The purpose of Parts 1 to 4 is—

• (a) to record the acknowledgements and apology given by the Crown to Tūhoe in the deed of settlement; and

• (b) to give effect to certain provisions of the deed of settlement that settles the historical claims of Tūhoe.

(1) The provisions of Parts 1 to 4 take effect on the settlement date unless otherwise stated.

(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 for—

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

• (b) a power to be exercised under the provision on that date; or

• (c) a duty to be performed under the provision on that date.

Parts 1 to 4 bind the Crown.

(1) This section is a guide to the overall scheme and effect of Parts 1 to 4, but does not affect the interpretation or application of Parts 1 to 4 or of the deed of settlement.

(2) This Part—

• (a) sets out the purpose of Parts 1 to 4; and

• (b) provides that the provisions of Parts 1 to 4 take effect on the settlement date unless a provision states otherwise; and

• (c) specifies that Parts 1 to 4 bind the Crown; and

• (d) sets out a summary of the historical account and records the text of the acknowledgements and apology given by the Crown to Tūhoe and recorded in the deed of settlement; and

• (e) defines terms used in Parts 1 to 4, including key terms such as Tūhoe 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 of the historical claims 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 resumptive memorials; and

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

  • (v) access to the deed of settlement.

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

• (a) cultural redress requiring vesting in the trustees of the fee simple estate in the cultural redress properties; and

• (b) cultural redress that does not involve the vesting of land, namely,—

  • (i) protocols for primary industries and taonga tūturu, on the terms set out in part 4 of the documents schedule; and

  • (ii) the establishment of the Tūhoe fisheries advisory committee; and

  • (iii) the provision of official geographic names; and

  • (iv) provision for Tūhoe to appoint a member of the Rangitāiki River Forum which is the same body as that established by section 104 of the Ngāti Manawa Claims Settlement Act 2012 and section 108 of the Ngāti Whare Claims Settlement Act 2012.

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

• (a) in subpart 1, the transfer of deferred selection properties; and

• (b) in subpart 2, the right of first refusal (RFR) redress.

(5) Part 4 sets out transitional and miscellaneous matters to provide for—

• (a) the dissolution of the Tuhoe-Waikaremoana Maori Trust Board, the transfer of the assets of that board to the trustees, and other transitional matters relevant to the change of governance structure; and

• (b) the merger of certain charitable trusts that are vested in the Tūhoe Charitable Trust Board; and

• (c) the vesting in the trustees of Tūhoe Te Uru Taumatua certain assets and liabilities held by the Tuhoe-Waikaremoana Maori Trust Board as trustee immediately before the settlement date, subject to the same trusts, rights, interest and law as applied to those assets and liabilities before the settlement date; and

• (d) for the purposes of the Maori Fisheries Act 2004, the recognition of the Tūhoe Charitable Trust as the mandated iwi organisation for Tūhoe and Tūhoe Fish Quota Limited as the asset holding company of Tūhoe; and

• (e) amendments to other enactments.

(6) There are 4 schedules, as follows:

• (a) Schedule 1 lists, in Part 1, the hapū of Tūhoe, and in Part 2, the claims within the meaning of historical claims of Tūhoe:

• (b) Schedule 2 describes the cultural redress properties:

• (c) Schedule 3 sets out provisions that apply to notices given in relation to RFR land:

• (d) Schedule 4 sets out consequential amendments.

(1) Section 8 summarises the historical account in the deed of settlement, setting out the basis for the acknowledgements and apology given by the Crown.

(2) Sections 9 and 10 record the text of the acknowledgements and apology given by the Crown to Tūhoe in the deed of settlement.

(3) The acknowledgements and apology are to be read together with the historical account recorded in part 2 of the deed of settlement.

(1) Tūhoe did not sign the Treaty of Waitangi, and the Crown had no official presence in Te Urewera before the 1860s. Tūhoe remained in full control of their customary lands until 1865 when the Crown confiscated much of their most productive land, even though they were not in rebellion and the confiscation was not directed at Tūhoe.

(2) The prejudice created by the confiscation was exacerbated by the Compensation Court process, which returned much of the confiscated land to other Māori but excluded Tūhoe from land they traditionally occupied and cultivated.

