ngāti Kuia rather than to iwi or hapū collectives. Over time the reserves became increasingly fragmented and uneconomic as individuals sold their shares and as titles became crowded through succession. By the end of the twentieth century Ngāti Kuia retained less than 230 acres of their reserves.

  (5) In 1883 and 1892 the Native Land Court investigated the ownership of land that had been excluded from Crown purchases and the Nelson Tenths reserves. Ngāti Kuia made several claims before the Court. In the Te Tai Tapu and Nelson Tenths ownership investigations the Court deemed that Ngāti Kuia did not have rights and they were excluded from ownership. Ngāti Kuia protested unsuccessfully against the Court's Nelson Tenths decision.

  (6) Ngāti Kuia also made claims to islands in Te Hoiere Sound they considered had not been sold. These included the Tītī Islands, which were an important mahinga kai (harvesting area) for Ngāti Kuia. From 1918 Ngāti Kuia, under an agreement with the Crown, were able to harvest tītī (muttonbirds) and other resources from the islands. From 1960 the Crown denied Ngāti Kuia permission to land on the islands owing to declining numbers of tītī. Ngāti Kuia expressed strong opposition to this decision.

  (7) By the late nineteenth century, Ngāti Kuia were landless. Ngāti Kuia submitted a petition to the Government requesting additional land to live on and described themselves as “the poorest tribe under the Heavens”. The Crown attempted to alleviate their position through the provision of “Landless Natives Reserves”. The reserves, however, were in isolated locations, of poor quality, and generally unable to be developed for effective economic use. Ngāti Kuia were also allocated land on Stewart Island but the Crown never granted them title to the land. Ultimately the reserves granted did little to alleviate the landless position of Ngāti Kuia in Te Tau Ihu.

12 Text of acknowledgements for Ngāti Kuia

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

  (1) The Crown acknowledges that it has failed to deal with the long-standing grievances of Ngāti Kuia in an appropriate way and that recognition of these grievances is long overdue. The Crown further acknowledges that at relevant times it has failed to carry out an adequate inquiry into the nature and extent of Ngāti Kuia customary rights and interests across Te Tau Ihu. This meant that the Crown failed to recognise or protect Ngāti Kuia rights and interests to their full extent, which resulted in prejudice to the iwi. This was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

  (2) The Crown acknowledges that it failed to adequately investigate the customary rights of Ngāti Kuia before granting land to the New Zealand Company. As a result the Crown did not consult, negotiate with, and compensate Ngāti Kuia for their rights in those lands. Consequently the Crown failed to actively protect the interests of Ngāti Kuia and this was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

  (3) The Crown failed to adequately protect the interests of Ngāti Kuia when it arranged the completion of the New Zealand Company's Nelson purchase and did not establish a process in a timely manner that ensured Ngāti Kuia received the full consideration, including a share in the tenths, for this purchase. This was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

  (4) The Crown acknowledges that its failure to adequately investigate the rights of Ngāti Kuia and include the iwi at the time of the Spain Commission and protect the interests of Ngāti Kuia when completing the New Zealand Company's Nelson purchase had an ongoing effect on Ngāti Kuia. From this point, the ability of Ngāti Kuia to represent and protect their interests, including at pivotal Native Land Court cases in 1883 and 1892, and to maintain their connections to the whenua, was significantly affected. The Crown acknowledges that this negative impact has continued down to the present day.

  (5) The Crown acknowledges that it failed to recognise the full nature and extent of Ngāti Kuia customary rights when it embarked on a series of purchases from 1847:

  • (a) it did not consult or negotiate with Ngāti Kuia prior to signing the 1853 Te Waipounamu deed; and

  • (b) Ngāti Kuia were heavily pressured by the Crown into accepting the Te Waipounamu purchase and alienating their interests in Te Tau Ihu for a small price; and

  • (c) the reserves set aside for Ngāti Kuia from the Waipounamu purchase were insufficient for the immediate and future needs of Ngāti Kuia.

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

  (6) The Crown acknowledges that for Ngāti Kuia the 1856 deed of sale with the Crown represented more than a transfer of land. The Crown further acknowledges that the collateral benefits Ngāti Kuia expected in entering into the Te Waipounamu sale agreement with the Crown were not always realised.

  (7) The Crown acknowledges that during the late nineteenth century Ngāti Kuia made several claims to the Crown for islands and land areas they did not believe had been sold in the Waipounamu transaction. This included the Tītī Islands, which were an important mahinga kai source for Ngāti Kuia. The Crown's 1933 agreement with Ngāti Kuia over harvesting from the Tītī Islands enabled the iwi to exercise a kaitiaki role over their use of the resource. The Crown acknowledges its decision in the mid-twentieth century to withhold permission for Ngāti Kuia to harvest tītī from these islands has been an ongoing source of frustration for the iwi.

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

  (9) The Crown acknowledges that under the “landless natives” scheme—

  • (a) the land allocated to members of Ngāti Kuia was mostly of poor quality, in remote locations, of little economic utility and therefore inadequate; and

  • (b) members of Ngāti Kuia were never issued title to land allocated to them on Stewart Island; and

  • (c) it failed to issue title to the Ngāti Kuia owners of the Te Māpou and Te Raetihi reserves until 1968; and

  • (d) the provision of land to Ngāti Kuia did little to relieve their landless position in Te Tau Ihu.

  The Crown acknowledges that it failed to effectively implement the scheme designed to alleviate the landless position of Ngāti Kuia in Te Tau Ihu. This failure was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

  (10) The Crown acknowledges that its actions have impacted on the ability of Ngāti Kuia to access many of their traditional resources, including the rivers, lakes, forests, and wetlands. The Crown also acknowledges that Ngāti Kuia has lost control of many of their significant sites, including wahi tapu, and that this has had an ongoing impact on their physical and spiritual relationship with the land.

  (11) The Crown acknowledges that by 1900 Ngāti Kuia were landless. The Crown failed to ensure that Ngāti Kuia were left with sufficient land for their immediate and future needs and this failure was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

13 Text of apology for Ngāti Kuia

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

  (1) The Crown recognises the efforts and struggles of the ancestors of Ngāti Kuia over several generations in pursuit of their grievances against the Crown and makes this apology to Ngāti Kuia, to their ancestors and descendants.

  (2) The Crown is deeply sorry that it has not always fulfilled its obligations to Ngāti Kuia under the Treaty of Waitangi.

  (3) The Crown profoundly regrets its long-standing failure to appropriately acknowledge the mana and rangatiratanga of Ngāti Kuia. The Crown is deeply sorry that its failure to protect the interests of Ngāti Kuia when purchasing their land in Te Tau Ihu rapidly left Ngāti Kuia landless. Its failure to provide Ngāti Kuia with sufficient reserves in Te Tau Ihu marginalised them from the benefits of economic development in the region.

  (4) The Crown regrets and apologises for the cumulative effect of its actions and omissions, which have had a damaging impact on the social and traditional tribal structures of Ngāti Kuia, their autonomy and ability to exercise customary rights and responsibilities, and their access to customary resources and significant sites.

