Ngāti Manawa Claims Settlement Act 2012

1: Title
This Act is the Ngāti Manawa Claims Settlement Act 2012.
2: Commencement
This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent. Purpose of Act
3: Purpose
The purpose of this Act is—
a: to record the acknowledgements and the apology offered by the Crown to Ngāti Manawa in the deed of settlement dated 12 December 2009 and signed by—
i: the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Honourable Christopher Finlayson, and the Minister of Māori Affairs, the Honourable Dr Pita R Sharples; and
ii: William Bird, Robert Jenner, Patrick McManus, Maurice ToeToe, Louis McManus, Pouwhare Rewi, Ema Kalman, Hiraani Stafford, and Henry Nuku:
b: to give effect to certain provisions of the deed of settlement, which is the deed that settles the Ngāti Manawa historical claims.
4: Act binds the Crown
This Act binds the Crown.
5: Outline
1: This section is a guide to the overall scheme and effect of this Act, but does not affect the interpretation or application of the other provisions of this Act or of the deed of settlement.
2: Section 6
3: Sections 3 4 7 to 19
a: set out the purpose of this Act, record the acknowledgements and apology given by the Crown to Ngāti Manawa in the deed of settlement, and specify that the Act binds the Crown; and
b: define terms used in this Act, including key terms such as Ngāti Manawa and historical claims; and
c: provide 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: consequential amendments to the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975
iii: the effect of the settlement on certain memorials; and
iv: the exclusion of the limit on the duration of a trust
4: Sections 20 to 129
a: an overlay classification for 1 site; and
b: protocols to be issued to the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa by the Minister of Conservation, the Minister of Fisheries, the Minister of Energy and Resources, and the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage; and
c: an acknowledgement by the Crown of the statements made by Ngāti Manawa of their cultural, spiritual, historical, and traditional association with 10 statutory areas, and the effect of that acknowledgement; and
d: deeds of recognition between the Crown and the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa; and
e: the 2 advisory committees; and
f: 27 pou rāhui sites; and
g: the alteration of place names; and
h: the vesting in the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa of the fee simple estate in 20 cultural redress properties and 2 non-cultural redress properties (including 4 jointly vested sites) and subsequent management arrangements in relation to various sites; and
i: the vesting and giftback of 1 site.
5: Sections 130 to 132
6: There are 3 schedules that—
a: describe the 10 statutory areas to which the statutory acknowledgements relate; and
b: describe the 27 pou rāhui sites; and
c: describe the 20 cultural redress properties and 2 non-cultural redress properties (including 4 jointly vested sites). Section 5(3)(c)(iv) amended 30 January 2021 section 161 Trusts Act 2019 Historical account
6: Account
Introduction
1: This historical account describes the relationship between the Crown and Ngāti Manawa between 1840 and 1992 and identifies Crown actions which have caused grievance to Ngāti Manawa over the generations. It provides context for the Crown’s acknowledgements of its Treaty breaches against Ngāti Manawa and for the Crown’s apology to Ngāti Manawa. This historical account covers the following topics:
a: Ngāti Manawa; and
b: The New Zealand Wars and Ngāti Manawa; and
c: Crown Campaign Against Te Kooti and the Whakarau; and
d: The Native Land Laws and Ngāti Manawa; and
e: Ngāti Manawa Leases; and
f: Native Land Court Hearings; and
g: Crown Purchases of Ngāti Manawa Lands 1878-1881; and
h: Ngāti Manawa and the Native Land Court 1882-1893; and
i: Crown Purchasing in the 1890s amid continuing Ngāti Manawa Poverty; and
j: The Establishment of the Urewera District Native Reserve; and
k: Implementation of the Urewera District Native Reserve Act 1896; and
l: The Urewera Commission Determines Titles; and
m: Continuing Crown Purchasing in the Twentieth Century; and
n: The Urewera District Reserve Consolidation Scheme; and
o: Ngāti Manawa Reserves; and
p: Rivers and Freshwater Fisheries; and
q: Land Development Schemes; and
r: Farms for Returned Servicemen; and
s: Further Crown Acquisitions of Ngāti Manawa Land for the Forestry Industry; and
t: Forestry and Post 1984 Restructuring. Ngāti Manawa
2: The Ngāti Manawa rohe is a vast geographical area bounded by the Ika Whenua ranges in the east, the Taupo/Napier highway to the south, the western edge of the Kaingaroa plains and the southern edge of Rerewhakaaitu to the north.
3: Tangiharuru journeyed from the Waikato to the Bay of Plenty with a group that included his uncle Wharepakau and conquered the Marangaranga, the original people of the Rangitaiki valley. Tangiharuru lit a beacon fire at Hināmoki to signal their victory. Ngāti Manawa subsequently established many kāinga, moving seasonally within their rohe to use the resources of the Kuhawaea and Kaingaroa Plains to sustain their people. The climate ranged from very cold, wet winters to extremely hot, dry summers. Ngāti Manawa learned to survive in this environment by maintaining a fine balance of use and regeneration of resources for both their own use and for trade with other hapū and iwi.
4: The Rangitaiki River is the tipuna awa and living taonga of Ngāti Manawa. Its eel fishery was and remains vital to Ngāti Manawa’s traditional economy and the river provided a valuable transport and trading route.
5: Ngāti Manawa had a number of hapū, each under the leadership of its chiefs. They were in turn led by an ariki selected by all hapū to lead the iwi. The role of the ariki was to safeguard the social, economic, and political welfare of the people and to defend its mana whenua. Chiefs had authority over the lands they managed and defended under traditional land tenure arrangements in which lands were utilised for whānau and hapū benefit. Ngāti Manawa held and managed their rivers and lands in accordance with tikanga.
6: Ngāti Manawa had little contact with the Crown until the early 1860s and the Crown did not try to exercise authority in their region during this period. The Rangitaiki Valley was the easiest route inland to and from the Urewera, Hawke’s Bay and the Bay of Plenty. By the early 1860s Ngāti Manawa were engaged in negotiations with settlers who wished to lease land from them. Ngāti Manawa chiefs had a clear preference to retain ownership of their lands while deriving a cash income. The New Zealand Wars and Ngāti Manawa
7: In 1856 Ngāti Manawa attended a hui with other Māori at Pūkawa at which a number of matters were discussed including land issues and the possible establishment of a Māori King. This eventually led to the establishment of the King movement or Kingitanga. Māori could choose to place their lands under the protection of a Māori King. The Crown considered the Kingitanga to be a challenge to its sovereignty. While sympathetic to the Kingitanga, Ngāti Manawa took a neutral approach.
8: War broke out between the Crown and Māori in the early 1860s in Taranaki and later in the Waikato. In early 1864 Rewi Maniapoto, a chief from the Waikato region, appealed to Ngāti Manawa for assistance. Takarua Korakaitoki and his wife Rawinia travelled to the Waikato and were wounded at a battle at Ōrākau.
9: In late 1864 prophets of the Pai Mārire religious movement (which was popular among Kingitanga Māori) arrived in the eastern Bay of Plenty. They met with Ngāti Manawa and others at Tauaroa and got a mixed reaction.
10: Actions by some Māori from other iwi, associated with Pai Mārire, alarmed the Government. In April 1865 the Government proclaimed that it would use all the means in its power to suppress the fanatical doctrines it associated with Pai Mārire and called upon all “well disposed” persons to assist them.
11: Ngāti Manawa considered that the conflict between the Crown and Pai Mārire adherents was likely to spread to their lands and would force a response from them. They met with Ngāti Whare at Whatatara to decide what to do. It was agreed that some would join Pai Mārire and others would join the Government. Ngāti Manawa decided to support the Government. They and their allies fortified a pā at Te Tāpiri. It became known that Pai Mārire emissaries were intending to move through the Rangitaiki region towards the Waikato. Ngāti Manawa warned them against crossing through their rohe.
12: In May 1865 the Pai Mārire group and their allies laid siege to Te Tāpiri. The defenders were led by Peraniko Tahawai. Other prominent Ngāti Manawa involved in the siege were Rewi Rangiamio, Te Wiremu Enoka, and the prophetess Hinekou, the wife of Mānuka Te Mauparaoa. The defenders exhausted their ammunition and food supplies and broke out of the pā on 7 June 1865. They were pursued to the Wheao River by the Pai Mārire group, before a relieving column of Government troops and allies drove the pursuers off.
13: The engagement at Te Tāpiri had significant consequences for Ngāti Manawa’s relationship with the Crown. It also began a period of conflict with neighbouring iwi with whom they had close whanaunga ties.
14: After Te Tāpiri Ngāti Manawa had to abandon their pā and cultivations in the Rangitaiki Valley. They were cut off from their traditional economic resources for more than a year while living as refugees in Rotorua.
15: Ngāti Manawa lived in exile for more than a year during which time their lands were plundered. They returned to the Rangitaiki Valley in September 1866, and built a new meeting house and a number of whare at Motumako. They also had to replant their cultivations.
16: After their return from exile Ngāti Manawa began negotiating to restore their relationships with their neighbouring iwi who had fought against the Crown. In recognition of Ngāti Manawa’s military service, the Crown awarded them land near Matata and presented them with a flag Te Aroha o Kuini Wikitoria Crown Campaign Against Te Kooti and the Whakarau
17: In July 1868 Te Kooti Arikirangi led an escape by Māori who had been imprisoned by the Crown on the Chatham Islands without trial for over two years. The Crown set out to apprehend Te Kooti and his followers (known as the Whakarau) and was soon engaged in war on the East Coast against them. Early in 1869 the Whakarau retreated into the Urewera and forged a covenant with some iwi leaders there.
18: The Whakarau and their allies attacked Ngāti Manawa at Motumako in March 1869. Ngāti Manawa were again forced into exile at Rotorua as their rohe became a war zone and was once more too unsafe for them to remain. In May 1869 the Crown renewed its campaign against the Whakarau. The Crown established a number of redoubts in the Rangitaiki region, including an important base, Fort Galatea, near Kāramuramu in the heart of Ngāti Manawa’s rohe. A number of Ngāti Manawa were enrolled in companies of the Armed Constabulary which used Fort Galatea as a base. The Ngāti Manawa troops were not well provisioned by the Crown.
19: For the next four years Ngāti Manawa were disconnected from their homes, cultivations and traditional resources and many of their men were away from their whānau while on military duty.
20: The return of warfare to their rohe again forced Ngāti Manawa to act. They generally allied with the Crown between 1868 and 1872. However, the war situation posed difficult choices of allegiance for Ngāti Manawa. Harehare Atarea recorded that he had unsuccessfully attempted in 1869 to protect his whānau from an iwi fighting on the other side of the conflict at Te Harema by positioning himself at the front of the Crown’s attacking forces. He stated that he felt great shame that he was unable to prevent the killing of his close relatives. Although they generally maintained their alliance with the Crown, it is a Ngāti Manawa tradition that Harehare scouted for Te Kooti at one time.
21: Several neighbouring iwi surrendered to the Crown forces in May and June 1870. Te Kooti remained at large and Ngāti Manawa warriors played an active part in the Crown’s pursuit of him until he found sanctuary in the Waikato in 1872.
22: The war years had significant long-term economic, social, and other consequences for Ngāti Manawa. Because they generally allied with the Crown they were labelled, by some, as kūpapa.