(3) After the confiscation, the Crown waged war in Te Urewera until 1871 as it sought to apprehend those responsible for the 1865 death of Crown official Fulloon and then capture Te Kooti following his escape from Crown detention. The Crown extensively used scorched earth tactics, and was responsible for the execution of unarmed prisoners and the killing of non-combatants. In 1870, Tūhoe were forced out of Te Urewera and detained at Te Putere, where they suffered further hardship. The wars caused Tūhoe to suffer widespread starvation and extensive loss of life.

(4) In 1871, peace was restored to Te Urewera when the Crown withdrew its forces and agreed to leave Tūhoe to manage their own affairs. A governing council of chiefs, Te Whitu Tekau, was then established to uphold mana motuhake in Te Urewera.

(5) Between the 1870s and the 1890s, Crown pressure and the claims of other iwi led to the introduction into Te Urewera of the Native Land Court, surveying, and land purchases despite Te Whitu Tekau opposition. In 1875, the Crown induced Tūhoe to sell a large area of land at Waikaremoana by threatening to confiscate their interests if they did not sell.

(6) Tūhoe sought to protect their remaining lands from sale, and in 1896, Parliament enacted the Urewera District Native Reserve Act 1896. This provided for local self-government over a 656 000-acre Urewera Reserve, and for decisions about the use of land to be made collectively and according to Māori custom. Tūhoe believed this system would protect their lands from sale. However, the Crown did not implement the self-government provisions of that Act and undermined its protective provisions.

(7) Between 1896 and 1921, Crown purchasing in and around Te Urewera (some of which was illegal) and roading and survey costs imposed on Tūhoe under the Urewera Consolidation Scheme (1921) resulted in a significant loss of land. Harsh tactics were used to acquire land at Waikaremoana, where the Crown assumed control over Lake Waikaremoana and resisted attempts for decades by Māori owners to secure title to the lakebed.

(8) In 1916, 70 armed Police arrested Tūhoe prophet Rua Kēnana at Maungapōhatu. Two Tūhoe men were killed during the arrest. Rua was cleared of 8 charges, including sedition, but was convicted of moral resistance relating to an earlier arrest attempt and jailed. The Maungapōhatu community went into decline after this and has not recovered.

(9) Following the Urewera Consolidation Scheme, Tūhoe were left with only 16% of the Urewera Reserve, much of which was unsuited to settlement or economic development. This was insufficient to support an increasing population.

(10) In 1954, the Crown established Te Urewera National Park, which included most of Tūhoe’s traditional lands. The Crown neither consulted Tūhoe about the establishment of the park nor about its 1957 expansion and did not recognise Tūhoe as having any special interest in the park or its governance. National Park policies led to restrictions on Tūhoe’s customary use of Te Urewera and their own adjoining land.

(11) Today, around 85% of Tūhoe live outside Te Urewera. Those who remain struggle to make a living and face various restrictions placed on the land and resources in the area. Many suffer from socio-economic deprivation of a severe nature.

(1) The Crown acknowledges that Tūhoe did not sign the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840. The Crown's authority over New Zealand rested in part on the Treaty, and the Crown's Treaty obligations, including its protective guarantees, applied to Tūhoe. The Crown acknowledges that it has failed to meet many of its Treaty obligations to Tūhoe. Despite the previous efforts of Tūhoe, the Crown has failed to deal with the long-standing and legitimately held grievances of Tūhoe in an appropriate way, and recognition of those grievances is long overdue. The sense of grief and loss suffered by Tūhoe and the impact of the Crown's failings endure today.

(2) The Crown acknowledges that,—

• (a) prior to 1865, Tūhoe retained full control over their customary lands and resources while engaging with te ao hou; and

• (b) prior to the 1866 eastern Bay of Plenty confiscation, the Crown had not established a meaningful relationship with Tūhoe; and

• (c) the confiscation was indiscriminate in extent and application and included Tūhoe lands even though as an iwi they were not in rebellion; and

• (d) the confiscation deprived Tūhoe of access to their wāhi tapu, traditional sources of food, and other resources and severed their ties to much of the land; and

• (e) the confiscation was unjust and excessive and had a devastating effect on the mana, welfare, economy, and development of Tūhoe and was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