  (5) The Crown unreservedly apologises to Ngāti Kuia for the breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles. Through this apology the Crown seeks to atone for these wrongs, restore its honour, and begin the process of healing. The Crown looks forward to building a new relationship with Ngāti Kuia that is based on mutual trust, co-operation, and respect for the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

14 Summary of historical account for Rangitāne o Wairau

• The historical account set out in the deed of settlement for Rangitāne o Wairau (Rangitāne) is summarised as follows:

  (1) Rangitāne have resided in the northern South Island for many generations. Rangitāne occupied and used resources within a territory stretching from the Waiau-toa (Clarence) River in the south to the Wairau (Marlborough), including the Nelson Lakes, and north to Kaituna and the Marlborough Sounds and west into the Whakatu (Nelson) area. In the 1820s and 1830s iwi from the North Island invaded and settled in the northern South Island. Although Rangitāne no longer had exclusive possession of all their territory they retained their tribal structures, chiefly lines and ancestral connections to the land. There was also opportunity for the recovery of status and the revival of rights after 1840 as British rule began to take effect. In 1840 their rangatira Ihaia Kaikoura signed the Treaty of Waitangi at Horahora Kākahu Island in Port Underwood.

  (2) In 1839 the New Zealand Company signed deeds with Māori that purported to purchase the entire northern South Island. Rangitāne were not consulted by the Company. The validity of the Company's purchases was investigated in 1844 by a Crown-appointed Commissioner. The Commissioner found that the Company had made a limited purchase of land in the northern South Island and recommended a grant of 151 000 acres. However, the Crown failed to investigate the rights of Rangitāne before granting land to the Company. The Company also made an additional payment to Te Tau Ihu Māori in 1844. Rangitāne did not directly receive a share of this payment for their interests or a share in the Nelson Tenths reserves that were set aside from the land granted to the Company.

  (3) Between 1847 and 1856 the Crown sought to purchase the remaining Māori land in Te Tau Ihu. In 1847 the Crown purchased the Wairau district from three North Island chiefs. The Crown did not identify other right-holders in the region and the rights of Rangitāne were ignored. In 1853 the Crown signed with other iwi the Te Waipounamu deed that purported to purchase all remaining Māori land in the region. Rangitāne were not present at negotiations or signatories to the deed. Under the deed a share of the purchase money was to be distributed among resident Te Tau Ihu Māori, including Rangitāne. The Crown did not meet with resident Māori to finalise the Te Waipounamu purchase until 1856. The Crown used the 1853 deed to pressure resident Māori, including Rangitāne, to agree to the alienation of their land. In 1856 Rangitāne were paid £100 for their interests in Te Tau Ihu and granted reserves in the Wairau district. Land south of the Wairau River was not sold by Rangitāne in 1856.

  (4) Despite the Crown purchase agent, Donald McLean, considering that an appropriate reserve in the Wairau comprised a block of around 13,400 acres, the reserves finally established by the Crown were wholly inadequate. The two reserves established—the Pukatea and Wairau—were shared between three iwi and were insufficient for Rangitāne to either maintain their customary practices of resource use or developed effectively in the new economy. As a result Rangitāne became economically marginalised. In 1889 the reserves granted to Rangitāne and other iwi were investigated by the Native Land Court. Title to the land was given to individual Rangitāne rather than to iwi or hapū collectives. Over time the reserves became increasingly fragmented and uneconomic as individuals sold their shares and as titles became crowded through succession.

  (5) In 1883 and 1892 the Native Land Court investigated the ownership of land that had been excluded from Crown purchases and the Nelson Tenths reserves. Rangitāne made several claims before the Court. In the Te Tai Tapu and Nelson Tenths ownership investigations the Court deemed that Rangitāne did not have rights and they were excluded from ownership. Rangitāne also made several claims for land they did not think had been included in the 1856 transaction but these claims were dismissed by the Court.

  (6) The Pukatea reserve was mainly leased by the Crown. Because of its isolation and poor quality it provided only a small return to its owners. Most of Rangitāne's reserved land at Pukatea was purchased by the Crown in the 1950s in order to create a recreation and scenic reserve.

  (7) The Wairau reserve was subject to frequent flooding and from the 1930s, at the request of Rangitāne and other Wairau Māori, it was included in a land development scheme. The scheme was ineffective at preventing flooding and the reserve became encumbered with debt. The Wairau reserve was eventually released from the scheme between 1955 and 1970. The reserve was still subject to serious flooding at least until 1960.

  (8) By the late nineteenth century, Rangitāne were landless. The Crown attempted to alleviate their position through the provision of “Landless Natives Reserves”. The reserves, however, were in isolated locations, of poor quality and generally unable to be developed for effective economic use. Rangitāne were also allocated land on Stewart Island but the Crown never granted them title to the land. Ultimately the reserves did little to alleviate the landless position of Rangitāne in the northern South Island.

15 Text of acknowledgements for Rangitāne o Wairau

• The text of the acknowledgements set out in the deed of settlement for Rangitāne o Wairau (Rangitāne) is as follows:

  (1) The Crown acknowledges that it has failed to deal with the long-standing grievances of Rangitāne in an appropriate way and that recognition of these grievances is long overdue. The Crown further acknowledges that at relevant times it has failed to carry out an adequate inquiry into the nature and extent of Rangitāne customary rights and interests. This meant that the Crown failed to recognise or protect Rangitāne rights and interests to their full extent, and resulted in prejudice to the iwi. This was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

  (2) The Crown acknowledges that—

  • (a) the rapid shift of Commissioner Spain's hearing from investigation to arbitration denied Rangitāne an opportunity to present evidence on the New Zealand Company's claims; and

  • (b) Rangitāne were not involved in the arbitration between Te Tau Ihu Māori and the New Zealand Company, did not directly receive any of the Company's compensation payment, and did not sign any of the deeds of release before the Crown granted the Company 151 000 acres.

  The Crown's failure to investigate the customary rights of Rangitāne before granting land to the New Zealand Company meant that it failed to actively protect the interests of Rangitāne in those lands and was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

  (3) The Crown failed to protect the interests of Rangitāne when it arranged the completion of the New Zealand Company's Nelson purchase and did not establish a process in a timely manner that ensured Rangitāne received the full consideration, including a share in the tenths, for this purchase. This was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

  (4) The Crown acknowledges that its failure to investigate the rights of Rangitāne at the time of the Spain Commission and protect the interests of Rangitāne when completing the Company's Nelson purchase had an ongoing effect on Rangitāne. From this point, the ability of Rangitāne to represent and protect their interests, including at pivotal Native Land Court cases in 1883 and 1892, and to maintain their connections to the whenua, was significantly impacted. The Crown acknowledges that this negative impact has continued down to the present day.