23: Both sides of the conflict had lived off the land and used a scorched earth
24: The damage inflicted on their food sources by Crown forces and others upset the fine balance of Ngāti Manawa’s traditional economy and left them with little option but to engage with the newly emerging cash economy to improve their economic circumstances. In the years after the war they adopted a strategy of leasing rather than selling land to try to generate a regular cash income. The Native Land Laws and Ngāti Manawa
25: Ngāti Manawa could not, however, legally sell or lease their land without a title from the Native Land Court. Neither could they pledge it as security to enable the development of their land. The Crown had established the Native Land Court under the Native Land Acts of 1862 and 1865. Its role was to determine the ownership of Māori land according to native custom
26: An investigation of title could be initiated by any Māori. In most cases the land was surveyed, and then the Court would hear the cases of the claimants and counter-claimants. Ngāti Manawa first attended Native Land Court hearings in 1868 when another iwi made an application for what became the Kaingaroa 2 block. However, the warfare and political turbulence of the region delayed significant Ngāti Manawa engagement with the Court for another decade. Ngāti Manawa Leases
27: In the 1870s and 1880s the Crown employed several land purchase agents to negotiate with Māori in an attempt to open the central North Island to Pākehā settlement. One of its agents, Gilbert Mair, had led Crown forces based at Fort Galatea during the war with Te Kooti, and already had a close relationship with Ngāti Manawa leaders.
28: In 1873 Ngāti Manawa began negotiating to lease the Kaingaroa 1 block to a Crown official (acting in a private capacity). They received a £400 deposit, but the Crown was also interested in this land, and objected to its officials competing against it. The official relinquished his private lease, and helped Crown purchase agents secure a lease for the Government. The Crown paid an advance of rent of £250 in February 1875 when 89 Ngāti Manawa signed a deed to lease it an estimated 136,000 acres.
29: In 1874 Ngāti Manawa decided to lease the Kuhawaea block to a private party. In March 1874 the Crown paid advances of £100 each to secure Ngāti Manawa agreement to lease Pukahunui and Heruiwi. Deeds of lease were signed in February 1875.
30: The Crown preferred to purchase land outright rather than lease it. However, it was prepared to lease land in order to prevent private parties from establishing interests in land the Crown wished to purchase. By entering into lease agreements with Ngāti Manawa the Crown established the sole right to purchase their lands for a period. The lease agreements provided that Ngāti Manawa could not alienate any interest in the leased land to anyone other than the Crown.
31: Aside from its initial deposits the Crown refused to pay rent on the leased land until the Court had determined title because of the risk the Court would decide the owners of the land were not those who agreed to the lease. The operation of the Court was, however, suspended in the Bay of Plenty region between 1873 and 1877 in response to growing Māori dissatisfaction with it. One Crown land purchase agent later testified that it was also done to discourage the interference of private individuals with Government negotiations
32: Ngāti Manawa’s leases would have generated an annual income of £850 had all the lessees begun paying rent as soon as they had signed their lease agreements. However, the Crown’s policy meant that Ngāti Manawa only received £400 from the private lease of Kuhawaea until land title was confirmed by the Native Land Court.
33: Floods destroyed Ngāti Manawa crops in 1877. The same year a newspaper reported that the Government had refused to help its 1860s ally Peraniko, a well known rangatira of the Ngāti Manawa permitting him to die like a dog for want of medical aid and nourishment Native Land Court Hearings
34: In March 1878 the Crown issued a proclamation declaring that Kaingaroa 1, Pukahunui and Heruiwi were under negotiation for purchase or acquisition by the Crown. All other parties were prohibited from acquiring any interest in these blocks. The Native Land Court was about to conduct title investigations into these and other lands in which Ngāti Manawa claimed an interest.
35: Ngāti Manawa wanted the Native Land Court hearings into the Kaingaroa 1, Kāramuramu, Pukahunui and Heruiwi blocks to take place at Karatia to minimise disruption and expense to them. The Court opened there in June 1878, but other iwi objected to this choice of venue and for a number of reasons the Court was adjourned to Matata (60 kilometres away) despite strong protests by Ngāti Manawa.
36: The three months of title investigations at Matata strained Ngāti Manawa resources and greatly disrupted their home routines. There was insufficient food for those attending the hearings. In August 1878, during the hearings for Kaingaroa 1, Ngāti Manawa told the Court that, as the Government had brought them to Matata, it ought to provide them with food now that they had exhausted their supplies.
37: The Court’s processes also imposed a considerable economic burden on Ngāti Manawa. The land surveys that had to be performed before the Court would investigate titles were expensive. The cost of the surveys for Heruiwi, and Kaingaroa 1 exceeded a year’s annual rent and that charged for Pukahunui was more than five times the annual rent.
38: Ngāti Manawa were awarded title to the Kaingaroa 1, Kāramuramu, Pukahunui and Heruiwi blocks. They sought the listing of more than 300 individuals on the title to Kaingaroa 1 including people from other iwi they recognised as also having interests in the block. Crown agents, however, endeavoured to persuade Ngāti Manawa to reduce the number of people on the list to make the lease easier to complete. The matter was deferred as Ngāti Manawa could not agree who should be on the list. In 1879 the Native Land Court approved a list of 31 owners handed in by Ngāti Manawa.
39: Ngāti Manawa also participated in the 1878 title investigation into the Kaingaroa 2 block but their claim was rejected by the Court. Ngāti Manawa’s request for a rehearing was refused. While dissatisfied claimants could make such requests there was no provision for appeals against Native Land Court decisions until 1894. Crown Purchases of Ngāti Manawa Land 1878–1881
40: At the end of the 1878 Native Land Court hearings Ngāti Manawa offered Kaingaroa 1 for sale to the Crown. The proclamations prohibiting alienations to private parties of this and the other Ngāti Manawa blocks brought before the Native Land Court remained in place, and gave the Crown the advantage of negotiating in a monopoly market position. The purchase negotiations took some time and in June 1879 Harehare Atarea and others wrote the Government that all Ngāti Manawa agreed to the sale of Kaingaroa 1. The Government had paid nearly £500 in rent and survey costs by the time Kaingaroa 1 was first offered for sale. It now treated these payments as a deposit on the purchase.
41: Once the Crown was in purchase negotiations with Ngāti Manawa it was prepared to pay advances of purchase money to Ngāti Manawa so they could meet the costs of attending the Native Land Court hearings. It is not clear whether Ngāti Manawa accepted or understood the basis of these payments. The Crown paid an additional £1,837, including at least £339 for food consumed at Native Land Court hearings.
42: In late October and early November 1880 the Native Land Court held a rehearing of the Kaingaroa 1 block, and confirmed Ngāti Manawa’s title. Following the rehearing Ngāti Manawa wanted to submit a list of 120 owners but agreed to a Crown agent’s request to submit a list of 28 owners to make the purchase easier to complete. The Crown’s purchase of 103,393 acres was completed in December 1880. The purchase price was £7,754. The Crown’s purchase agent found the accounts detailing what had already been paid confusing and complicated
43: Ngāti Manawa continued their strategy of trying to generate a regular cash income by leasing land. They wanted to complete the leases for Pukahunui and Heruiwi but the Crown required the signing of new deeds with those recognised as the owners by the Native Land Court. It took some time to secure Ngāti Manawa agreement to those deeds.
44: By the early 1880s the Crown was withdrawing from nearly all of its lease agreements. The Heruiwi owners signed a new deed of lease by mid-1880, but the Crown declined to pay any further rent. Crown officials disregarded Ngāti Manawa’s wish for the lease to continue and instead tried to purchase the block in 1881. Ngāti Manawa received an offer for this block, from a private party, that was several thousand pounds greater than the Crown was willing to pay, but the Crown refused to lift the 1878 proclamation prohibiting alienation of land to private parties.
45: A Crown purchase agent met with several groups of Heruiwi owners before trying to purchase the interests of as many individual owners as possible. The Crown agreed to pay £500 back rent in the final purchase negotiations. On the basis of the Crown’s acquisition of individual interests the Court awarded it nearly 20,910 out of the 24,394 acres in the block in 1881. The Crown did not continue leasing the remainder of the block.
46: Most of the owners of the Pukahunui block signed a new deed of lease but in 1881 the Crown decided to try to purchase the block. Ngāti Manawa did not wish to sell all of Pukahunui to the Crown and instead offered to refund the Crown’s earlier advances of rent. The Crown insisted on having land for the rent and survey costs it had paid before it would lift its proclamation prohibiting private parties from negotiating for the block. In 1881 Ngāti Manawa agreed to the Native Land Court awarding the Crown 5,500 acres in Pukahunui. This included the best land in the 46,470 acre block.
47: By the end of 1881 the Crown had purchased approximately 130,000 acres of Ngāti Manawa land that it had originally agreed to lease. Ngāti Manawa and the Native Land Court 1882–1893
48: The title investigation for Kuhawaea took place at Whakatāne in September 1882. Attending Native Land Court hearings a long distance from home continued to create difficulties for Ngāti Manawa. In 1884, when requesting a hearing for Whirinaki, Rawiri Parākiri wrote the Chief Judge of the Native Land Court that Ngāti Manawa had suffered greatly from earlier hearings at Matata and Whakatāne. The impact on Ngāti Manawa was the burden of food and accommodation costs at hearings as well as disruption to their harvesting and cultivation work at home.
49: As with Kaingaroa 1, Ngāti Manawa attempted to accommodate the interests of neighbouring iwi in the title they and their close kin were awarded for Kuhawaea. Another iwi who claimed interests in this block declined, on principle, to participate in the Native Land Court hearings. Nevertheless Ngāti Manawa included several from this iwi on the list of owners.
50: The challenges facing Ngāti Manawa in the 1880s were exacerbated by the depression which afflicted the New Zealand economy at this time. One impact of the depression was that the Government scaled back its land purchasing. After completing the Heruiwi and Pukahunui purchases the Government did not purchase any additional Māori land until the 1890s.
51: Ngāti Manawa agreed to several large sales to private parties in 1882 and 1883. Ngāti Manawa hoped that these sales would lift the iwi out of poverty. The balance of the Pukahunui block that the Native Land Court had not awarded to the Crown was sold in 1882. The 21,694 acres of Kuhawaea were sold to the lessee of the land in 1883.
52: In the early 1880s Ngāti Manawa were farming a flock of 2,000 sheep at Kāramuramu. Despite this, Ngāti Manawa were still in distressed economic circumstances in 1885. At this time a school inspector described the circumstances of the children at Galatea as anything but cheering
53: The Court investigated the title to the Pohokura block in Hastings in March 1885 on the application of another iwi. Ngāti Manawa were not aware of the proposed hearings before they started and did not participate in them. They sent a list of four Ngāti Manawa names to the Court, but these were not included in the list of owners awarded title. Ngāti Manawa successfully applied for a rehearing and in November 1885 the Court directed the addition of the Ngāti Manawa names to the Pohokura title. Ngāti Manawa sought some financial relief by selling their interests in the Pohokura lands in February 1886.
54: The June 1886 Tarawera eruption forced Ngāti Manawa to abandon their main settlement at Kāramuramu and seek shelter and food in the forests of Heruiwi.
55: The Whirinaki and Heruiwi 4 blocks were the only large blocks claimed by Ngāti Manawa that did not pass through the Native Land Court before the end of the 1880s. In the mid-1880s Ngāti Manawa chiefs requested that title investigations for these blocks take place at Te Teko and Kāramuramu but both were heard at Whakatāne between October and December 1890, in the middle of the planting season and during an influenza epidemic. Some years later a Crown official reported to the Government that it was his opinion that Ngāti Manawa had spent many thousands of pounds through being forced to attend the Land Court at Whakatāne, to say nothing of sickness and death caused by want of proper food and accommodation.