(3) The Crown acknowledges that the prejudice created by the confiscation was compounded by the inadequacies of the Compensation Court in that—

• (a) in many cases the Compensation Court validated prior arrangements made by a Crown official with other tribal groups for the distribution of land in the confiscation district that did not take account of Tūhoe customary interests; and

• (b) the Compensation Court process excluded Tūhoe from all the land they had traditionally occupied and cultivated in the confiscated block; and

• (c) the Crown's failure to ensure that the interests of Tūhoe in the confiscated land were protected was in breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

(4) The Crown acknowledges that some Tūhoe assisted the Crown in its hunt for Te Kooti and Kereopa and that many felt pressured to do so.

(5) The Crown acknowledges that its conduct during its attacks on Te Urewera and its surrounds between 1865 and 1871 included—

• (a) the failure to properly monitor and control the actions of the armed forces, resulting in—

  • (i) the execution of unarmed Tūhoe prisoners at Mangarua (near Waikaremoana) in 1866 and at Ngātapa in 1869; and

  • (ii) the execution of Tūhoe prisoners at Ruatāhuna in 1869; and

  • (iii) the killing of non-combatants, including men, women, and children, and the desecration of bodies, human remains, and urupā at Te Whata-a-pona, Ōpūtao, Tahora, and in the Ruatāhuna district; and

• (b) the use of the scorched earth policy that resulted in the widespread destruction of kāinga, pā, cultivations, food stores, animals, wāhi tapu, and taonga.

The Crown acknowledges that the impacts of these actions on Tūhoe included widespread starvation and extensive loss of life. The Crown's actions had an enduring and devastating effect on the mana, social structure, and well-being of the iwi. The Crown acknowledges that its conduct showed reckless disregard for Tūhoe, went far beyond what was necessary or appropriate in the circumstances, and was in breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

(6) The Crown acknowledges that—

• (a) for those who were kept in detention at Te Pūtere and on the Chatham Islands, the length of time went beyond was necessary and appropriate; and

• (b) its failure to provide for all non-combatants, including those kept in exile, inflicted unwarranted hardship on them; and

• (c) it failed to grant to Tūhoe the reserve established at Te Pūtere and promised to them; and

• (d) these actions were in breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

(7) The Crown acknowledges that it breached the rongopai with Tūhoe in 1870 when its armed forces attacked Whakarae and when they destroyed all pā, kāinga, and food supplies around Lake Waikaremoana, and that this was in breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

(8) The Crown acknowledges that its confiscation of part of the rohe of Tūhoe and its subsequent conduct in warfare began to erode Tūhoe's mana motuhake, which was guaranteed to them under the Treaty. These Crown actions undermined chiefly authority, and the political impacts resonate today.

(9) The Crown acknowledges that Tūhoe were not compensated for the excessive Crown actions that caused catastrophic and immediate prejudice to the people of Te Urewera, and that Tūhoe have had to endure the lasting impacts for many generations.

(10) The Crown acknowledges that Tūhoe did not receive any compensation following the acquisition of Onepoto and other land beside the Waikaretāheke River, including its timber resources, in 1872, and that this was in breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

(11) The Crown acknowledges that in 1875 it acquired all of Tūhoe interests in 172 500 acres in the 4 southern blocks in southern Waikaremoana, including Onepoto, after threatening to confiscate Tūhoe interests in this land. The aggressive measures undertaken to acquire land in this district had lasting and detrimental effects on the customary interests of Tūhoe at Waikaremoana and breached the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

(12) The Crown acknowledges that—

• (a) the titles Tūhoe received for 4 reserves at Whareama, Te Kōpani, Te Heiotāhoka, and Ngāpūtahi were granted to 60 individuals rather than all Tūhoe owners; and

• (b) title to the 4 reserves was not awarded until 1889 and Whareama and Ngāpūtahi remained with no legal access; and

• (c) Whareama and Ngāpūtahi were subsequently included in the Urewera Consolidation Scheme against the wishes of Tūhoe and were acquired by the Crown in 1921.