  (5) The Crown acknowledges that it failed to recognise the full nature and extent of Rangitāne customary rights when it embarked on a series of purchases from 1847:

  • (a) it failed to deal with Rangitāne in its negotiation of the 1847 Wairau deed; and

  • (b) it did not negotiate with Rangitāne prior to signing the 1853 Te Waipounamu deed; and

  • (c) Rangitāne were heavily pressured into accepting the Te Waipounamu purchase and alienating their interests in Te Tau Ihu for a small price; and

  • (d) Rangitāne rights and interests in lands south of Parinui-o-Whiti were not acquired by the Crown in the Te Waipounamu purchase, and Rangitāne were not consulted when these lands were later purchased from other iwi; and

  • (e) the reserves set aside for Rangitāne from the Waipounamu purchase were wholly inadequate for the present and future needs of Rangitāne.

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

  (6) The Crown acknowledges that the collateral benefits Rangitāne expected in entering into the Te Waipounamu sale agreement with the Crown were not always realised.

  (7) The Crown acknowledges that the operation and impact of the native land laws on the reserves granted to Rangitāne, in particular the awarding of land to individual Rangitāne 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 Rangitāne. The Crown failed to take adequate steps to protect those structures and this was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

  (8) The Crown acknowledges that the flood-prone nature of the Wairau reserve limited its usefulness. The Crown further acknowledges that the development scheme which operated on the reserve during the mid-twentieth century was largely ineffective in alleviating the flooding problem and meant Rangitāne lost effective control of their land for a period.

  (9) The Crown acknowledges that owing to its isolation and poor quality the Pukatea reserve provided little economic return to the Rangitāne owners. The Crown further acknowledges that considerable public pressure contributed to the decision of Rangitāne to sell their share in Pukatea 3 to the Crown in 1955 and that Rangitāne received little benefit from this transaction.

  (10) The Crown acknowledges that—

  • (a) the land allocated to members of Rangitāne under the “landless natives” scheme was mostly of poor quality, in remote locations, of little economic utility, and therefore inadequate; and

  • (b) members of Rangitāne were never issued title to land allocated to them on Stewart Island; and

  • (c) the provision of land to Rangitāne did little to relieve their landless position in Te Tau Ihu.

  The Crown acknowledges that it failed to effectively implement the scheme designed to alleviate the landless position of Rangitāne in Te Tau Ihu. This failure was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

  (11) The Crown acknowledges that by 1900 Rangitāne were landless. The Crown failed to ensure that Rangitāne were left with sufficient land for their present and future needs and this failure was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

16 Text of apology for Rangitāne o Wairau

• The text of the apology set out in the deed of settlement for Rangitāne o Wairau (Rangitāne) is as follows:

  (1) The Crown makes the following apology to Rangitāne, and to their ancestors and descendants.

  (2) On 17 June 1840 the Rangitāne rangatira Ihaia Kaikoura signed the Treaty of Waitangi at Horahora-kākahu, Port Underwood. The Crown is deeply sorry that it has not fulfilled its obligations to Rangitāne under the Treaty of Waitangi and unreservedly apologises to Rangitāne for the breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles acknowledged above.

  (3) The Crown profoundly regrets its long-standing failure to appropriately acknowledge the mana and rangatiratanga of Rangitāne. The Crown did not recognise Rangitāne when it purchased the Wairau district in 1847 and recognition of Rangitāne mana in the Te Waipounamu purchase was belated. The Crown is deeply sorry that its acts and omissions quickly left Rangitāne landless and this has had a devastating impact on the economic, social, and cultural well-being and development of Rangitāne.

  (4) The Crown regrets and apologises for the cumulative effect of its actions and omissions, which have had a damaging impact on the social and traditional structures of Rangitāne, their autonomy and ability to exercise customary rights and responsibilities, and their access to customary resources and significant sites.

  (5) With this apology the Crown seeks to atone for its past wrongs and begin the process of healing. It looks forward to re-establishing its relationship with Rangitāne based on mutual trust, co-operation, and respect for the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

17 Interpretation of Act generally

• It is the intention of Parliament that the provisions of Parts 1 to 3 are interpreted in a manner that best furthers the agreements expressed in the deeds of settlement.

18 Interpretation

• (1) In Parts 1 to 3, unless the context requires another meaning,—

  administering body has the meaning given by section 2(1) of the Reserves Act 1977

  advisory committee means the committee established by section 138 to provide advice in relation to the management of rivers and fresh water within the regions of certain councils

  affected person has the meaning given by section 2AA(2) of the Resource Management Act 1991

  aquatic life has the meaning given by section 2(1) of the Conservation Act 1987

  commercial property means a property listed in part 3.8 of the property redress schedule of the deed of settlement for Rangitāne o Wairau in respect of which the agreement for sale and purchase (formed under clause 6.8 of that deed) has not been cancelled

  Commissioner of Crown Lands has the same meaning as Commissioner in section 2 of the Land Act 1948

  consent authority has the meaning given by section 2(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991

  conservation land means land that is—

  • (a) vested in the Crown or held in fee simple by the Crown; and

  • (b) held, managed, or administered by the Department of Conservation under the conservation legislation

  conservation legislation means the Conservation Act 1987 and the Acts listed in Schedule 1 of that Act

  conservation management plan has the meaning given by section 2(1) of the Conservation Act 1987

  conservation management strategy has the meaning given by section 2(1) of the Conservation Act 1987

  conservation protocol—

  • (a) means a protocol issued by the Minister of Conservation under section 30(1)(a); and

  • (b) includes any amendments made to the protocol under section 30(1)(b)

  conservation protocol area means the area shown on the map attached to a conservation protocol

  control, for the purposes of paragraph (d) of the definition of Crown body, means,—

  • (a) for a company, control of the composition of its board of directors; and

  • (b) for another body, control of the composition of the group that would be its board of directors if the body were a company

  Crown—

  • (a) has the meaning given by section 2(1) of the Public Finance Act 1989; and

  • (b) for the purposes of subpart 1 of Part 3, includes New Zealand Post Limited and the New Zealand Transport Agency

  Crown body means—

  • (a) a Crown entity (as defined by section 7(1) of the Crown Entities Act 2004); and

  • (b) a State enterprise (as defined by section 2 of the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986); and

  • (c) the New Zealand Railways Corporation; and

  • (d) a company or body that is wholly owned or controlled by 1 or more of the following:

    • (i) the Crown:

    • (ii) a Crown entity:

    • (iii) a State enterprise:

    • (iv) the New Zealand Railways Corporation; and

  • (e) a subsidiary, or related company, of a company or body referred to in paragraph (d)

  Crown-owned mineral means a mineral (as defined by section 2(1) of the Crown Minerals Act 1991)—

  • (a) that is the property of the Crown under section 10 or 11 of that Act; or

  • (b) over which the Crown has jurisdiction under the Continental Shelf Act 1964

  cultural redress property has the meaning given by section 72

  deed of recognition—

  • (a) means a deed of recognition issued under section 47 to the trustees of a settlement trust by—

    • (i) the Minister of Conservation and the Director-General; or

    • (ii) the Commissioner of Crown Lands; and

  • (b) includes any amendments to the deed made under section 47; and

  • (c) for Ngāti Kuia, is known as pou whakāro

  deed of settlement—

  • (a) means each of the following 3 deeds of settlement, including any schedules or attachments and including any amendments:

    • (i) the deed of settlement for Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō dated 29 October 2010, entered into by the Crown, Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō, and the Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō Trust:

    • (ii) te whakatau (the deed of settlement) for Ngāti Kuia dated 23 October 2010, entered into by the Crown, Ngāti Kuia, and the Te Runanga o Ngāti Kuia Trust:

    • (iii) the deed of settlement for Rangitāne o Wairau dated 4 December 2010, entered into by the Crown, Rangitāne o Wairau, and the Rangitāne o Wairau Settlement Trust; but

  • (b) in section 161 and Schedule 4,—

    • (i) for a related settlement iwi, means the deed of settlement for that iwi defined by section 210(1) of Parts 4 to 7 of the Te Tau Ihu Claims Settlement Act 2013; or

    • (ii) for Ngati Toa Rangatira, means the deed of settlement for Ngati Toa Rangatira defined by section 428(1) of Parts 8 to 10 of the Te Tau Ihu Claims Settlement Act 2013

  deferred selection property means a property listed in part 3.6 or 3.7 of the property redress schedule of a deed of settlement (including the unlicensed land)—

  • (a) that the trustees of the relevant settlement trust have elected to purchase from the Crown or the New Zealand Transport Agency by giving notice under paragraph 1.4 of part 3.1 of that schedule; and

  • (b) in respect of which the agreement for sale and purchase (formed under paragraph 2.1 of that part 3.1) has not been cancelled

  Director-General means the Director-General of Conservation

  effective date means the date that is 6 months after the settlement date

  fisheries protocol—

  • (a) means a protocol issued by the Minister for Primary Industries under section 30(1)(a); and

  • (b) includes any amendments made to the protocol under section 30(1)(b)

  fisheries protocol area means the area shown on the map attached to a fisheries protocol, together with the adjacent waters

  freshwater fisheries management plan has the meaning given by section 2(1) of the Conservation Act 1987

  Historic Places Trust means the New Zealand Historic Places Trust (Pouhere Taonga) continued by section 38 of the Historic Places Act 1993

  historical claims has the meaning given by section 21

  interest, in relation to land, means a lease, tenancy, licence, licence to occupy, easement, covenant, or other right or obligation affecting the land

  land holding agency means,—

  • (a) for a commercial property, the land holding agency specified for the property in part 3.8 of the property redress schedule of the deed of settlement for Rangitāne o Wairau:

  • (b) for a deferred selection property,—

    • (i) the land holding agency specified for the property in part 3.6 or 3.7 of the property redress schedule of the relevant deed of settlement; and

    • (ii) in relation to a lease back to the Crown of the courthouse site defined in section 150(1), the Ministry of Justice:

  • (c) for the Woodbourne land, the New Zealand Defence Force

  LINZ means Land Information New Zealand

  local authority has the meaning given by section 5(1) of the Local Government Act 2002

  member, for a settlement iwi, means an individual referred to in paragraph (a) of the definition of that iwi in section 20(1)

  minerals protocol—

  • (a) means a protocol issued by the Minister of Energy and Resources under section 30(1)(a); and

  • (b) includes any amendments made to the protocol under section 30(1)(b)

  minerals protocol area means the area shown on the map attached to a minerals protocol, together with the adjacent waters

  national park management plan has the same meaning as management plan in section 2 of the National Parks Act 1980

  New Zealand Transport Agency means the agency established by section 93 of the Land Transport Management Act 2003

  overlay classification has the meaning given by section 53(1)

  protocol—

  • (a) means a protocol issued under section 30(1)(a); and

  • (b) includes any amendments made to the protocol under section 30(1)(b)

  public work has the meaning given by section 2 of the Public Works Act 1981

  regional council has the meaning given by section 2(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991

  Registrar-General means the Registrar-General of Land appointed under section 4 of the Land Transfer Act 1952

  related company has the meaning given by section 2(3) of the Companies Act 1993

  related settlement iwi has the meaning given by section 19

  related settlement trust has the meaning given by section 19

  representative entity means—

  • (a) the trustees of each settlement trust; and

  • (b) any person (including any trustees) acting for, or on behalf of,—

    • (i) the collective group referred to in paragraph (a) of the definition of Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō, Ngāti Kuia, or Rangitāne o Wairau in section 20(1); or

    • (ii) 1 or more members of Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō, Ngāti Kuia, or Rangitāne o Wairau; or

    • (iii) 1 or more of the whānau, hapū, or groups referred to in paragraph (c) of the definition of Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō, Ngāti Kuia, or Rangitāne o Wairau in section 20(1)

  resource consent has the meaning given by section 2(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991

  responsible Minister means,—

  • (a) for a conservation protocol, the Minister of Conservation; or

  • (b) for a fisheries protocol, the Minister for Primary Industries; or

  • (c) for a minerals protocol, the Minister of Energy and Resources; or

  • (d) for a taonga tūturu protocol, the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage; or

  • (e) for any protocol, any other Minister of the Crown authorised by the Prime Minister to exercise powers, and perform functions and duties, in relation to the protocol

  RFR land has the meaning given by section 162

  settlement date means the date that is 70 working days after the date on which Parts 1 to 3 come into force

  settlement iwi has the meaning given by section 19

  settlement trust has the meaning given by section 19

  statutory acknowledgement has the meaning given by section 37(1)

  statutory plan—

  • (a) means a district plan, regional plan, regional coastal plan, regional policy statement, or proposed policy statement (as defined by section 43AA of the Resource Management Act 1991); and

  • (b) includes a proposed plan (as defined by section 43AAC of that Act)

  subsidiary has the meaning given by section 5 of the Companies Act 1993

  taonga tūturu—

  • (a) has the meaning given by section 2(1) of the Protected Objects Act 1975; and

  • (b) includes ngā taonga tūturu (as defined by section 2(1) of that Act)

  taonga tūturu protocol—

  • (a) means a protocol issued by the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage under section 30(1)(a); and

  • (b) includes any amendments made to the protocol under section 30(1)(b)

  trustees means the trustees of a trust acting in their capacity as trustees

  unlicensed land means the land described as Speeds Valley in part 3.6 of the property redress schedule of the deed of settlement for Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō

  Woodbourne land means any area of land defined in the general matters schedule of a deed of settlement as the cleared current surplus land, the cleared non-operational land, or the leaseback land—

  • (a) that the trustees of the relevant settlement trust have elected to acquire from the Crown by giving notice under paragraph 1.15 of part 4.1, 5.1, or 6.1 of the property redress schedule of the relevant deed of settlement; and

  • (b) in respect of which any agreement for sale and purchase (formed under paragraph 2.1 of that part 4.1, 5.1, or 6.1) has not been cancelled

  working day means a day of the week other than—

  • (a) Saturday, Sunday, Waitangi Day, Good Friday, Easter Monday, Anzac Day, the Sovereign's birthday, and Labour Day; and

  • (b) a day in the period starting on 25 December in a year and ending on 15 January in the following year; and

  • (c) the day observed as the anniversary of the province of Nelson, Marlborough, or Wellington.

  (2) In Parts 1 to 3, 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.