56: The Court divided Heruiwi between Ngāti Manawa and other iwi. Ngāti Manawa were unhappy that an urupā had not been included in their award and applied for a rehearing. The Court declined on the basis of its belief that another iwi had more dead buried in the urupā. The Court awarded Whirinaki to Ngāti Manawa and a related iwi. There was a rehearing and the Court confirmed its original decision. Crown Purchasing in the 1890s amid Continuing Ngāti Manawa Poverty
57: In 1889 Harehare Atarea offered to sell interests in more land because I am in debt and have been served with a writ from the Supreme Court
58: Ngāti Manawa offered to sell the Crown 40,000 acres in Heruiwi 4 immediately after the Court awarded them title in 1890. The Crown agreed to purchase this land in 1892. By the time negotiations had concluded Ngāti Manawa had offered the Crown an additional 6,200 acres which was also purchased.
59: Disastrous floods destroyed their crops in mid-1892 and again in January 1893. In January 1893 Harehare Atarea pleaded with the Government to send Ngāti Manawa food, and offered to pay for it out of the purchase money for land. He offered to sell Heruiwi or Pohokura, or any block of land in this district owned by us What is the use of the land if the owners die of starvation?
60: Harehare received no reply and again wrote the Government in March 1893 of Ngāti Manawa’s desperate food shortage. This time he specifically offered some of Ngāti Manawa’s best remaining land in Heruiwi 4 so that his people could buy food.
61: The Government began acquiring the signatures of individual owners to a purchase deed for Heruiwi 4B in July 1893. The Native Land Court had recognised the importance of this land to Ngāti Manawa’s ability to sustain themselves and had ordered that the block should be inalienable. However, the Governor exercised his power to lift such orders. The Crown’s purchase of individual interests continued until November 1895 at which stage it had acquired more than 16,000 acres in Heruiwi 4B.
62: The Crown prohibited private purchasing of Māori land in 1894. In January 1895 the Government began purchasing individual interests in the Whirinaki block. The Court had also ordered that this block should be inalienable. Notwithstanding that, the Government purchased nearly 21,500 acres from 178 individuals by November 1895. Just over a fifth of the purchase money was consumed by the cost of surveying the land. A further block of 350 acres in Whirinaki was acquired by the Crown in satisfaction of survey costs in 1899.
63: In 1897 Ngāti Manawa were afflicted by a harsh influenza epidemic. Frosts destroyed all their crops between 1898 and 1900, and created near famine like conditions. Early in 1899 a committee of owners was appointed by the different iwi interested in Pohokura to arrange a large sale to the Crown. The Crown completed the purchase of 40,000 acres that year from Ngāti Manawa and other iwi. The Establishment of the Urewera District Native Reserve
64: Ngāti Manawa land interests extended into the western edges of Te Urewera. Ngāti Manawa and other Māori had not sold any land in this area by the 1890s and it was one of the last areas of the country to be opened up
65: In 1895 Premier Richard Seddon, James Carroll, and other government representatives met in Wellington with leaders of iwi with interests in Te Urewera to discuss how their land was to be governed in the future. The Crown wanted the iwi to allow their land to be surveyed and have land title determined. Iwi leaders sought self-government and protection against land alienation.
66: Harehare Atarea and Te Marunui Rawiri represented Ngāti Manawa. They were reluctant to be involved in a project primarily being negotiated with other iwi, but finally agreed to the establishment of a special 656,000 acre Te Urewera reserve. The Crown agreed to introduce a special system to exempt the lands in the reserve from the Native Land Court system by allowing land ownership to be determined by an Urewera Commission Implementation of the Urewera District Native Reserve Act 1896
67: In the first two decades of the twentieth century the Crown took a number of actions which were counter to the agreements it had reached with Ngāti Manawa and others and had given effect to in the Urewera District Native Reserve Act 1896. A number of the protections Urewera leaders had secured as a condition of submitting their lands to survey and title determinations were not given effect to and the local governance provisions were weakened.
68: In 1908 a General Committee of 33 people, including Harehare Atarea and Te Marunui Rawiri from Ngāti Manawa, was elected to administer the Urewera reserve. Later that year, however, the Government made itself responsible for appointing the General Committee, and restricted it to twenty members. Te Marunui Rawiri was one of those appointed by the Government in 1909.
69: In 1909 legislation was enacted empowering the Government to declare individual blocks in the reserve subject to the jurisdiction of the Native Land Court. A government adviser suggested that Te Whāiti be subdivided in 1910 to end disputes between Ngāti Manawa and the other iwi with whom they shared the block. A partition hearing took place in 1913. Despite concluding that there were no internal boundaries between Ngāti Manawa and their co-owners, the Court split Te Whāiti in two. Ngāti Manawa were awarded Te Whāiti 2 on partition, being 26,292 of the 71,340 acres. The Urewera Commission Determines Titles
70: The determination of land titles by the Urewera Commission was a drawn out process. Ngāti Manawa claimed interests in the Te Whāiti-nui-a-Toi block. In May 1901 the Commission awarded Ngāti Manawa 3,370 acres in the Tāwhiuau section of Te Whāiti-nui-a-Toi. Most of the block was awarded to other iwi.
71: Ngāti Manawa lodged five appeals against this decision. One of these was lodged by Hohepa Poia and others, and another by Harehare Atarea and 194 others. The Government appointed a second Commission to hear appeals in 1906. The three Commissioners who heard the Te Whāiti-nui-a-Toi appeal included two Pākehā, and a Māori from outside the Urewera region. In 1907 the second Commission enlarged Ngāti Manawa’s award of the Tāwhiuau block to 5,064 acres. It also included 188 Ngāti Manawa among the 506 owners of Te Whāiti block.
72: In a similar manner to their approach to lists of owners given to the Native Land Court, Ngāti Manawa included some members of other iwi on the title of Tāwhiuau. It also appears that a few Ngāti Manawa may have been among the owners of Otairi and Maraetahi which had been part of the larger Te Whāiti-nui-a-Toi block. Continuing Crown Purchasing in the Twentieth Century
73: The Urewera District Native Reserve Act 1896 was amended by subsequent legislation that changed its structure and provisions. The effect of these changes made it much easier for the Crown to purchase land inside the Urewera Reserve. The land inside the Urewera District Native Reserve, and nearly 25,000 acres outside it, was all that remained in Ngāti Manawa’s ownership at the start of the twentieth century. Despite this, the Crown continued purchasing Ngāti Manawa land.
74: In November 1914 the Government began acquiring interests in lands from individual owners without complying with the legal requirement set out in the Urewera District Native Reserve Act 1896 to first seek the approval of the General Committee. This requirement was intended to ensure communal rather than individual control over land alienation. In May 1915 the Government decided to purchase Te Whāiti, but had still not obtained the General Committee’s consent. These illegal actions were retrospectively validated by legislation in 1916 that also empowered the Government to continue purchasing inside the reserve without the General Committee’s consent.
75: The Crown wanted to acquire valuable timber on Te Whāiti. After 1905 it was required to have Māori land valued before purchasing it. Most of the timber was located on the Ngāti Manawa portion of the block and when valued the Ngāti Manawa portion of Te Whāiti was given a much higher valuation than the other parts. Nevertheless in 1938 and 1944 some Ngāti Manawa petitioned the Government complaining that the price finally paid for the timber land was less than market value.
76: The law required the Crown to hold a meeting of the assembled owners of a land block, before beginning negotiations to purchase individual interests in the land. The Crown did not hold such a meeting in its negotiations for Te Whāiti. Instead the Crown pressed ahead with the purchase of individual interests. It had some initial success but negotiations dragged on for a number of years as the Crown’s agent travelled far and wide trying to persuade individual owners to sell.
77: Ngāti Manawa’s economic circumstances contributed to their willingness to sell. Pera Te Horowai offered the Government his interests in Te Whāiti in 1915 because his people were facing starvation due to heavy frosts having destroyed their crops, and the high price of flour. Some Ngāti Manawa land was offered for sale to raise development capital. In 1910 W. H. Bird wrote that the owners of a Whirinaki section wished to sell to raise development capital for other land that they retained. In 1914 Bird suggested the Government purchase the Ngāti Manawa section of Te Whāiti because they want money to work the Hikurangi blocks now being subdivided by the Native Land Court in Whakatāne
78: The Crown also began purchasing undivided shares from individual owners in the Otairi, Maraetahi and Tāwhiuau blocks. By March 1921 it had acquired the majority of interests in these blocks. However, the Crown had been purchasing undivided shares. It was not clear where the boundaries between the interests acquired by the Crown, and those retained by non-sellers, should be drawn. The Urewera District Reserve Consolidation Scheme
79: This circumstance affected a number of Urewera Reserve blocks. Crown officials were reluctant, however, to have the Native Land Court subdivide out its purchases in the Urewera Reserve. They were concerned the Court would not award the Crown the parts of the blocks that officials wanted to make available for settlers. They also believed that a Court partition would disadvantage the non-sellers as they would be left with widely scattered interests among a number of blocks. The Crown proposed a scheme to consolidate interests that would give the Crown the land it wanted, and provide the non-sellers with larger more economically viable landholdings.
80: The Crown began holding meetings with Ngāti Manawa and another iwi in 1921 to work out arrangements for the consolidation of interests in the Te Whāiti, Maraetahi, Otairi and Tāwhiuau blocks. The Government did not acquire all the land it wanted in Te Whāiti, but still secured the block’s valuable timber resources. One whānau group exchanged their shares in Te Whāiti for Crown interests in Whirinaki.
81: The Urewera Lands Act 1921-1922
82: The non-sellers from Ngāti Manawa and another iwi were entitled to 14,366 acres at the end of the consolidation scheme, but substantial deductions were made from this to cover the costs of roading and surveying. Their entitlement was reduced by nearly a quarter to 10,840 acres. Ngāti Manawa Reserves
83: By the 1920s Ngāti Manawa retained ownership of only a small fraction of their rohe. The Crown’s officially stated policy in the nineteenth century was that sufficient land for Māori to live on should be reserved for Māori from purchases of their land. The Crown believed that three reserves were created from the 1880 Kaingaroa purchase of 1,644 acres at Karatia, 417 acres at Ōruatewehi and 670 acres at Rangipō. All the land in Ōruatewehi and Rangipō was, however, purchased by private parties or the Crown between 1892 and 1928. In 1894 and 1921 the Crown compulsorily took 37 acres in Karatia for public works without paying any compensation.
84: Ngāti Manawa may have agreed to sales at Ōruatewehi and Rangipō due to confusion between themselves and the Government over what land had actually been reserved in 1880. The reserves provided for by the text of the Kaingaroa 1 deed did not precisely correspond to those represented on the plan accompanying the 1880 deed. These reserves also differed from those earlier agreed upon out of the Crown’s 1875 lease. Ngāti Manawa kept using land at Motumako and Kiorenui within the boundaries of Kaingaroa 1 until 1920 when the Crown began to develop these blocks for the Kaingaroa state forest.
85: Ngāti Manawa soon petitioned the Government that they believed Motumako and Kiorenui had been reserved in 1880. This led to an investigation of the 1880 purchase by a Native Land Court Judge in 1926. His conclusions placed some reliance on the recently published memoirs of the ex-Crown official who negotiated the purchase. Ngāti Manawa disputed the accuracy of this account, and in certain respects their evidence was more consistent with the contemporary documentation of the 1880 purchase. The Judge appears to have seen only some of the contemporary documentation. He rejected Ngāti Manawa’s argument that it had been intended to reserve Kiorenui but accepted that they had intended to reserve Motumako. The Chief Judge of the Native Land Court advised the Government not to accept these findings on the basis that it was unwise to upset a sale that had stood for 46 years.