(13) The Crown acknowledges that—

• (a) it did not consult Tūhoe about the introduction of native land laws; and

• (b) more than 1.1 million acres of land in which Tūhoe claimed interests were surveyed and put through the Native Land Court between 1867 and 1894 despite Tūhoe opposition to the Native Land Court; and

• (c) Tūhoe incurred heavy costs and endured great inconvenience attending Native Land Court hearings outside their rohe.

(14) The Crown acknowledges that—

• (a) it did not formally recognise Te Whitu Tekau as a political institution after the leaders of Te Urewera established it in 1872 as a governing council to uphold mana motuhake in Te Urewera following the “peace compact”; and

• (b) Te Whitu Tekau objected to land dealings, roads, surveys, and the Native Land Court operating within the boundaries it had established; and

• (c) despite Te Whitu Tekau policies, the Crown eventually exerted pressure to open up Te Urewera to surveying, Native Land Court sittings, and roads.

(15) The Crown acknowledges that it introduced the Native Land Court to Tūhoe lands despite the opposition of Te Whitu Tekau and that the operation and impact of the native land laws, in particular, the awarding of titles to individuals rather than to hapū or iwi, made Tūhoe lands more susceptible to partition, fragmentation, and alienation. This contributed to the undermining of their tribal structures, which were based on collective tribal and hapū custodianship. The Crown failed to protect these structures and this was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

(16) The Crown acknowledges that—

• (a) failures to implement the requirement of native land legislation to notify all potential claimants of forthcoming title investigations led to Tūhoe being excluded from titles for the Kūhāwāea and Waipāoa blocks; and

• (b) failures to implement the requirement of native land legislation to notify the Ngāti Haka Patuheuheu owners of a partition hearing for Waiōhau 1B block meant that they were unable to protect their interests in the block; and

• (c) processes of rehearing, petition, and Crown inquiry were ineffective in remedying the previous notification failures and protecting Tūhoe interests in the Kūhāwāea and Waipāoa blocks and Ngāti Haka Patuheuheu interests in Waiōhau 1B block, breaching the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

(17) The Crown acknowledges that one of its objectives in 1873 when it began purchasing land on the edges of the Tūhoe rohe was to undermine the ring-boundary—the rohe pōtae—established by Te Whitu Tekau. The opening up of Te Urewera remained a Crown objective for many years.

(18) The Crown acknowledges that its acquisition of land for unpaid survey costs in 1907, without inquiry into the appropriateness of these costs, resulted in Ngāti Haka Patuheuheu losing large quantities of land in the Matahina and Tuararangaia blocks. The Crown acknowledges that its failure to protect Ngāi Tūhoe from the burden of these excessive costs was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

(19) The Crown acknowledges that—

• (a) it retrospectively authorised the secret survey of Tahora 2, which had been conducted without approval and contrary to survey regulations; and

• (b) it was aware of significant Tūhoe opposition to the survey, its authorisation, and subsequent court hearings; and

• (c) Tūhoe then had to sell land they wished to retain to meet the resulting survey costs; and

• (d) the Crown's failure to act with utmost good faith and honesty, and actively protect Tūhoe interests in land they wished to retain, was in breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

(20) The Crown acknowledges that,—

• (a) in 1892, because of Tūhoe opposition, the Crown agreed, in the absence of consent, to limit the survey of the Ruātoki block, to prevent further surveys, and to hear Native Land Court claims within Te Urewera; and

• (b) despite this agreement, following further obstruction because of disagreement over the agreed boundary of the survey, in 1893 the Crown insisted that the entire Ruātoki block be surveyed; and

• (c) the presence of armed Police and a contingent of armed forces ensured that the survey proceeded, an action that resulted in further opposition from Tūhoe and ended in the arrest and imprisonment of 4 Tūhoe men and 11 Tūhoe women; and

• (d) this may have been avoided if the Crown had continued to be willing to negotiate a compromise; and

• (e) its failure to pursue a peaceful resolution of the dispute was in breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

(21) The Crown acknowledges that the loss of the Waiōhau 1B block in a fraudulent transaction caused great suffering to those Ngāti Haka Patuheuheu who were evicted from their homes in 1907 and that the loss of this land continues to cause prejudice to Ngāti Haka Patuheuheu today.