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

19 Interpretation: iwi and trusts

• In Parts 1 to 3, unless the context requires another meaning,—

  Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō has the meaning given by section 20(1)

  Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō Trust means the trust with that name established by a deed of trust dated 28 October 2010

  Ngāti Kōata has the meaning given by section 212(1) of Parts 4 to 7 of the Te Tau Ihu Claims Settlement Act 2013

  Ngāti Kuia has the meaning given by section 20(1)

  Ngāti Rārua has the meaning given by section 212(1) of Parts 4 to 7 of the Te Tau Ihu Claims Settlement Act 2013

  Ngāti Rārua Settlement Trust has the meaning given by section 211 of Parts 4 to 7 of the Te Tau Ihu Claims Settlement Act 2013

  Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu has the meaning given by section 212(1) of Parts 4 to 7 of the Te Tau Ihu Claims Settlement Act 2013

  Ngāti Tama ki Te Waipounamu Trust has the meaning given by section 211 of Parts 4 to 7 of the Te Tau Ihu Claims Settlement Act 2013

  Ngati Toa Rangatira has the meaning given by section 430(1) of Parts 8 to 10 of the Te Tau Ihu Claims Settlement Act 2013

  Rangitāne o Wairau has the meaning given by section 20(1)

  Rangitāne o Wairau Settlement Trust means the trust with that name established by a deed of trust dated 25 October 2010

  related settlement iwi means each of the following iwi:

  • (a) Ngāti Kōata:

  • (b) Ngāti Rārua:

  • (c) Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu:

  • (d) Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui

  related settlement trust means,—

  • (a) for Ngāti Kōata, Te Pātaka a Ngāti Kōata:

  • (b) for Ngāti Rārua, the Ngāti Rārua Settlement Trust:

  • (c) for Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu, the Ngāti Tama ki Te Waipounamu Trust:

  • (d) for Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui, the Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui Trust

  settlement iwi means each of the following iwi:

  • (a) Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō:

  • (b) Ngāti Kuia:

  • (c) Rangitāne o Wairau

  settlement trust means,—

  • (a) for Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō, the Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō Trust:

  • (b) for Ngāti Kuia, the Te Runanga o Ngāti Kuia Trust:

  • (c) for Rangitāne o Wairau, the Rangitāne o Wairau Settlement Trust

  Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui has the meaning given by section 212(1) of Parts 4 to 7 of the Te Tau Ihu Claims Settlement Act 2013

  Te Ātiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui Trust has the meaning given by section 211 of Parts 4 to 7 of the Te Tau Ihu Claims Settlement Act 2013

  Te Pātaka a Ngāti Kōata has the meaning given by section 211 of Parts 4 to 7 of the Te Tau Ihu Claims Settlement Act 2013

  Te Runanga o Ngāti Kuia Trust means the trust with that name established by a deed of trust dated 2 November 2009

  Toa Rangatira Trust has the meaning given by section 429 of Parts 8 to 10 of the Te Tau Ihu Claims Settlement Act 2013.

20 Meaning of Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō, Ngāti Kuia, and Rangitāne o Wairau

• (1) In Parts 1 to 3,—

  Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō—

  • (a) means the collective group composed of individuals who are descended from an ancestor of Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō; and

  • (b) includes those individuals; and

  • (c) includes any whānau, hapū, or group to the extent that it is composed of those individuals

  Ngāti Kuia—

  • (a) means the collective group composed of individuals who are descended from an ancestor of Ngāti Kuia; and

  • (b) includes those individuals; and

  • (c) includes any whānau, hapū, or group to the extent that it is composed of those individuals

  Rangitāne o Wairau—

  • (a) means the collective group composed of individuals who are descended from an ancestor of Rangitāne o Wairau; and

  • (b) includes those individuals; and

  • (c) includes any whānau or group to the extent that it is composed of those individuals.

  (2) In this section,—

  ancestor of Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō means an individual who—

  • (a) exercised customary rights by virtue of being descended from—

    • (i) Ruatea (who was on board the Kurahaupō waka that arrived in Aotearoa); and

    • (ii) a recognised tupuna of 1 or both of the following hapū:

      • (A) Puaha Te Rangi (West Coast):

      • (B) Tarakaipa (Te Tau Ihu); and

  • (b) exercised the customary rights predominantly in relation to the area of interest of Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō at any time after 6 February 1840

  ancestor of Ngāti Kuia means an individual who—

  • (a) exercised customary rights by virtue of being descended from—

    • (i) a tupuna, or a union of tupuna, identified in clause 8.7 of the deed of settlement for Ngāti Kuia; and

    • (ii) 1 or more of the following:

      • (A) an individual who originally signed the Ngāti Kuia deed of sale dated 16 February 1856 for Ngāti Kuia (including such individuals who are listed in clause 8.8 of the deed of settlement for Ngāti Kuia):

      • (B) an individual listed in the South Island landless natives lists who has been identified as Ngāti Kuia (including such individuals who are listed in clause 8.8 of the deed of settlement for Ngāti Kuia):

      • (C) a sibling of an individual described in subsubparagraph (A) or (B); and

  • (b) exercised the customary rights predominantly in relation to the area of interest of Ngāti Kuia at any time after 6 February 1840

  ancestor of Rangitāne o Wairau means an individual who—

  • (a) exercised customary rights by virtue of being descended from a primary ancestor of Rangitāne o Wairau identified in clause 8.6 of the deed of settlement for Rangitāne o Wairau; and

  • (b) exercised the customary rights predominantly in relation to the area of interest of Rangitāne o Wairau at any time after 6 February 1840

  area of interest of Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō means the area of interest of Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō shown in part 1 of the attachments schedule of the deed of settlement for Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō

  area of interest of Ngāti Kuia means te kupenga-a-Kuia (the area of interest of Ngāti Kuia) shown in part 1 of the attachments schedule of the deed of settlement for Ngāti Kuia

  area of interest of Rangitāne o Wairau means the area of interest of Rangitāne o Wairau shown in part 1 of the attachments schedule of the deed of settlement for Rangitāne o Wairau

  customary rights means rights according to tikanga Māori (Māori customary values and practices), including—

  • (a) rights to occupy land; and

  • (b) rights in relation to the use of land or other natural or physical resources

  descended means that a person is descended from another person, or from a union of persons, by—

  • (a) birth; or

  • (b) legal adoption; or

  • (c) Māori customary adoption in accordance with the tikanga (customary values and practices) of the relevant settlement iwi.

21 Meaning of historical claims

• (1) In Parts 1 to 3, historical claims—

  • (a) means the claims described in subsection (2); and

  • (b) includes the claims described in subsections (3) to (5); but

  • (c) does not include the claims described in subsection (6).

  (2) 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—

  • (a) is, or is founded on, a right arising—

    • (i) from the Treaty of Waitangi or its principles; or

    • (ii) under legislation; or

    • (iii) at common law (including aboriginal title or customary law); or

    • (iv) from fiduciary duty; or

    • (v) otherwise; and

  • (b) arises from, or relates to, acts or omissions before 21 September 1992—

    • (i) by, or on behalf of, the Crown; or

    • (ii) by or under legislation.