86: Ngāti Manawa began a long campaign for the return of Motumako. In 1927 the Native Affairs Committee referred a Ngāti Manawa petition to the Government for favourable consideration. The New Zealand Forest Service was determined to retain Motumako, however, as it was in the middle of one of its forests. It considered there was a risk fires might spread from privately owned land to its forests.
87: In 1931 Ngāti Manawa proposed exchanging their interests in Motumako for 315 acres in Karatia. The Crown, though, maintained that Motumako was only worth 100 acres in Karatia. The Crown and Ngāti Manawa were unable to agree how much millable timber was in Motumako. Negotiations spread over 30 years could not resolve this disagreement.
88: The Motumako dispute eventually became entwined with the Crown’s attempts to purchase some remaining Ngāti Manawa land at Whirinaki. This began in the 1950s and lasted until 1967 when Ngāti Manawa asked the Crown to stop. In 1969 Ngāti Manawa proposed to provide the Crown with Whirinaki lands in exchange for Motumako. The Crown did not immediately agree but in 1973 offered to exchange Whirinaki for Motumako. The Crown and Ngāti Manawa finally agreed in 1981 that the Crown would exchange 1,490 acres in Whirinaki 4B2 for Motumako.
89: Despite the small amount of land remaining in Ngāti Manawa ownership by the middle of the twentieth century, the Crown compulsorily acquired 136 acres at Karatia in 1954 to use as a log yard and rail head to service the forestry industry. Rivers and Freshwater Fisheries
90: The rohe of Ngāti Manawa includes the bed and waters of the upper Rangitaiki River, Ngāti Manawa’s tupuna awa, and its tributaries, including in particular the Wheao and Whirinaki rivers. Other important streams for eels and fishing places were the Pokairoa, Kopuriki, Horomanga and Mangamate Streams. Apart from being a vital part of the traditional economy of Ngāti Manawa, these waterways are taonga that are critical to Ngāti Manawa’s spiritual sustenance and wellbeing.
91: Ngāti Manawa and neighbouring iwi had their own maramataka (fishing calendar). The fishery was managed according to tikanga.
92: Numerous varieties of eels were formerly caught by Ngāti Manawa, including black eels (mataamoe), silver-bellied eels (paewai), blind eels (piharau), and yellow-bellied eels. All were taonga to Ngāti Manawa. Certain individuals and families had special knowledge of fishing methods and had the responsibility to pass their knowledge on to the next generation. Places where specific varieties of eels could be caught were well-known and were often named. There were a number of traditional fishing methods, including hīnaki, retireti, rama tuna, fern beds or boxes, and line fishing.
93: The Government took control of the Rangitaiki and other rivers from the late nineteenth century. The Water-power Act 1903, and subsequent legislation, gave the Crown sole control of these rivers to use for electricity generation. The beds of all navigable rivers were vested in the Crown by the Coal-mines Act Amendment Act 1903. Otherwise, title to rivers was governed by the ad medium filum aquae rule. Ngāti Manawa state that this is inconsistent with their tikanga. There was no consultation with Ngāti Manawa over the coal mines legislation. Section 21 of the Water and Soil Conservation Act 1967 vested all rights of management, use, and authority over natural water in the Crown. There was no consultation between the Crown and Ngāti Manawa about this legislation either.
94: The Rangitaiki River and its tributaries have been affected by the construction of the Matahina, Aniwhenua, and Wheao power schemes. The dams have assisted New Zealand’s economic growth, but at the cost of a decline in the health of the rivers. The eel fisheries and other resources that Ngāti Manawa rely on for cultural and physical sustenance have been severely affected. The Matahina scheme caused a significant section of the Rangitaiki to flood between Matahina and Murupara. Ngāti Manawa say that the mixing of the waters of the Rangitaiki and Wheao shatters the tapu and sanctity of these rivers. They cannot identify whether the re-channelled river was the Rangitaiki or the Wheao.
95: Ngāti Manawa now need permits to cross Crown owned forests to fish in their rivers. Ngāti Manawa continue to regard themselves as kaitiaki of the rivers. Land Development Schemes
96: In the 1920s Ngāti Manawa were concerned at how their remaining land interests were scattered across many blocks. William Bird wrote the Government in 1929 requesting a further consolidation scheme involving Ngāti Manawa and other iwi that would amalgamate approximately 25,000 acres of land with more than 1,800 owners into larger and more economically viable sections. Some preliminary work was done, but there was no further consolidation of Ngāti Manawa interests, despite further requests being made in the 1940s.
97: In 1929 the Government began providing funds for development schemes to establish viable farms on Māori owned land. Ngāti Manawa would have preferred that their interests be consolidated first, but lobbied the Government in 1933 and 1934 to establish a development scheme on their land. In January 1937 a development scheme was established on Ngāti Manawa land at Karatia and Whirinaki. By March 1939, approximately 1,700 acres had been developed and 35 men had been employed. While some owners were allocated land, the Ngāti Manawa community of owners generally had little control over their land once it was in the scheme.
98: Some 6,000 acres were put into the Ngāti Manawa development scheme. Work began well converting the undeveloped land into dairy farms with William Bird as foreman. However, progress soon slowed. Much of the scheme’s land was unsuitable for dairy farming, and the Second World War between 1939 and 1945 created shortages of labour and materials. In July 1947, the Native Department was instructed by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Native Affairs to proceed with a consolidation of Ngāti Manawa interests. The consolidation was delayed so the Crown could acquire the Karatia block for a log yard which the Forest Service required. The consolidation was never completed.
99: Ngāti Manawa had little ability to control the administration of the development scheme. It lost money, and its costs were charged against the land which became heavily indebted. By the 1950s many owners were asking for their land to be removed from the scheme. It had been reduced to 3,300 acres by 1957.
100: The Government further attempted to develop the remaining land in the 1960s but the scheme’s debts continued to increase. The owners became increasingly frustrated with the Government’s management of their land. In the early 1970s they sought its return and the writing off, or reduction of, its debt. However, the Crown considered the debt a fair charge against the land.
101: The owners established the Ngāti Manawa Incorporation in 1972, and the land was transferred to this incorporation. Its considerable debts were re-financed as a mortgage on the land. The incorporation succeeded in making a profit, and paid its first dividend in 1979. Farms for Returned Servicemen
102: The Government allocated a number of farms on Crown land at Kuhawaea to returned servicemen after the Second World War. Kuhawaea had originally been owned by Ngāti Manawa, but Ngāti Manawa returned servicemen were ineligible for these farms. Government policy was that Crown land would only be allocated to returned servicemen considered capable of living in wholly European communities. Prior to 1954, applicants had to be certified as able to farm without supervision. All Māori applicants were certified as requiring the supervision of the Department of Māori Affairs. Further Crown Acquisitions of Ngāti Manawa Land for the Forestry Industry
103: In the late 1940s the Crown sought land to build a pulp and paper mill to process wood from the Kaingaroa forest. The Crown already owned most of the land in the district, but decided the most suitable site for such a mill was on Ngāti Manawa land at Karatia. The Prime Minister asked Ngāti Manawa to sell the Government the land and told them this project would provide them with employment for generations.
104: The Crown eventually decided to build the mill at Kawerau but it still sought 136 acres at Karatia for a log yard and railhead. In February 1953 the Crown proposed an exchange of land with Ngāti Manawa. Negotiations broke down due to disagreement over whether the land should be valued at its current or potential value.
105: The Prime Minister had promised Ngāti Manawa that the Government would not compulsorily take its land but in 1954 a new Government decided to compulsorily acquire the land it wanted. The Māori Land Court ordered the Government to compensate Ngāti Manawa for the potential value of the land. The compensation was paid to the Māori Trustee, and subsequently used to repay the debts on three Karatia blocks arising out of the Ngāti Manawa development scheme. Forestry and Post 1984 Restructuring
106: From 1950 the Ngāti Manawa economy was dependent on the Kaingaroa Forest (planted on land Ngāti Manawa sold to the Crown). The New Zealand Forest Service developed timber towns
107: The New Zealand Forest Service maintained a strong sense of social responsibility into the 1980s. In May 1983 it commenced a new planting programme which was mainly designed to create new jobs. More than 1,000 jobs were to be created before the end of 1987. However Ngāti Manawa’s dependence on the New Zealand Forest Service made the iwi vulnerable to shifts in government policy.
108: In 1984 the Government decided that the New Zealand economy would benefit from a programme of restructuring and deregulation. By 1987 the Forest Service had been split up and its former functions transferred to the Department of Conservation and the New Zealand Forestry Corporation. Māori Affairs Department officials warned that restructuring the New Zealand Forest Service would have a devastating
109: The Government established a five million dollar fund to assist communities across the country to adapt to the economic changes, but this did not prevent considerable unemployment among Ngāti Manawa. In 1993 65 percent of Murupara’s population were on a welfare benefit. Many Ngāti Manawa families left Murupara in search of work. Crown acknowledgements
7: Acknowledgements
1: The Crown acknowledges that it has failed to deal with the long standing grievances of Ngāti Manawa in an appropriate way and that recognition of these grievances is long overdue.
2: The Crown acknowledges that the several wars that were fought between the Crown and other Māori in the eastern Bay of Plenty between 1865 and 1872 had a prejudicial effect on Ngāti Manawa and that—
a: Ngāti Manawa tried to maintain a neutral position until the circumstances would not permit it; and
b: the fighting in their rohe led to the exile of the Ngāti Manawa people who had to live as refugees in the rohe of other iwi in 1865 and 1866, and again between 1869 and 1872; and
c: the Crown military forces inflicted a scorched earth policy in their pursuit of Te Kooti through the rohe of Ngāti Manawa between 1869 and 1872; and
d: the resulting destruction devastated Ngāti Manawa's traditional economy, leaving them impoverished and severely diminishing their ability to exercise mana and reciprocate manaakitanga.
3: The Crown acknowledges that its failure to compensate Ngāti Manawa for the destruction its forces caused was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles, and had an ongoing impact on the economic, physical, and spiritual wellbeing of Ngāti Manawa.
4: The Crown acknowledges that—
a: from 1873 Ngāti Manawa sought to alleviate their poor economic circumstances by negotiating and entering into agreements to lease land to the Crown; and
b: the Crown declined to pay rent until ownership of those lands had been judicially determined despite having entered into agreements to lease Ngāti Manawa land; and
c: its suspension of the Native Land Court until 1877 delayed the determination of the ownership of these lands and the implementation of the lease agreements; and
d: as a result Ngāti Manawa did not receive the benefit of regular rent payments for those lands.
5: The Crown acknowledges that the Crown's failure to pay rent increased the economic pressure on Ngāti Manawa at a time when they were also suffering generally from the effects of impoverishment as well as the flooding and epidemics. The combined effect of these pressures was a key reason for Ngāti Manawa selling land to alleviate the conditions their people were in.
6: The Crown acknowledges that—
a: it did not consult with Ngāti Manawa on native land legislation prior to its enactment; and
b: the Native Land Court process required Ngāti Manawa to attend long hearings outside their rohe on several occasions between 1878 and 1890 at venues with insufficient supplies of food and inadequate accommodation and this imposed a considerable burden on Ngāti Manawa; and
c: the operation and impact of the native land laws, in particular the awarding of land to individual Ngāti Manawa rather than to the iwi or hapū, made those lands more susceptible to partition, fragmentation, and alienation. This contributed to the further erosion of the traditional tribal structures of Ngāti Manawa which were based on collective tribal and hapū custodianship of land. The Crown failed to take adequate steps to protect those structures. This had a prejudicial effect on Ngāti Manawa and was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.