(22) The Crown further acknowledges that,—

• (a) despite offering its assistance following the fraud's exposure in 1889, the Crown ultimately gave no assistance to Ngāti Haka Patuheuheu to take their case to the Supreme Court despite repeated requests; and

• (b) it requested the removal of the caveat placed on Waiōhau 1B block without consulting or informing Ngāti Haka Patuheuheu; and

• (c) it recognised the wrong that could be done to Ngāti Haka Patuheuheu when steps were taken to evict them from their homes in 1906, but did not take adequate steps to prevent this wrong from occurring; and

• (d) compensation later provided in the form of a small grant of land in another iwi's rohe was an inadequate and inappropriate remedy for the prejudice suffered by Ngāti Haka Patuheuheu; and

• (e) these acts and omissions meant that the Crown breached the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

(23) The Crown acknowledges that in 1894 through 1895, Tūhoe negotiated in good faith to secure Crown agreement to a solemn compact respecting their mana motuhake, but that the Crown undermined their mana motuhake and caused Tūhoe severe prejudice by the manner in which the Crown implemented the Urewera District Native Reserve Act 1896 (the 1896 Act).

(24) The Crown acknowledges that—

• (a) it caused significant delays in the establishment of the local government provided for under the 1896 Act. This was compounded by unreasonable delays in the establishment of a body to hear appeals from decisions of the Urewera Commission; and

• (b) it failed to provide options to ensure majority Te Urewera Māori participation in the Urewera Commission when it sat; and

• (c) it failed to provide any role for Te Urewera Māori on the Urewera Commission appellate body; and

• (d) it failed to uphold the agreement in the compact that land titles in the Urewera District Native Reserve (the Reserve) would be awarded to hapū; and

• (e) it undermined the 1896 Act’s core principle of self-government by intervening in 1909 to change the membership of the General Committee, which the Act had provided would be elected; and

• (f) it ultimately failed to establish an effective system of local land administration and governance and this was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

(25) The Crown acknowledges that it breached its compact with Tūhoe by promoting unilateral changes to the 1896 Act and that this breached the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

(26) The Crown acknowledges that—

• (a) it began to illegally purchase individual interests in the Reserve in 1910 without the consent of the General Committee and in 1916 promoted legislation to validate these purchases before continuing to purchase individual interests; and

• (b) the manner in which its land purchasing undermined the governance of the Reserve and circumvented protection mechanisms of communal decision-making breached the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

(27) The Crown acknowledges that it exempted the Reserve from statutory provisions intended to prevent landlessness and that its purchase of more than half of the Reserve by 1921 resulted in many individuals, including World War I veterans, being left landless.

(28) The Crown acknowledges that—

• (a) it exempted the Reserve from statutory provisions intended to ensure Māori were paid a minimum of Government valuation for their land interests; and

• (b) it was a monopoly purchaser and paid prices for Reserve land that Tūhoe protested were too low; and

• (c) it excluded the value of timber when calculating prices for Reserve lands.

(29) The Crown acknowledges that—

• (a) it was involved in the planning and decision to send a well-armed yet ill-prepared contingent of 70 Police to arrest Rua Kēnana at Maungapōhatu on minor liquor charges in April 1916, and that this decision was taken without proper regard to the well-being of the community at Maungapōhatu and without sufficient effort by the Crown to promote a peaceful resolution; and

• (b) the arrest was effected on a Sunday, which was illegal; and

• (c) the excessive force used in the arrest of Rua Kēnana caused the community of Maungapōhatu lasting harm. Among the impacts upon Rua Kēnana and the community of Maungapōhatu were—

  • (i) injuries and the deaths of 2 young men resulting from the exchange of gunfire that exposed many people, including women and children, to danger; and

  • (ii) further distress and discomfort for women and children and the theft of possessions during the Police occupation of Maungapōhatu; and

  • (iii) the arrest and detention of 31 men; and

  • (iv) the loss of livestock and land interests, which the Maungapōhatu people were forced to sell to meet the crippling costs of the trial of Rua Kēnana and the others who were arrested and taken to Auckland. The Crown refused to provide assistance to the community; and

• (d) the unreasonable manner in which it acted towards Rua Kēnana and the Maungapōhatu community caused them serious prejudice and was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

(30) The Crown acknowledges that its actions restricted Tūhoe economic development opportunities by preventing timber sales and preventing Reserve owners from partitioning their interests from those of the Crown prior to the introduction of the Urewera Consolidation Scheme in 1921 and that this breached the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

(31) The Crown acknowledges that the need for title consolidation arose as a result of its purchasing of individual interests in Urewera Reserve blocks between 1910 and 1921, and that in promoting title consolidation to Tūhoe in 1921 it did not offer them any alternative solution to the title difficulties caused by the purchasing of undefined individual interests.