  (3) The historical claims include—

  • (a) a claim to the Waitangi Tribunal that relates exclusively to Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō or a representative entity of Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō, including the following claim, to the extent that subsection (2) applies to the claim: Wai 521—Ngāti Apa iwi lands and fisheries claim; and

  • (b) any other claim to the Waitangi Tribunal, including each of the following claims, to the extent that subsection (2) applies to the claim and the claim relates to Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō or a representative entity of Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō:

    • (i) Wai 102—Te Runanganui o Te Tau Ihu o Te Waka a Maui Inc claims:

    • (ii) Wai 785—Combined record of inquiry for the northern South Island claims:

    • (iii) Wai 1987—Te Awhaiti Village claim.

  (4) The historical claims include—

  • (a) a claim to the Waitangi Tribunal that relates exclusively to Ngāti Kuia or a representative entity of Ngāti Kuia, including each of the following claims, to the extent that subsection (2) applies to the claim:

    • (i) Wai 561—Ngāti Kuia iwi claim:

    • (ii) Wai 829—Whakapuaka, Nelson Tenths, and Stewart Island claim:

    • (iii) Wai 2092—Descendants of Amiria Hemi lands (Wedderspoon) claim; and

  • (b) any other claim to the Waitangi Tribunal, including each of the following claims, to the extent that subsection (2) applies to the claim and the claim relates to Ngāti Kuia or a representative entity of Ngāti Kuia:

    • (i) Wai 102—Te Runanganui o Te Tau Ihu o Te Waka a Maui Inc claims:

    • (ii) Wai 785—Combined record of inquiry for the northern South Island claims.

  (5) The historical claims include—

  • (a) a claim to the Waitangi Tribunal that relates exclusively to Rangitāne o Wairau or a representative entity of Rangitāne o Wairau, including the following claim, to the extent that subsection (2) applies to the claim: Wai 44—Kurahaupō Rangitāne claim; and

  • (b) any other claim to the Waitangi Tribunal, including each of the following claims, to the extent that subsection (2) applies to the claim and the claim relates to Rangitāne o Wairau or a representative entity of Rangitāne o Wairau:

    • (i) Wai 102—Te Runanganui o Te Tau Ihu o Te Waka a Maui Inc claims:

    • (ii) Wai 785—Combined record of inquiry for the northern South Island claims.

  (6) However, the historical claims do not include—

  • (a) a claim that a member of Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō, or a whānau, hapū, or group referred to in paragraph (c) of the definition of Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō in section 20(1), had or may have that is, or is founded on, a right arising by virtue of being descended from a person other than an ancestor of Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō (as defined in section 20(2)); or

  • (b) a claim that a representative entity of Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō had or may have that is, or is founded on, a claim described in paragraph (a); or

  • (c) a claim that a member of Ngāti Kuia, or a whānau, hapū, or group referred to in paragraph (c) of the definition of Ngāti Kuia in section 20(1), had or may have that is, or is founded on, a right arising by virtue of being descended from a person other than an ancestor of Ngāti Kuia (as defined in section 20(2)); or

  • (d) a claim that a representative entity of Ngāti Kuia had or may have that is, or is founded on, a claim described in paragraph (c); or

  • (e) a claim that a member of Rangitāne o Wairau, or a whānau, hapū, or group referred to in paragraph (c) of the definition of Rangitāne o Wairau in section 20(1), had or may have that is, or is founded on, a right arising by virtue of being descended from a person other than an ancestor of Rangitāne o Wairau (as defined in section 20(2)); or

  • (f) a claim that a representative entity of Rangitāne o Wairau had or may have that is, or is founded on, a claim described in paragraph (e).

  (7) 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.

22 Settlement of historical claims final

• (1) The historical claims are settled.

  (2) 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.

  (3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not limit the acknowledgements expressed in, or the provisions of, the deeds of settlement.

  (4) 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—

  • (a) the historical claims; or

  • (b) the deeds of settlement; or

  • (c) Parts 1 to 3; or

  • (d) the redress provided under the deeds of settlement or Parts 1 to 3.

  (5) 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 Parts 1 to 3.

23 Amendment to Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975

• (1) This section amends the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975.

  (2) In Schedule 3, insert in its appropriate alphabetical order “Parts 1 to 3 of the Te Tau Ihu Claims Settlement Act 2013, section 22(4) and (5)”.

24 Certain enactments do not apply

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

  • (a) to land in the Nelson Land District or Marlborough Land District; or

  • (b) for the benefit of a settlement iwi or a representative entity.

  (2) The enactments are—

  • (a) sections 8A to 8HJ of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975:

  • (b) sections 27A to 27C of the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986:

  • (c) sections 211 to 213 of the Education Act 1989:

  • (d) Part 3 of the Crown Forest Assets Act 1989:

  • (e) Part 3 of the New Zealand Railways Corporation Restructuring Act 1990.

25 Removal of memorials

• (1) 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 24(2).

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

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

  (4) 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 24(2) from each computer register identified in the certificate.

26 Rule against perpetuities does not apply

• (1) The rule against perpetuities and the provisions of the Perpetuities Act 1964 do not—

  • (a) prescribe or restrict the period during which—

    • (i) a settlement trust may exist in law; or

    • (ii) the trustees of a settlement trust may hold or deal with property (including income derived from property); or

  • (b) apply to a document entered into to give effect to a deed of settlement if the application of that rule or the provisions of that Act would otherwise make the document, or a right conferred by the document, invalid or ineffective.

  (2) However, if a settlement trust is, or becomes, a charitable trust, the application (if any) of the rule against perpetuities or of any provision of the Perpetuities Act 1964 to that trust must be determined under the general law.

27 Access to deeds of settlement

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

  • (a) for inspection free of charge, and for purchase at a reasonable price, at the head office of the Ministry of Justice in Wellington between 9 am and 5 pm on any working day; and

  • (b) free of charge on an Internet site maintained by or on behalf of the Ministry of Justice.

28 Provisions of other Acts that have same effect

• If a provision in Parts 1 to 3 has the same effect as a provision in 1 or both of Parts 4 to 7 of the Te Tau Ihu Claims Settlement Act 2013 and Parts 8 to 10 of the Te Tau Ihu Claims Settlement Act 2013, the provisions must be given effect to only once as if they were 1 provision.

29 Interpretation

• 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.

30 Issue, amendment, and cancellation of protocols

• (1) Each responsible Minister—

  • (a) must issue a protocol to the trustees of each settlement trust in the form set out in part 4 of the documents schedule of the relevant deed of settlement; and

  • (b) may amend or cancel that protocol.

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

  • (a) the relevant trustees; or

  • (b) the responsible Minister.

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

31 Protocols subject to rights, functions, and obligations

• Protocols do not restrict—

  • (a) the ability of the Crown to exercise its powers and perform its functions and duties in accordance with the law and Government policy, which includes the ability to—

    • (i) introduce legislation and change Government policy; and

    • (ii) interact with or consult a person that the Crown considers appropriate, including any iwi, hapū, marae, whānau, or other representative of tangata whenua; or

  • (b) the responsibilities of a responsible Minister or a department of State; or

  • (c) the legal rights of a settlement iwi or a representative entity.