7: The Crown acquired approximately 130,000 acres of land from Ngāti Manawa between 1880 and 1881. The Crown acknowledges that the combined effects of the aggressive purchase techniques employed on occasion by the Crown unreasonably limited the options Ngāti Manawa had available to them. The Crown acknowledges that it failed to actively protect the interests of Ngāti Manawa and this was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles. The Crown's aggressive purchase techniques included—
a: the use and implementation of monopoly powers by issuing a proclamation in 1878 which prevented Ngāti Manawa from leasing the Kaingaroa 1, Pukahunui and Heruiwi blocks, which the Crown wished to purchase, to private parties; and
b: the lack of regular rent payments for the Heruiwi and Pukahunui blocks while the Crown was negotiating to purchase those lands; and
c: refusing to lift its prohibition on Ngāti Manawa alienating lands to private parties when the iwi received an offer for the Heruiwi block which was significantly greater than the price the Crown was prepared to pay for the land; and
d: refusing to accept Ngāti Manawa's offer to refund Crown cash advances or pay survey liens over the Pukahunui block with cash and instead insisting on being paid in land.
8: The Crown acknowledges that when it purchased the Kaingaroa 1 block it failed to instigate and follow clear procedures to exclude from sale all the areas that Ngāti Manawa had indicated they wished to have reserved for them. This failure to implement proper processes was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.
9: The Crown acknowledges that—
a: Ngāti Manawa's land holdings were further reduced by—
i: the taking of land for payment for survey liens; and
ii: other land purchases by private parties; and
iii: Crown purchases of over 80,000 acres between 1892 and 1899; and
iv: continuing Crown purchasing in the twentieth century; and
b: the Crown failed to monitor the impact of its purchase on Ngāti Manawa's landholdings; and
c: Crown purchasing officers in some instances attempted to influence Ngāti Manawa to reduce the number of names on owners' lists and sometimes disregarded Ngāti Manawa's preference to lease rather than sell land.
10: The Crown acknowledges that the intention of the Urewera District Native Reserve Act 1896 was to protect Ngāti Manawa's interests but that the Crown undermined its relationship with Ngāti Manawa and breached the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles by—
a: failing to implement the system of local land administration and local governance provided for in the legislation; and
b: making unilateral changes to key parts of the administration of the reserve, without effective consultation with Ngāti Manawa; and
c: purchasing interests in the Te Whāiti block from individual Ngāti Manawa between 1915 and 1921 in breach of the provisions of the Urewera District Native Reserve Act 1896.
11: The Crown acknowledges that it continued purchasing land from Ngāti Manawa outside the Urewera Reserve in the early twentieth century and that by the 1920s Ngāti Manawa were virtually landless. The Crown's failure to ensure Ngāti Manawa were left with sufficient land for their present and future needs was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles.
12: The Crown acknowledges that Ngāti Manawa's landholdings were further diminished by the Crown taking land under public works legislation sometimes without compensation, which caused a sense of grievance among Ngāti Manawa that is still strongly held.
13: The Crown acknowledges that sites of particular significance to Ngāti Manawa were parts of lands taken under public works legislation and National Parks legislation and now form part of the public conservation estate. A vast majority of Ngāti Manawa's tribal estate was acquired for settler settlement but was ultimately used to create a national forest estate.
14: The Crown acknowledges—
a: the Rangitaiki and Wheao Rivers and their tributaries are taonga of great significance to Ngāti Manawa, and have been a key source of Ngāti Manawa's spiritual and material wellbeing. According to Ngāti Manawa tikanga the Rangitaiki and Wheao rivers were part of the environment of successive generations of their ancestors and part of their ancestral link with both the past and the future; and
b: the importance to Ngāti Manawa of the principle of te mana o te awa arising from their relationship with the Rangitaiki and Wheao Rivers. To Ngāti Manawa the Rangitaiki River is a tupuna which has mana and in turn represents the mana and mauri of Ngāti Manawa; and to Ngāti Manawa the Rangitaiki River and its tributaries are a single indivisible being and includes its waters, banks, bed (and all minerals under it) and its streams, waterways, tributaries, lakes, aquatic fisheries, vegetation, floodplains, wetlands, islands, springs, water column, airspace and substratum as well as its metaphysical being with its own mauri; and
c: that to Ngāti Manawa, their relationship with the Rangitaiki River and its tributaries, and their respect for it, gives rise to their responsibilities to protect the mana and mauri of the River and to exercise their mana whakahaere in accordance with their long established tikanga. Their relationship with the river and their respect for it lies at the heart of their spiritual and physical wellbeing, and their tribal identity and culture; and
d: the rivers were the sites of a freshwater tuna (eel) fishery of vital significance to Ngāti Manawa, which for generations has sustained the Ngāti Manawa people's way of life.
15: The Crown acknowledges—
a: the common law doctrine of ad medium filum aquae is inconsistent with Ngāti Manawa tikanga; and
b: it has denied Ngāti Manawa their te mana o te awa and mana whakahaere over the Rangitaiki and Wheao Rivers and that it has failed to respect, provide for, and protect the special relationship of Ngāti Manawa with the Rangitaiki River and its tributaries; and
c: the decline in health of the Rangitaiki and Wheao Rivers caused while the Crown had authority over the rivers, as a consequence of the building of dams (particularly Matahina and Aniwhenua/Āniwaniwa), has been a source of distress for the Ngāti Manawa people and has caused a sense of grievance among Ngāti Manawa that is still strongly held today; and
d: according to Ngāti Manawa tikanga the alteration of the waters of the Rangitaiki and Wheao rivers so they merged into one indistinguishable watercourse is a transgression of the ancient tapu with which the rivers were regarded; and
e: the merging of the rivers has been a source of distress for the people of Ngāti Manawa; and
f: the Ngāti Manawa tuna fishery has been depleted through policies and actions of the Crown including construction of the dams and the favouring of trout fishing over the customary fishery; and
g: the degradation and development of the Rangitaiki and Wheao Rivers, their tributaries and wetlands have resulted in the decline of its once rich tuna and other fisheries, which had for generations sustained the people's way of life and their ability to meet their obligations of manaakitanga, and that the decline has been a further source of distress to Ngāti Manawa.
16: The Crown acknowledges that the Ngāti Manawa development scheme meant that Ngāti Manawa lost effective control of their land for a period and that when the land was returned to Ngāti Manawa control it was with a substantial debt.
17: The Crown acknowledges that its twentieth century land and forestry developments have not always provided the economic opportunity and benefits that Ngāti Manawa expected, and that the Crown's reform of the forestry industry in the 1980s had a devastating impact on Ngāti Manawa's economy.
18: The Crown acknowledges that Ngāti Manawa were excluded from participating in the economic use of their lands for forestry and that the Crown has benefited from this estate financially and economically. This has resulted in a sense of grievance among Ngāti Manawa that still exists today.
19: The Crown acknowledges that—
a: Ngāti Manawa expectations of an ongoing and mutually beneficial relationship with the Crown were not always realised; and
b: Ngāti Manawa have been loyal to the Crown in honouring their obligations and responsibilities under the Treaty of Waitangi, especially, but not exclusively, in their war service nationally and overseas. The Crown pays tribute to the contribution made by Ngāti Manawa to the defence of the nation. Crown apology
8: Apology
1: The Crown recognises the long efforts and struggles of the ancestors of Ngāti Manawa in pursuit of their claims for justice and redress and makes this apology to Ngāti Manawa, to their ancestors, and to their descendants.
2: The Crown is deeply sorry that it has not always lived up to its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi in its dealings with Ngāti Manawa and unreservedly apologises to Ngāti Manawa for the breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles acknowledged above.
3: The Crown profoundly regrets and unreservedly apologises to Ngāti Manawa for the cumulative effect of its acts and omissions which have had a devastating impact on Ngāti Manawa’s social and traditional tribal structures, their autonomy and ability to exercise customary rights and responsibilities, and Ngāti Manawa’s access to customary resources and significant sites.
4: The Crown deeply apologises for not always appropriately acknowledging the mana and rangatiratanga of Ngāti Manawa. The Crown deeply regrets that its failure to protect the interests of Ngāti Manawa in a number of ways over the generations has left Ngāti Manawa virtually landless and has had a devastating impact on Ngāti Manawa’s welfare, capacity for social and economic development, and physical, cultural, and spiritual wellbeing.
5: Accordingly the Crown seeks to atone for these wrongs and to begin the process of healing. The Crown hopes that this apology will mark the beginning of a new relationship with Ngāti Manawa that is based on mutual trust, co-operation, and respect for the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles. Interpretation
9: Intention of Act generally
It is the intention of Parliament that the provisions of this Act are interpreted in a manner that best furthers the agreements expressed in the deed of settlement.