(32) The Crown acknowledges that—

• (a) in enacting the Urewera Lands Act 1921–1922 the Crown, as co-owner in the Urewera Reserve, did not ensure there were sufficient safeguards to ensure a fair implementation of the Urewera Consolidation Scheme; and

• (b) it weakened opposition to the Consolidation Scheme by purchasing individual interests in several blocks despite having promised not to purchase any further individual interests; and

• (c) it broke a promise to construct arterial roads in Te Urewera, which had been the key reason for Tūhoe consenting to this scheme; and

• (d) it misled Tūhoe into thinking they were obligated to contribute nearly 40 000 acres for construction of the roads, land which was not returned despite Tūhoe requests, and for which they were only belatedly and partly compensated 37 years later; and

• (e) it required Tūhoe to pay excessive costs for the surveys required to implement the scheme, and took more than 30 000 acres from Tūhoe for this purpose, but the surveys were not sufficient for the issuing of the land transfer titles promised as part of the Urewera Consolidation Scheme; and

• (f) the survey costs included 4 000 acres acquired through an unrectified survey error for which no compensation was paid; and

• (g) it did not create some of the reserves, such as at Waikokopu hot springs and Maungapōhatu, which were to be retained or allocated to Tūhoe as part of the consolidation of the Crown’s interests; and

• (h) these actions and omissions undermined the integrity of the Urewera Consolidation Scheme and caused significant prejudice to Tūhoe and breached the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

(33) The Crown acknowledges that—

• (a) it pressured Tūhoe into allowing their interests in the Waikaremoana block to be included in the Urewera Consolidation Scheme by threatening to compulsorily acquire the land; and

• (b) it acquired 90% of Tūhoe interests in the Waikaremoana block by paying 6 shillings an acre in the form of other land that was exchanged for their Waikaremoana land; and

• (c) it acquired some of the remaining Tūhoe interests in Waikaremoana for cash payments of 6 shillings an acre despite previously agreeing to pay the owners 15 shillings; and

• (d) it caused considerable hardship to those Tūhoe from whom it acquired the remaining interests by not ensuring that they were paid the interest due on the debentures they accepted; and

• (e) it did not finally pay off the capital value of the debentures until 25 years after it first became due; and

• (f) it failed to ensure that Waikaremoana hapū retained sufficient land for their present and future needs; and

• (g) by these acts and omissions, the Crown breached the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

(34) The Crown acknowledges that—

• (a) it deprived Tūhoe of control of large areas of their remaining farming land over a number of decades in the twentieth century through its administration of development schemes; and

• (b) it kept land under its control much longer than Tūhoe expected when the development schemes were first established; and

• (c) the costs of these schemes grew into large debts, some of which were passed on to Tūhoe land owners when their lands were released from Crown control at the conclusion of development schemes.

(35) The Crown acknowledges that, for many years following the 1918 Native Land Court decision, the Crown did not recognise Tūhoe rights in the bed of Lake Waikaremoana and caused great prejudice to Tūhoe by administering the lakebed as if it were Crown property. In particular, the Crown acknowledges that,—

• (a) notwithstanding Tūhoe’s interest in the lakebed, the Crown did not consult Tūhoe before commencing the construction of Kaitawa power station, which ultimately led to some of the lakebed becoming dry land and the degradation of fishing stocks; and

• (b) it constructed roads and significant structures on the exposed lakebed without the consent of its owners; and

• (c) it did not pay Tūhoe rent for this land until 1971, and has never paid Tūhoe for its use of the lakebed before this time; and

• (d) in its administration of the lakebed, the Crown failed for many years to respect Tūhoe’s mana motuhake and breached the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

(36) The Crown acknowledges that Tūhoe have a special relationship with Te Urewera National Park and the resources, wāhi tapu, and taonga that lie within.