32 Enforceability of protocols

• (1) The Crown must comply with a protocol while it is in force.

  (2) 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.

  (3) 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.

  (4) To avoid doubt,—

  • (a) subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to guidelines developed for the implementation of a protocol; and

  • (b) subsection (3) does not affect the ability of a court to award costs incurred by the relevant trustees in enforcing the protocol under subsection (2).

33 Limitation of rights

• (1) 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) the common marine and coastal area (as defined by section 9(1) of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011); or

  • (b) land held, managed, or administered, or flora or fauna managed or administered, under the conservation legislation.

  (2) 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) the Fisheries Act 1996:

  • (b) the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992:

  • (c) the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004:

  • (d) the Maori Fisheries Act 2004.

  (3) 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.

  (4) 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.

34 Noting of conservation protocols

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

  (2) The noting of a conservation protocol is—

  • (a) for the purpose of public notice only; and

  • (b) not an amendment to the conservation documents for the purposes of section 17I of the Conservation Act 1987 or section 46 of the National Parks Act 1980.

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

35 Noting of fisheries protocols

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

  (2) The noting of a fisheries protocol is—

  • (a) for the purpose of public notice only; and

  • (b) not an amendment to the fisheries plans for the purposes of section 11A of the Fisheries Act 1996.

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

36 Noting of minerals protocols

• (1) A summary of the terms of a minerals protocol must be noted in—

  • (a) a register of protocols maintained by the chief executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment; and

  • (b) the minerals programmes affecting the minerals protocol area for that protocol when those programmes are replaced.

  (2) The noting of a minerals protocol is—

  • (a) for the purpose of public notice only; and

  • (b) not an amendment to the minerals programmes for the purposes of the Crown Minerals Act 1991.

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

37 Interpretation

• (1) In Parts 1 to 3, statutory acknowledgement—

  • (a) means the acknowledgement made by the Crown in section 38 in respect of each statutory area, on the terms set out in this subpart; and

  • (b) for Ngāti Kuia, is known as pou rāhui or coastal pou rāhui.

  (2) In this subpart,—

  coastal statutory area—

  • (a) means the statutory area described in Schedule 1 as coastal marine area; and

  • (b) for Ngāti Kuia, is known as hineparawhenua

  relevant consent authority, for a statutory area, means a consent authority of a region or district that contains, or is adjacent to, the statutory area

  relevant iwi, for a statutory area, means the 1 or more iwi listed in Schedule 1 as having an association with the statutory area

  relevant trustees, for a statutory area, means the trustees of the settlement trust of each of the relevant iwi for the statutory area

  statements of association means the statements—

  • (a) made by the relevant iwi of their particular cultural, spiritual, historical, and traditional association with the statutory areas (except the coastal statutory area); and

  • (b) that are in the form set out in part 2 of the documents schedule of each deed of settlement

  statements of coastal values means the statements—

  • (a) made by the relevant iwi of their particular values relating to the coastal statutory area; and

  • (b) that are in the form set out in part 2.1 of the documents schedule of each deed of settlement

  statutory area means an area described in Schedule 1, with the general location (but not the precise boundaries) indicated on the deed plan referred to in relation to the area.

38 Statutory acknowledgement by the Crown

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

39 Purposes of statutory acknowledgement

• The only purposes of the statutory acknowledgement are—

  • (a) to require relevant consent authorities, the Environment Court, and the Historic Places Trust to have regard to the statutory acknowledgement, as provided for in sections 40 to 42; and

  • (b) to require relevant consent authorities to provide summaries of resource consent applications, or copies of notices of resource consent applications, to the relevant trustees, as provided for in section 44; and

  • (c) to enable the relevant trustees and members of the relevant iwi to cite the statutory acknowledgement as evidence of the iwi's association with a statutory area, as provided for in section 45.

40 Relevant consent authorities to have regard to statutory acknowledgement

• (1) 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.

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

41 Environment Court to have regard to statutory acknowledgement

• (1) 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.

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

42 Historic Places Trust and Environment Court to have regard to statutory acknowledgement

• (1) This section applies if, on or after the effective date, an application is made under section 11 or 12 of the Historic Places Act 1993 for an authority to destroy, damage, or modify an archaeological site within a statutory area.

  (2) The Historic Places Trust must have regard to the statutory acknowledgement relating to a statutory area in exercising its powers under section 14 of the Historic Places Act 1993 in relation to the application, including in determining whether the relevant trustees are directly affected by an extension of time.

  (3) The Environment Court must have regard to the statutory acknowledgement relating to a statutory area in determining under section 20 of the Historic Places Act 1993 an appeal against a decision of the Historic Places Trust in relation to the application, including in determining whether the relevant trustees are directly affected by the decision.

  (4) In this section, archaeological site has the meaning given by section 2 of the Historic Places Act 1993.

43 Recording statutory acknowledgement on statutory plans

• (1) 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.

  (2) The information attached to a statutory plan must include—

  • (a) the relevant provisions of sections 37 to 46 in full; and

  • (b) the descriptions of the statutory areas wholly or partly covered by the plan; and

  • (c) any statements of association or statements of coastal values for the statutory areas.

  (3) 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—

  • (a) part of the statutory plan; or

  • (b) subject to the provisions of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

44 Provision of summaries or notices of certain applications to relevant trustees

• (1) 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:

  • (a) if the application is received by the consent authority, a summary of the application; or

  • (b) if notice of the application is served on the consent authority under section 145(10) of the Resource Management Act 1991, a copy of the notice.

  (2) 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.

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

  • (a) as soon as is reasonably practicable after the consent authority receives the application; but

  • (b) before the consent authority decides under section 95 of the Resource Management Act 1991 whether to notify the application.

  (4) 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.

  (5) This section does not affect a relevant consent authority's obligation,—

  • (a) under section 95 of the Resource Management Act 1991, to decide whether to notify an application, and to notify the application if it decides to do so; or

  • (b) under section 95E of that Act, to decide whether the relevant trustees are affected persons in relation to an activity.

45 Use of statutory acknowledgement

• (1) 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 the Historic Places Trust concerning activities within, adjacent to, or directly affecting the statutory area.

  (2) The content of a statement of association or statement of coastal values is not, by virtue of the statutory acknowledgement, binding as fact on—

  • (a) relevant consent authorities:

  • (b) the Environmental Protection Authority or a board of inquiry under Part 6AA of the Resource Management Act 1991:

  • (c) the Environment Court:

  • (d) the Historic Places Trust:

  • (e) parties to proceedings before those bodies:

  • (f) any other person who is entitled to participate in those proceedings.

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

  (4) To avoid doubt,—

  • (a) neither the relevant trustees nor members of a relevant iwi are precluded from stating that the iwi has an association with a statutory area that is not described in the statutory acknowledgement; and

  • (b) the content and existence of the statutory acknowledgement do not limit any statement made.

46 Relevant trustees may waive rights

• (1) The relevant trustees may waive the right to be provided with summaries, and copies of notices, of resource consent applications under section 44 in relation to a statutory area.