10: Interpretation
In this Act, unless the context requires otherwise,— actual deferred settlement date administering body section 2(1) authorised person
a: a person authorised by the Director-General, for the—
i: Kakarāhonui Kāinga site:
ii: Kāramuramu site:
iii: Okārea Pā site:
iv: Te Tāpiri Pā site:
b: a person authorised by the chief executive of LINZ, for the—
i: Hināmoki Pā site:
ii: Kani Rangi Park site:
c: a person authorised by the Secretary for Education, for the—
i: Galatea School site:
ii: Murupara School site:
iii: Te Kura Kaupapa Motuhake o Tāwhiuau site:
d: a person authorised by the chief executive of the land holding agency, for a deferred selection property:
e: a person authorised by the Secretary for Justice, for all other cases business day
a: a Saturday, a Sunday, Waitangi Day, Good Friday, Easter Monday, Anzac Day, the Sovereign’s birthday, Te Rā Aro ki a Matariki/Matariki Observance Day, and Labour Day; and
b: if Waitangi Day or Anzac Day falls on a Saturday or a Sunday, the following Monday; and
c: a day in the period starting on 25 December in any year and ending with 15 January in the following year; and
d: the days observed as the anniversaries of the provinces of Auckland and Wellington CNI forests sites
a: Ahiweka Pā site:
b: Ahiwhakamura Kāinga site:
c: Kaiwhatiwhati Pā site:
d: Kāramuramu site (section 1 SO 431616 only):
e: Kiorenui site:
f: Motumako site:
g: Ngātamawāhine Nohoanga site:
h: Ōruatewehi Pā site:
i: Pekepeke Pā site:
j: Pukemoremore site:
k: Puketapu Pā site:
l: Te Ana a Maru Rock Art site:
m: Te Rake Pā site:
n: Tūtūtarata Papakainga site Commissioner of Crown Lands section 24AA consent authority section 2(1) Conservation Authority section 6A Conservation Board section 2(1) conservation document
a: a conservation management plan as defined in section 2(1)
b: a conservation management strategy as defined in section 2(1)
c: Te Urewera management plan, as defined in section 7 Crown section 2(1) Crown forestry licence
a: for the Ahiweka Pā site, Ahiwhakamura Kāinga site, and Pukemoremore site, the Kaingaroa/Headquarters Block Crown forestry licence held in computer interest register SA52D/450:
b: for the Kaiwhatiwhati Pā site, part of the Kāramuramu site, Motumako site, Ngātamawāhine Nohoanga site, Ōruatewehi Pā site, and Puketapu Pā site, the Kaingaroa/Northern Boundary Block Crown forestry licence held, as at the date of the deed of settlement, in computer interest register SA60D/550, or any such licence or licences in replacement of the Crown forestry licence, registered prior to the settlement date in relation to such sites:
c: for part of the Kiorenui site and part of the Pekepeke Pā site, the Kaingaroa/Wairapukao Block Crown forestry licence held in computer interest register SA55B/450:
d: for part of the Kiorenui site, part of the Pekepeke Pā site, and the Te Ana a Maru Rock Art site, the Kaingaroa Forest/Caves Block Crown forestry licence held in computer interest register 132203:
e: for the Te Rake Pā site and the Tūtūtarata papakainga site, the Kaingaroa Forest/Whirinaki Block Crown forestry licence held in computer interest register SA57A/60 (South Auckland Registry) Crown minerals protocol
a: means the protocol issued by the Minister of Energy and Resources under section 34(1)(a)
b: includes amendments to the protocol under section 34(1)(b) Crown minerals protocol area Crown owned mineral section 2(1)
a: it is the property of the Crown under section 10 11
b: the Crown has jurisdiction over it under the Continental Shelf Act 1964 cultural redress property Part 1 deed of recognition section 50 deed of settlement
a: means the deed of settlement dated 12 December 2009 and signed by—
i: the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Honourable Christopher Finlayson, and the Minister of Māori Affairs, the Honourable Dr Pita R Sharples; and
ii: William Bird, Robert Jenner, Patrick McManus, Maurice ToeToe, Louis McManus, Pouwhare Rewi, Ema Kalman, Hiraani Stafford, and Henry Nuku; and
b: includes—
i: the schedules and attachments to the deed; and
ii: any amendments to the deed, its schedules, and its attachments deferred selection property Director-General section 2(1) DOC protocol
a: means the protocol issued by the Minister of Conservation under section 34(1)(a)
b: includes amendments to the protocol under section 34(1)(b) DOC protocol area effective date encumbrance fisheries protocol
a: means the protocol issued by the Minister of Fisheries under section 34(1)(a)
b: includes amendments to the protocol under section 34(1)(b) fisheries protocol area Fort Galatea historic reserve area Part 1 Galatea stewardship area Part 1 Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga section 9 historical claim section 12 jointly vested sites sections 82 to 88 LINZ New Zealand Conservation Authority section 6A minerals programme section 2(1) Ngāti Manawa section 11 Ngāti Manawa values
a: made by Ngāti Manawa of its traditional, cultural, spiritual, and historical association with Tāwhiuau; and
b: in the form set out in Part 1 of the schedule of the deed of settlement at the settlement date Ngāti Whare section 11 Ngāti Whare Claims Settlement Act 2012 non-cultural redress property Part 2 protection principles section 22(3) protocol section 34(1)(a) section 34(1)(b) Registrar-General section 4 relevant consent authority representative entity
a: the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa; and
b: a person (including any trustees) acting for, or on behalf of,—
i: the collective group referred to in section 11(1)(a)
ii: 1 or more of the whānau, hapū, or groups that together form the collective group referred to in section 11(1)(a)
iii: 1 or more of the individuals referred to in section 11(1)(b) reserve site
a: the Fort Galatea historic reserve area; and
b: the Te Ana a Maru Rock Art site, on and from the date stated in section 69(3)(b) resource consent section 2(1) responsible Minister
a: for the conservation protocol, the Minister of Conservation:
b: for the Crown minerals protocol, the Minister of Energy and Resources:
c: for the fisheries protocol, the Minister of Fisheries:
d: for the taonga tūturu protocol, the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage:
e: for any protocol, a Minister authorised by the Prime Minister to perform duties, and exercise powers and rights, in relation to it responsible Ministry
a: for the conservation protocol, the Department of Conservation:
b: for the Crown minerals protocol, the Ministry of Economic Development:
c: for the fisheries protocol, the Ministry of Fisheries:
d: for the taonga tūturu protocol, the Ministry for Culture and Heritage:
e: for any protocol, a department authorised by the Prime Minister to perform duties, and exercise powers and rights, in relation to it return area return date RFR property settlement date settlement property
a: every cultural redress property; and
b: each deferred selection property; and
c: every RFR property statement of association section 41(2) statutory acknowledgement section 41 sections 42 to 46 48 49 statutory area Schedule 1 Schedule 1 statutory plan section 2(1) Schedule 1 supplementary deed of settlement taonga tūturu section 2(1) taonga tūturu protocol
a: means the protocol issued by the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage under section 34(1)(a)
b: includes amendments to the protocol under section 34(1)(b) taonga tūturu protocol area Tāwhiuau Gazette Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa trust deed
a: means the deed of trust establishing Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa dated 7 September 2002; and
b: includes—
i: the schedules to the deed of trust; and
ii: any amendments to the deed of trust or its schedules Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare trust deed
a: means the deed of trust establishing Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare dated 14 February 1999; and
b: includes—
i: the schedules to the deed of trust; and
ii: any amendments to the deed of trust or its schedules Trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa trustees Trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare Section 10 business day replaced 1 January 2014 section 8 Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Act 2013 Section 10 business day replaced 12 April 2022 wehenga 7 Te Ture mō te Hararei Tūmatanui o te Kāhui o Matariki 2022 section 7 Te Kāhui o Matariki Public Holiday Act 2022 Section 10 conservation document replaced 28 July 2014 section 129(2) Te Urewera Act 2014 Section 10 Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga inserted 20 May 2014 section 107 Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014
11: Meaning of Ngāti Manawa
1: In this Act, Ngāti Manawa
a: means the collective group composed of individuals who—
i: descend from 1 or more Ngāti Manawa tupuna or ancestors; and
ii: are members of Ngāti Koro, Ngāti Hui, and Ngāi Tokowaru; and
b: means every individual referred to in paragraph (a); and
c: includes any whānau, hapū, or group composed of individuals referred to in paragraph (a).
2: In this section and section 12 Ngāti Manawa ancestor
a: exercised customary rights by virtue of being descended from—
i: Apa Hāpai Taketake; or
ii: Tangiharuru's unions with Takuate, Kuranui, Kuraroa, or Kuraiti; or
iii: a recognised tupuna or ancestor of a group referred to in subsection (1)(a)(ii); and
b: exercised the customary rights predominantly in relation to the Ngāti Manawa area of interest at any time after 6 February 1840.
3: In subsection (2), customary rights
a: rights to occupy land; and
b: rights in relation to use of land or other natural or physical resources.
4: For the purpose of subsections (1)(a) and (2)(a), a person is descended from another person if descended from the other person by any 1 or more of the following:
a: birth:
b: legal adoption.
12: Meaning of historical claim
1: In this Act, historical claim
2: Historical claim
a: Ngāti Manawa or a representative entity for Ngāti Manawa had at any time before the settlement date or at the settlement date or may have at any time after the settlement date, whether or not the claim has arisen or been considered, researched, registered, notified, or made by or on the settlement date; and
b: 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 common law relating to aboriginal title or customary law); or
iv: from a fiduciary duty; or
v: otherwise; and
c: 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: Historical claim
a: every claim to the Waitangi Tribunal to which subsection (2) applies and that relates exclusively to Ngāti Manawa or a representative entity for Ngāti Manawa, including—
i: Wai 257; and
ii: Wai 1879; and
iii: Wai 1914; and
b: every other claim to the Waitangi Tribunal to the extent to which it relates to Ngāti Manawa, including—
i: Wai 212; and
ii: Wai 350; and
iii: Wai 439; and
iv: Wai 724; and
v: Wai 787; and
vi: Wai 791; and
vii: Wai 823.
4: Historical claim
a: a claim that a member of Ngāti Manawa, or a whānau, hapū, or group referred to in section 11(1)(c)
b: a claim that a representative entity for Ngāti Manawa may have to the extent to which the claim is, or is based on, a claim referred to in paragraph (a). Settlement of historical claims
13: 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—
a: limit the deed of settlement; or
b: affect any rights that Ngāti Manawa may have.
4: The rights referred to in subsection (3)(b)—
a: are rights that arise—
i: from the Treaty of Waitangi or its principles; or
ii: under legislation; or
iii: at common law (including common law relating to aboriginal title or customary law); or
iv: from a fiduciary duty; or
v: otherwise; but
b: are not rights that give rise to historical claims.
5: Despite any other enactment or rule of law, on and from the settlement date, the courts, the Waitangi Tribunal, or any other judicial bodies or tribunals do not have jurisdiction (including the jurisdiction to inquire into, or make a finding or recommendation) in respect of—
a: any or all of the historical claims; or
b: the deed of settlement; or
c: the redress provided under the deed of settlement or under this Act; or
d: this Act.
6: Subsection (5) does not exclude the jurisdiction of the courts, the Waitangi Tribunal, or any other judicial bodies or tribunals in respect of the interpretation or implementation of the deed of settlement or this Act.
7: Despite subsection (5)(a), the Waitangi Tribunal—
a: may complete its inquiry into, and make findings on, Te Urewera claims (Wai 894), including claims settled by this Act; but
b: must not make recommendations in relation to any of the claims settled by this Act.
14: Amendment to Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975
1: This section amends the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975
2: Schedule 3 is amended by inserting the following item in its appropriate alphabetical order: Ngāti Manawa Claims Settlement Act 2012, section 13(3) to (6) 2012-04-06 Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975
15: Certain enactments do not apply
1: Nothing in the enactments listed in subsection (2) applies—
a: to a settlement property (other than a deferred selection property); or
b: to a deferred selection property, but only on and from the actual deferred selection settlement date (if any) for the property; or
c: for the benefit of Ngāti Manawa or a representative entity for Ngāti Manawa.
2: The enactments are—
a: sections 8A to 8HJ
b: sections 27A to 27C
c: sections 568 to 570
d: Part 3
e: Part 3 Section 15(2)(c) replaced 1 August 2020 section 668 Education and Training Act 2020
16: Removal of memorials
1: The chief executive of LINZ must issue to the Registrar-General a certificate that identifies (by reference to the relevant legal description, certificate of title, or computer register) each allotment that is—
a: all, or part of, a settlement property; and
b: contained in a certificate of title or computer register that has a memorial entered under any enactment referred to in section 15(2)
2: The chief executive of LINZ must issue a certificate under subsection (1) as soon as is reasonably practicable after—
a: the settlement date, in the case of a settlement property other than a deferred selection property; or
b: the actual deferred selection settlement date, in the case of a deferred selection property.
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),—
a: register the certificate against each certificate of title or computer register identified in the certificate; and
b: cancel, in respect of each allotment identified in the certificate, each memorial that is entered (in accordance with an enactment referred to in section 15(2) Miscellaneous matters
17: Limit on duration of trusts does not apply
1: No rule of law or provisions of an Act, including section 11
a: the trust established by the Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa trust deed may exist in law; or
b: the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa, in their capacity as trustees, may hold or deal with property or income from property.
2: No rule of law or provisions of an Act, including section 11
3: However, if the trust established by the Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa trust deed is or becomes a charitable trust, the trust may continue indefinitely under section 16(6)(a) Section 17 replaced 30 January 2021 section 161 Trusts Act 2019
18: Timing of actions or matters
1: Actions or matters occurring under this Act occur or take effect on and from the settlement date.
2: However, if a provision of this Act requires an action or matter to occur or take effect on a date other than the settlement date, that action or matter occurs or takes effect on and from that other date.
19: Access to deed of settlement
On and from the settlement date, the chief executive of the Ministry of Justice must make copies of the deed of settlement available in the following ways:
a: free of charge on an Internet site maintained by or on behalf of the Ministry of Justice; and
b: at the head office of the Ministry of Justice in Wellington on a business day—
i: for reading free of charge; and
ii: for purchase at a reasonable price. Cultural redress Ahikāroa
20AA: Interpretation and transitional provision
1: In sections 20 to 33 conservation management plan section 2(1) conservation management strategy section 2(1) Te Urewera Board section 7 Te Urewera management plan section 7
2: Until the date when the management plan required by section 44 section 48 sections 4 5 Section 20AA inserted 28 July 2014 section 129(2) Te Urewera Act 2014
20: Declaration and acknowledgement of Ahikāroa
1: Tāwhiuau is declared to be subject to an overlay classification called Ahikāroa.