(37) The Crown further acknowledges that—

• (a) it neither consulted Tūhoe about the establishment of the park in 1954 nor about the expansion of the park in 1957; and

• (b) the governance of the park severely restricted Tūhoe’s ability to use and develop the resources of their land adjoining or enclosed by the park; and

• (c) Tūhoe interests in Lake Waikaremoana were included in the park in 1954 without their consent; and

• (d) its failure to respect Tūhoe mana motuhake and adequately provide for the interests of Tūhoe in the establishment and governance of Te Urewera National Park breached the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.

(38) The Crown acknowledges that,—

• (a) due to Crown policies, from 1930 Tūhoe retained insufficient land to support their recovering population and that many iwi members had to leave Te Urewera in search of employment; and

• (b) Tūhoe economic development was further hindered by lack of access to finance and the inaccessibility of some of their remaining land due to the lack of roads.

(39) The Crown acknowledges that Tūhoe who remain within Te Urewera suffer economically due to restrictions placed on their land and resources and that for too long many have suffered from severe socio-economic deprivation.

(40) The Crown acknowledges that despite the Crown’s failures to honour its obligations under the Treaty, Tūhoe men served New Zealand overseas in both world wars. Tūhoe donated to the war fund established during the First World War and participated in the Māori War Effort Organisation in the Second World War. The Crown acknowledges the contribution made by Tūhoe.

(1) To the iwi of Tūhoe, to the tipuna, the descendants, the hapū and the whānau, the Crown makes the following long-overdue apology.

(2) The Crown unreservedly apologises for not having honoured its obligations to Tūhoe under te Tiriti o Waitangi (the Treaty of Waitangi) and profoundly regrets its failure to appropriately acknowledge and respect te mana motuhake o Tūhoe for many generations.

(3) The relationship between Tūhoe and the Crown, which should have been defined by honour and respect, was instead disgraced by many injustices, including indiscriminate raupatu, wrongful killings, and years of scorched earth warfare. The Crown apologises for its unjust and excessive behaviour and the burden carried by generations of Tūhoe who suffer greatly and carry the pain of their ancestors.

(4) The Crown is deeply sorry for its failure to make amends for the way it has treated Tūhoe despite the honourable conduct of your leaders. Tūhoe were committed to the peace compact agreed with the Crown in 1871, despite Crown pressure to allow surveys, roads, and the operation of the native land laws to open up Te Urewera. The Crown later denied Tūhoe the right of a self-governing reserve by subverting the Urewera District Native Reserve Act 1896. The Crown purchased much of Te Urewera illegally and its actions left Tūhoe bereft.

(5) The Crown apologises for the exclusion of Tūhoe from the establishment of Te Urewera National Park over their homelands. The Crown also apologises for wrongly treating Lake Waikaremoana as its own for many years.

(6) Despite the hardship Tūhoe and Tūhoetanga endure, your culture, your language, and identity that is Te Urewera are inextinguishable. The Crown acknowledges you and te mana motuhake o Tūhoe.

(7) Through this apology and settlement the Crown hopes to honestly confront the past and seeks to atone for its wrongs. The Crown hopes to build afresh its relationship with Tūhoe and that this new relationship will endure for current and future generations.

(8) Let these words guide our way to a greenstone door—tatau pounamu—which looks back on the past and closes it, which looks forward to the future and opens it.

It is the intention of Parliament that the provisions of Parts 1 to 4 are interpreted in a manner that best furthers the agreements expressed in the deed of settlement.