  (2) The relevant trustees may waive the right to have a relevant consent authority, the Environment Court, or the Historic Places Trust have regard to the statutory acknowledgement under sections 40 to 42 in relation to the coastal statutory area.

  (3) Rights must be waived by written notice to the relevant consent authority, the Environment Court, or the Historic Places Trust stating—

  • (a) the scope of the waiver; and

  • (b) the period for which it applies.

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

47 Issue and amendment of deeds of recognition

• (1) 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—

  • (a) Big River site (Te Tai Tapu); and

  • (b) Westhaven (Te Tai Tapu) Marine Reserve and Westhaven (Whanganui Inlet) Wildlife Management Reserve; and

  • (c) coastal marine area.

  (2) 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.

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

  (4) A deed of recognition must be issued in the form set out in part 3 of the documents schedule of the relevant deed of settlement.

  (5) 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.

48 Application to river or stream

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

  • (a) applies only to—

    • (i) the continuously or intermittently flowing body of fresh water, including a modified watercourse, that comprises the river or stream; and

    • (ii) the bed of the river or stream, meaning the land that the waters of the river or stream cover at its fullest flow without flowing over its banks; but

  • (b) does not apply to—

    • (i) a part of the bed of the river or stream that is not owned by the Crown; or

    • (ii) an artificial watercourse.

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

  • (a) applies only to the bed of the river or stream, meaning the land that the waters of the river or stream cover at its fullest flow without flowing over its banks; but

  • (b) does not apply to—

    • (i) a part of the bed of the river or stream that is not owned and managed by the Crown; or

    • (ii) the bed of an artificial watercourse.

49 Exercise of powers and performance of functions and duties

• (1) 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.

  (2) 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.

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

  (4) This section is subject to—

  • (a) the other provisions of this subpart; and

  • (b) any obligation imposed on the Minister of Conservation, the Director-General, or the Commissioner of Crown Lands by a deed of recognition.

50 Rights not affected

• (1) 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.

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

51 Limitation of rights

• (1) 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.

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

52 Amendment to Resource Management Act 1991

• (1) This section amends the Resource Management Act 1991.

  (2) In Schedule 11, insert in its appropriate alphabetical order “Parts 1 to 3 of the Te Tau Ihu Claims Settlement Act 2013”.

53 Interpretation

• (1) In Parts 1 to 3, overlay classification—

  • (a) means the application of this subpart to each overlay site; and

  • (b) for Ngāti Kuia, is known as whenua rāhui.

  (2) In this subpart,—

  Conservation Board means a board established under section 6L of the Conservation Act 1987

  iwi values, for each overlay site, means the values stated by the relevant iwi in their statements of iwi values

  New Zealand Conservation Authority means the authority established by section 6A of the Conservation Act 1987

  overlay site—

  • (a) means a site that is declared under section 54 to be subject to the overlay classification; but

  • (b) does not include an area that is declared under section 68(1) to no longer be subject to the overlay classification

  protection principles, for an overlay site, means the protection principles set out for the site in paragraph 4.1 of part 1 of the documents schedule of the relevant deed of settlement, including any amendments made to the principles under section 57(3)

  relevant iwi, for an overlay site, means the 1 or more iwi listed in Schedule 2 as having an association with the overlay site

  relevant trustees, for an overlay site, means the trustees of the settlement trust of each of the relevant iwi for the overlay site

  specified actions, for an overlay site, means the actions set out for the site in paragraph 5.1 of part 1 of the documents schedule of the relevant deed of settlement

  statements of iwi values, for each overlay site, means the statements—

  • (a) made by the relevant iwi of their values relating to their cultural, spiritual, historical, and traditional association with the overlay site; and

  • (b) that are in the form set out in paragraph 3 of part 1 of the documents schedule of the relevant deed of settlement.

54 Declaration of overlay classification

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

55 Acknowledgement by the Crown of statements of iwi values

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

56 Purposes of overlay classification

• The only purposes of the overlay classification are—

  • (a) to require the New Zealand Conservation Authority and relevant Conservation Boards to consult the relevant trustees and to have particular regard to the statements of iwi values, the protection principles, and the views of the relevant trustees, as provided for in sections 58 and 59; and

  • (b) to require the New Zealand Conservation Authority to give the relevant trustees an opportunity to make submissions, as provided for in section 60; and

  • (c) to enable the taking of action under sections 61 to 66.

57 Agreement on protection principles

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

  • (a) harm to the iwi values in relation to an overlay site; or

  • (b) the diminishing of the iwi values in relation to an overlay site.

  (2) The protection principles set out in paragraph 4.1 of part 1 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.

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

58 New Zealand Conservation Authority and Conservation Boards to have particular regard to certain matters

• 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—

  • (a) the statements of iwi values for the site; and

  • (b) the protection principles for the site.

59 New Zealand Conservation Authority and Conservation Boards to consult relevant trustees

• 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—

  • (a) consult the relevant trustees; and

  • (b) have particular regard to the views of the relevant trustees as to the effect of the strategy or plan on—

    • (i) the iwi values for the site; and

    • (ii) the protection principles for the site.

60 Conservation management strategy

• 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.

61 Noting of overlay classification

• (1) 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.

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

  • (a) is for the purpose of public notice only; and

  • (b) is not an amendment to the strategy or plan for the purposes of section 17I of the Conservation Act 1987 or section 46 of the National Parks Act 1980.

62 Notification in Gazette

• (1) The Minister of Conservation must notify the following in the Gazette:

  • (a) the application of the overlay classification to each overlay site, as soon as practicable after the settlement date; and

  • (b) the protection principles for each overlay site, as soon as practicable after the settlement date; and

  • (c) any amendment to the protection principles agreed under section 57(3), as soon as practicable after the amendment has been agreed in writing.

  (2) The Director-General may notify in the Gazette any action (including any specified action) taken or intended to be taken under section 63 or 64.

63 Actions by Director-General

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

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

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

64 Amendment to strategy or plan

• (1) 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.

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

  (3) 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.

65 Regulations

• 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:

  • (a) to provide for the implementation of objectives included in a strategy or plan under section 64(1):

  • (b) to regulate or prohibit activities or conduct by members of the public in relation to an overlay site:

  • (c) to create offences for breaching any regulations made under paragraph (b):

  • (d) to provide for the following fines to be imposed:

    • (i) for an offence referred to in paragraph (c), a fine not exceeding $5,000; and

    • (ii) for a continuing offence, an additional amount not exceeding $50 for every day during which the offence continues.

66 Bylaws

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

  • (a) to provide for the implementation of objectives included in a strategy or plan under section 64(1):

  • (b) to regulate or prohibit activities or conduct by members of the public in relation to an overlay site:

  • (c) to create offences for breaching any bylaws made under paragraph (b):

  • (d) to provide for the following fines to be imposed:

    • (i) for an offence referred to in paragraph (c), a fine not exceeding $1,000; and

    • (ii) for a continuing offence, an additional amount not exceeding $50 for every day during which the offence continues.

67 Existing classification of overlay sites