2: The Crown acknowledges the Ngāti Manawa values relating to Tāwhiuau.
3: The text of the acknowledgement is set out in Part 1 of the schedule of the deed of settlement.
21: Purposes of Ahikāroa
1: The only purposes of the declaration and acknowledgement under section 20
a: require the New Zealand Conservation Authority and relevant Conservation Boards , Te Urewera Board, and the Minister of Conservation section 23(1) and (2)
b: require the New Zealand Conservation Authority and Te Urewera Board section 23(3)
c: enable the taking of action under sections 25 to 28
2: This section does not limit sections 31 to 33 Section 21(1)(a) amended 28 July 2014 section 129(2) Te Urewera Act 2014 Section 21(1)(b) amended 28 July 2014 section 129(2) Te Urewera Act 2014
22: Agreement on protection principles
1: The trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa and the Crown may agree on, and publicise, protection principles that are directed at Te Urewera Board and
a: avoiding harm to Ngāti Manawa values in relation to the area subject to Ahikāroa; or
b: avoiding the diminishing of Ngāti Manawa values in relation to the area subject to Ahikāroa.
2: The protection principles set out in Part 1 of the schedule of the deed of settlement are to be treated as having been agreed by the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa and the Crown under subsection (1).
3: The protection principles may be amended by—
a: written agreement between the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa and the Crown; or
b: the Minister of Conservation, after consulting with the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa, to give effect to a deed of settlement with another claimant group with an interest in the area subject to Ahikāroa. Section 22(1) amended 28 July 2014 section 129(2) Te Urewera Act 2014
23: Duties
1: When the New Zealand Conservation Authority or a Conservation Board , Te Urewera Board, or the Minister of Conservation
a: Ngāti Manawa values; and
b: the protection principles.
2: Before approving a conservation document or making or considering , Te Urewera Board, or the Minister of Conservation
a: consult with the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa; and
b: have particular regard to the views of the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa as to the effect of Te Urewera management plan or the conservation document, proposal, or recommendation
i: Ngāti Manawa values; and
ii: the protection principles.
3: If the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa advise the New Zealand Conservation Authority in writing that they have significant concerns about a draft conservation document in relation to the area subject to Ahikāroa, the New Zealand Conservation Authority must, before approving the conservation document, give the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa a reasonable opportunity to make submissions in relation to those concerns. Section 23 heading amended 28 July 2014 section 129(2) Te Urewera Act 2014 Section 23(1) amended 28 July 2014 section 129(2) Te Urewera Act 2014 Section 23(2) amended 28 July 2014 section 129(2) Te Urewera Act 2014 Section 23(2)(b) amended 28 July 2014 section 129(2) Te Urewera Act 2014
24: Noting of Ahikāroa
1: The declaration under section 20
2: The noting of Ahikāroa under subsection (1) is—
a: for the purpose of public notice only; and
b: not an amendment to a conservation management plan or conservation management strategy for the purposes of section 17I section 48 Section 24(2)(b) replaced 28 July 2014 section 129(2) Te Urewera Act 2014
25: Notification in
Gazette
1: The Minister of Conservation must notify in the Gazette
a: the declaration of Tāwhiuau as being subject to Ahikāroa as soon as practicable after the settlement date; and
b: the protection principles as soon as practicable after the settlement date; and
c: any amendments to the protection principles agreed under section 22(3)
d: any action taken or intended to be taken under section 26
2: The Director-General or Te Urewera Board Gazette section 26 27 Section 25(2) amended 28 July 2014 section 129(2) Te Urewera Act 2014
26: Actions by Director-General
1: The following persons must take action in relation to the protection principles:
a: the Director-General; or
b: Te Urewera Board; or
c: if relevant management functions are undertaken by the chief executive of Tūhoe Te Uru Taumatua, the chief executive.
1A: The actions that must be taken include those set out in paragraph 5 in the Ahikāroa in Part 1 of the schedule of the deed of settlement, with the necessary modifications.
2: The persons referred to in subsection (1) retain
3: The persons referred to in subsection (1)
4: If requested in writing by the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa, the persons referred to in subsection (1) Section 26(1) replaced 28 July 2014 section 129(2) Te Urewera Act 2014 Section 26(1A) inserted 28 July 2014 section 129(2) Te Urewera Act 2014 Section 26(2) amended 28 July 2014 section 129(2) Te Urewera Act 2014 Section 26(3) amended 28 July 2014 section 129(2) Te Urewera Act 2014 Section 26(4) amended 28 July 2014 section 129(2) Te Urewera Act 2014
27: Amendment to conservation documents
1: The Director-General or Te Urewera Board
2: The Director-General must consult with relevant Conservation Boards 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) section 48 Section 27(1) amended 28 July 2014 section 129(2) Te Urewera Act 2014 Section 27(3) amended 28 July 2014 section 129(2) Te Urewera Act 2014
28: Bylaws
1: Te Urewera Board
a: implementing objectives included in a conservation document under section 27(1)
b: regulating or prohibiting activities or conduct by members of the public in relation to the area subject to Ahikāroa; and
c: specifying—
i: offences for breaches of the regulations or prohibitions; and
ii: fines for committing the offences of up to $1,000 for each offence.
2: Bylaws under this section are secondary legislation ( see Part 3 The following table is small in size and has 3 columns that are grouped under the heading Legislation Act 2019 requirements for secondary legislation made under this section. Legislation Act 2019 requirements for secondary legislation made under this section Publication PCO must publish it on the legislation website and notify it in the Gazette LA19 s 69(1)(c) Presentation The Minister must present it to the House of Representatives LA19 s 114 cl 32(1)(a) Disallowance It may be disallowed by the House of Representatives LA19 ss 115 116 This note is not part of the Act. Section 28(1) amended 28 July 2014 section 129(2) Te Urewera Act 2014 Section 28(2) replaced 28 October 2021 section 3 Secondary Legislation Act 2021
29: Purpose of Ahikāroa
The purpose of the Te Urewera Act 2014 Section 29 replaced 28 July 2014 section 129(2) Te Urewera Act 2014
30: Termination of Ahikāroa
1: The Governor-General may, by Order in Council made on the recommendation of the Minister of Conservation, declare that all or part of Tāwhiuau is no longer subject to Ahikāroa.
2: The Minister of Conservation must not make a recommendation for the purposes of subsection (1) unless—
a: the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa and the Minister of Conservation have agreed in writing that the status of Ahikāroa is no longer appropriate for the area concerned; or
b: the area concerned is removed from Te Urewera by legislation.
c:
3: Subsection (4) applies if subsection (2)(b)
4: The Crown must give the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa at least 2 months' written notice of its intention to—
a: introduce legislation for the disposal
b: transfer the Crown responsibility in relation to
5: Before the Crown carries out an action under subsection (4) the relevant part of
6: The Minister of Conservation must ensure that an order under this section is published in the Gazette Section 30(2)(b) replaced 28 July 2014 section 129(2) Te Urewera Act 2014 Section 30(2)(c) repealed 28 July 2014 section 129(2) Te Urewera Act 2014 Section 30(3) amended 28 July 2014 section 129(2) Te Urewera Act 2014 Section 30(4)(a) amended 28 July 2014 section 129(2) Te Urewera Act 2014 Section 30(4)(b) amended 28 July 2014 section 129(2) Te Urewera Act 2014 Section 30(5) amended 28 July 2014 section 129(2) Te Urewera Act 2014 Section 30(6) inserted 28 October 2021 section 3 Secondary Legislation Act 2021
31: Exercise of powers, duties, and functions
1: Nothing in section 20
2: No person, in considering a matter or making a decision or recommendation under any legislation or bylaw, may give any greater or lesser weight to Ngāti Manawa values than that person would give if the area were not subject to Ahikāroa and Ngāti Manawa values had not been acknowledged in relation to the area.
3: Subsection (2) does not limit the operation of subsection (1)
4: This section applies subject to sections 21 to 30
32: Rights not affected
1: Section 20
2: This section applies subject to sections 21 to 30
33: Limitation of rights
1: Section 20
2: This section applies subject to sections 21 to 30 Protocols
34: Authority to issue, amend, or cancel protocols
1: Each responsible Minister—
a: must issue a protocol to the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa in the form set out in Part 2 of the schedule of the deed of settlement; and
b: may amend or cancel that protocol.
2: A protocol may be amended or cancelled under subsection (1) at the initiative of either—
a: the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa; or
b: the responsible Minister.
3: The responsible Minister may amend or cancel a protocol only after consulting with, and having particular regard to the views of, the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa.
35: 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 (without limitation) the ability to—
i: introduce legislation and change government policy; and
ii: interact or consult with a person the Crown considers appropriate, including (without limitation) any iwi, hapū, marae, whānau, or other representative of tangata whenua; or
b: the responsibilities of a responsible Minister or a responsible department; or
c: the legal rights of the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa or a representative entity.
36: 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 trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa may, subject to the Crown Proceedings Act 1950
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 trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa in enforcing the protocol under subsection (2).
37: DOC protocol
1: A summary of the terms of the DOC protocol must be noted in the conservation documents affecting the DOC protocol area.
2: The noting of the DOC 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 section 46
3: The DOC protocol does not have the effect of creating, granting, or providing evidence of an estate or interest in, or rights relating to, land held, managed, or administered, or flora or fauna managed or administered, under the—
a: Conservation Act 1987
b: other statutes listed in Schedule 1
38: Fisheries protocol
1: A summary of the terms of the fisheries protocol must be noted in fisheries plans affecting the fisheries protocol area.
2: The noting of the 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
3: In this section, fisheries plan section 11A
4: The fisheries protocol does not have the effect of granting, creating, or providing evidence of an estate or interest in, or rights relating to, assets or other property rights (including in respect of fish, aquatic life, and seaweed) held, managed, or administered under any of the following enactments:
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
39: Taonga tūturu protocol
The taonga tūturu protocol does not have the effect of creating, granting, or providing evidence of—
a: an estate or interest in taonga tūturu; or
b: rights relating to taonga tūturu.
40: Crown minerals protocol
1: A summary of the terms of the Crown minerals protocol must be noted—
a: in a register of protocols maintained by the chief executive of the Ministry of Economic Development; and
b: in the minerals programmes affecting the Crown minerals protocol area when those programmes are replaced.
2: The noting of the Crown minerals protocol is—
a: for the purpose of public notice only; and
b: not an amendment to the minerals programme for the purposes of the Crown Minerals Act 1991
3: The Crown minerals protocol does not have the effect of creating, granting, or providing evidence of an estate or interest in, or rights relating to, any Crown owned mineral.
4: In this section, minerals programme section 2(1) Statutory acknowledgement
41: Statutory acknowledgement by the Crown
1: The Crown acknowledges the statements of association.
2: In this Act, statements of association
a: made by Ngāti Manawa of their particular cultural, spiritual, historical, and traditional association with each statutory area:
b: that are in the form set out in Part 4 of the schedule of the deed of settlement at the settlement date.