In Parts 1 to 4, unless the context otherwise requires,—

• (a) means the deed of settlement dated 4 June 2013 and signed by—

  • (i) the Right Honourable John Key, Prime Minister of New Zealand, the Honourable Christopher Finlayson, Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Honourable Simon William English, Minister of Finance, and the Honourable Dr Pita Sharples, Minister of Māori Affairs for and on behalf of the Crown; and

  • (ii) Tāmati Kruger, Īharāira Tēmara, Irene Williams, Hinerangi Biddle, Tāhae Doherty, Clifford Ākuhata, Matthew Te Pou, Lorna Taylor, Kuini Beattie, Hārata Williams, Titia Graham, Waereti Tait-Rolleston, Rāwinia Higgins, and Rangihau Te Moana for and on behalf of Tūhoe; and

  • (iii) Tāmati Kruger, Te Tokawhakaea Tēmara, Patrick McGarvey, Tāmati Cairns, Martin Rakuraku, Matthew Te Pou, and Lorna Taylor, being the trustees of Tūhoe Te Uru Taumatua; and

• (b) includes—

  • (i) the schedules of, and attachments to, the deed; and

  • (ii) any amendments to the deed or its schedules and attachments

(1) In Parts 1 to 4,—

• (a) means the collective group composed of individuals who are descended from 1 or more Tūhoe tipuna or ancestors; and

• (b) includes those individuals; and

• (c) includes every whānau, hapū, or group to the extent that it is composed of those individuals, including the hapū listed in Part 1 of Schedule 1.

(2) In this section and section 14,—

(1) In Parts 1 to 4, historical claims—

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

• (b) includes the claims described in subsection (3); but

• (c) does not include the claims described in subsection (4).

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

• (a) 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 a 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 Tūhoe or a representative entity, including each of the claims listed in Part 2 of Schedule 1, to the extent that subsection (2) applies to the 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 Tūhoe or a representative entity:

  • (i) Wai 212 (Ikawhenua Lands and Waterways); and

  • (ii) Wai 724 (Murupara Section and Rating Powers Act 1998 Claim); and

  • (iii) Wai 725 (Te Pāhou Blocks).

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

• (a) a claim that a member of Tūhoe, or a whānau, hapū, or group referred to in section 13(1)(c), had or may have that is founded on a right arising by virtue of being descended from an ancestor who is not a Tūhoe tipuna; or

• (b) a claim that a representative entity had or may have that is based on a claim referred to in paragraph (a).

(5) 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.

(6) In this section,—

(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 deed 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 deed of settlement; or

• (c) Parts 1 to 4; or

• (d) Parts 5 to 7; or

• (e) the redress provided under the deed of settlement or Parts 1 to 4 or Parts 5 to 7.

(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 deed of settlement, Parts 1 to 4, or Parts 5 to 7.

(6) Despite subsection (4) and the provisions of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, the Waitangi Tribunal may complete and release a report on the Te Urewera district, including on the historical claims of Tūhoe.

(7) However, the Waitangi Tribunal must not make recommendations in relation to any of the historical claims of Tūhoe.

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

(2) In Schedule 3, insert in its appropriate alphabetical order “Parts 1 to 4, section 15(4) and (5)”.

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

• (a) to land in the RFR area; or

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

(2) The enactments are—

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

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

• (c) Part 3 of the New Zealand Railways Corporation Restructuring Act 1990:

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

• (e) sections 8A to 8HJ of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975.

(1) The chief executive of LINZ must issue to the Registrar-General 1 or more certificates that specify the legal description of, and identify the computer register for, each allotment that—

• (a) is solely within the RFR area; and

• (b) is subject to a resumptive memorial recorded under any enactment listed in section 17(2).

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

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

(4) As soon as is reasonably practicable after receiving a certificate, the Registrar-General must—

• (a) register the certificate against each computer register identified in the certificate; and

• (b) cancel each memorial recorded under an enactment listed in section 17(2) on a computer register identified in the certificate, but only in respect of each allotment described in the certificate.

(1) The rule against perpetuities and the provisions of the Perpetuities Act 1964—

• (a) do not prescribe or restrict the period during which—

  • (i) Tūhoe Te Uru Taumatua may exist in law; or

  • (ii) the trustees may hold or deal with property or income derived from property; and

• (b) do not apply to a document entered into to give effect to the 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 Tūhoe Te Uru Taumatua 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.

The chief executive of the Ministry of Justice must make copies of the deed 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.

(1) The provision of cultural redress under subparts 2 to 4 (specified cultural redress) does not prevent the Crown from doing anything that is consistent with that cultural redress, including—

• (a) providing the same or similar redress to a person other than Tūhoe or the trustees; or

• (b) disposing of land.

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