42: Purposes of statutory acknowledgement
1: The only purposes of the statutory acknowledgement are to—
a: require relevant consent authorities, the Environment Court, and Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga sections 43 to 45
b: require relevant consent authorities to forward summaries of resource consent applications to the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa, as provided for in section 47
c: enable the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa and any member of Ngāti Manawa to cite the statutory acknowledgement as evidence of the association of Ngāti Manawa with the relevant statutory areas, as provided for in section 48
2: This section does not limit sections 51 to 53 Section 42(1)(a) amended 20 May 2014 section 107 Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014
43: 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
2: Subsection (1) does not limit the obligations of a relevant consent authority under the Resource Management Act 1991
44: 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
2: Subsection (1) does not limit the obligations of the Environment Court under the Resource Management Act 1991
45: Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga and Environment Court to have regard to statutory acknowledgement
1: If, on or after the effective date, an application is made under section 44 56 61
a: Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga, in exercising its powers under section 48 56 62
b: the Environment Court, in determining under section 59(1) 64(1)
2: In this section, archaeological site section 6 Section 45 replaced 20 May 2014 section 107 Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014
46: 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 the relevant provisions of sections 42 to 45
3: The attachment of information to a statutory plan under this section is for the purpose of public information only, and the information is not—
a: part of the statutory plan, unless adopted by the relevant consent authority:
b: subject to the provisions of Schedule 1
47: Distribution of resource consent applications to trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa
1: Each relevant consent authority must, for a period of 20 years from the effective date, forward to the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa, in the following form, a summary of resource consent applications received by that consent authority for activities within, adjacent to, or directly affecting a statutory area:
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)
2: The information provided under subsection (1)(a) must be—
a: the same as would be given to an affected person by limited notification under section 95B
b: provided as soon as is reasonably practicable after the application is received and before the relevant consent authority decides, under section 95
3: The trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa may, by notice in writing to a relevant consent authority,—
a: waive their rights to be notified under this section:
b: state the scope of that waiver and the period it applies for.
4: A copy of a notice of an application must be provided under subsection (1)(b) no later than 10 business days after the day on which the consent authority receives the notice.
5: This section does not affect a relevant consent authority’s obligation to decide,—
a: under section 95
b: under section 95E
48: Use of statutory acknowledgement
1: The trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa and any member of Ngāti Manawa may, as evidence of the association of Ngāti Manawa 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 Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga
2: The content of a statement of association 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
c: the Environment Court:
d: Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga:
e: parties to proceedings before those bodies:
f: any other person who is entitled to participate in those proceedings.
3: Despite subsection (2), the statutory acknowledgement may be taken into account by the bodies and persons specified in that section.
4: To avoid doubt,—
a: neither the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa nor members of Ngāti Manawa are precluded from stating that Ngāti Manawa has an association with a statutory area that is not described in the statutory acknowledgement:
b: the content and existence of the statutory acknowledgement do not limit any statement made. Section 48(1) amended 20 May 2014 section 107 Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 Section 48(2)(d) replaced 20 May 2014 section 107 Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014
49: Meaning of river in statutory acknowledgement and deeds of recognition
If a statutory acknowledgement or deed of recognition relates to a river, the river
a: means—
i: a continuously or intermittently flowing body of fresh water, including a stream or a modified watercourse; and
ii: the bed of the river; but
b: does not include,—
i: in the case of a statutory acknowledgement, a part of the bed of the river that is not owned by the Crown; or
ii: in the case of a deed of recognition, a part of the bed of the river that is not owned and managed by the Crown; or
iii: land that the waters of the river do not cover at its fullest flow without overlapping its banks; or
iv: an artificial watercourse; or
v: a tributary flowing into the river, unless the statutory acknowledgement or deed of recognition provides otherwise. Deeds of recognition
50: Authorisation to enter into and amend deeds of recognition
1: The Minister of Conservation and the Director-General must enter into a deed of recognition with the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa in respect of the following statutory areas:
a: Pukehinau (pā); and
b: Te Kōhua (wāhi tapu and urupā); and
c: Rangitaiki River within the Ngāti Manawa Area of Interest; and
d: Whirinaki River within the Ngāti Manawa Area of Interest; and
e: Horomanga River within the Ngāti Manawa Area of Interest; and
f: Wheao River within the Ngāti Manawa Area of Interest.
2: The Commissioner of Crown Lands must enter into a deed of recognition with the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa in respect of the following statutory areas:
a: Rangitaiki River within the Ngāti Manawa Area of Interest; and
b: Whirinaki River within the Ngāti Manawa Area of Interest; and
c: Horomanga River within the Ngāti Manawa Area of Interest; and
d: Wheao River within the Ngāti Manawa Area of Interest.
3: The deeds referred to in subsections (1) and (2) may be amended by the parties entering into a deed to amend the original deed.
4: In this section, deed of recognition
a: entered into in accordance with clauses 5.22 to 5.28 of the deed of settlement; and
b: in the form set out in Part 6 of the schedule of the deed of settlement. General provisions
51: Exercise of powers and performance of duties and functions
1: Except as expressly provided in this Act,—
a: the statutory acknowledgement and the deed of recognition do not affect, and may not be taken into account by, a person exercising a power or performing a function or duty under legislation or a bylaw; and
b: no person, in considering a matter or making a decision or recommendation under legislation or a bylaw, may give greater or lesser weight to the association of Ngāti Manawa with a statutory area (as described in a statement of association) than that person would give under the relevant legislation or bylaw if no statutory acknowledgement or deed of recognition existed in respect of the statutory area.
2: Subsection (1)(b) does not affect the operation of subsection (1)(a).
52: Rights not affected
Except as expressly provided in this Act, the statutory acknowledgement and the deed of recognition do not affect the lawful rights or interests of any person who is not a party to the deed of settlement.
53: Limitations of rights
Except as expressly provided in this Act, the statutory acknowledgement and the deed of recognition do not have the effect of creating, granting, or providing evidence of an estate or interest in, or rights relating to, a statutory area. Amendment to Resource Management Act 1991
54: Amendment to Resource Management Act 1991
1: This section amends the Resource Management Act 1991
2: Schedule 11 Ngāti Manawa Claims Settlement Act 2012 2012-04-06 Resource Management Act 1991 Advisory committees
55: Fisheries advisory committee
1: The Minister of Fisheries must appoint from the settlement date the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa as an advisory committee under section 21
2: The Minister must consider the advice of the committee on all matters concerning the utilisation, while ensuring the sustainability, of aquatic life, fish, and seaweed administered by the Ministry of Fisheries under the Fisheries Act 1996
3: In considering the advice, the Minister must recognise and provide for the customary non-commercial interests of Ngāti Manawa in all matters concerning the utilisation, while ensuring the sustainability, of aquatic life, fish, and seaweed administered by the Ministry of Fisheries under the Fisheries Act 1996
56: Fisheries (conservation) advisory committee
1: The Minister of Conservation must appoint the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa as an advisory committee from the settlement date under section 56
2: The Minister must consider the advice of the committee on all matters concerning the conservation and management by the Department of Conservation of freshwater species in the DOC protocol area to the extent that the species are under the department’s jurisdiction. Pou rāhui in Crown owned sites
57: Pou rāhui in Crown owned sites
1: The Crown acknowledges the cultural, historical, spiritual, and traditional association of Ngāti Manawa with the sites listed in Part 7 of the schedule of the deed of settlement.
2: Subject to subsection (3), the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa may access, erect, and maintain pou rāhui at the sites, notwithstanding the Conservation Act 1987 National Parks Act 1980
3: The Minister of Conservation may give the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa written notice imposing conditions that the Minister considers appropriate about—
a: accessing, erecting, and maintaining pou rāhui on the sites; and
b: protecting the conservation values of the sites on which pou rāhui are erected; and
c: avoiding, mitigating, or remedying adverse effects arising from accessing, erecting, or maintaining pou rāhui. Geographic names
58: Interpretation
In sections 59 to 62 new official geographic name
a: means the name to which the existing official geographic name is altered under section 59(1)
b: includes any alteration to the new official geographic name under section 61
59: New official geographic name
1: The existing official geographic name specified in the first column of the table set out in Part 8 of the schedule of the deed of settlement (at the settlement date) is altered to the new official geographic name specified in the second column of that table.
2: The change made under subsection (1) is to be treated as having been made by the New Zealand Geographic Board in accordance with the New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Act 2008
60: Publication of new official geographic name
The New Zealand Geographic Board must, as soon as practicable after the settlement date, comply with section 21(2) and (3) section 59
61: Alteration of new official geographic name
1: Despite the New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Act 2008
2: Section 60
62: When new official geographic name takes effect
Place names altered under section 59 61 Gazette section 60 The Crown may provide other similar redress
63: The Crown may provide other similar redress
1: The provision of the 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 Ngāti Manawa or the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa; or
b: disposing of land.
2: However, subsection (1) is not an acknowledgement by the Crown or Ngāti Manawa that any other iwi or group has interests in relation to land or an area to which any of the specified cultural redress relates.
3: In this section, specified cultural redress Vesting of properties Sites that vest in fee simple
64: Ōruatewehi Pā site
1: The fee simple estate in the Ōruatewehi Pā site vests in the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa.
2: Subsection (1) is subject to section 98(3)
65: Kiorenui site
1: The fee simple estate in the Kiorenui site vests in the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa.
2: Subsection (1) is subject to section 98(3)
66: Kakarāhonui Kāinga site
1: The Kakarāhonui Kāinga site ceases to be a conservation area under the Conservation Act 1987
2: The fee simple estate in the Kakarāhonui Kāinga site vests in the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa.
67: Kāramuramu site
1: The reservation of the Fort Galatea historic reserve area as an historic reserve subject to section 18
2: The Galatea stewardship site ceases to be a conservation area under the Conservation Act 1987
3: The fee simple estate in the Kāramuramu site vests in the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa.
4: The Fort Galatea historic reserve area is declared a reserve and classified as an historic reserve subject to section 18
5: Subsections (1) to (4)
a: section 98(3)
b: the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa providing the Crown with—
i: a registrable covenant in relation to section 7 SO 431616 in the form set out in Part 11 of the schedule of the deed of settlement (the Kāramuramu covenant
ii: a registrable right of way easement in gross in favour of the Minister of Conservation over the area marked B
6: The Kāramuramu covenant is to be treated as a conservation covenant for the purposes of section 77
7: The reserve created by subsection (4) is named Fort Galatea Historic Reserve.
68: Motumako site
1: The fee simple estate in the Motumako site vests in the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa.
2: Subsection (1) is subject to section 98(3)
69: Te Ana a Maru Rock Art site
1: Subject to section 98(3)
2: As soon as reasonably practicable after the site becomes a return area, the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa must give the Director-General written notice of the fact.
3: Within 20 business days of the Director-General receiving the notice under subsection (2), the Minister of Conservation must publish a Gazette
a: declares the Te Ana a Maru Rock Art site a reserve and classifies it as an historic reserve subject to section 18
b: takes effect on the day after the return date.
4: On the day the Te Ana a Maru Rock Art site is declared an historic reserve the protective covenant B239828.2 is deemed to be cancelled to the extent that it affects the site.
5: Within 10 business days of the Gazette
a: the Te Ana a Maru Rock Art site has been declared a reserve and classified as an historic reserve subject to section 18
b: the note made under section 92(1)(b)
c: section 92(1)(a)
d: section 90
e: the protective covenant B239828.2 is cancelled in respect of the site.
6: As soon as practicable after receiving the notice under subsection (5), the Registrar-General must make the appropriate entries on the computer freehold register for the Te Ana a Maru Rock Art site.
7: The reserve created by subsection (3)(a) is named Te Ana a Maru Historic Reserve.
70: Tūtūtarata Papakainga site
1: The fee simple estate in the Tūtūtarata Papakainga site vests in the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa.
2: Subsection (1) is subject to section 98(3)
71: Pekepeke Pā site
1: The fee simple estate in the Pekepeke Pā site vests in the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa.
2: Subsection (1) is subject to section 98(3)
72: Puketapu Pā site
1: The fee simple estate in the Puketapu Pā site vests in the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa.
2: Subsection (1) is subject to section 98(3)
73: Pukemoremore site
1: The fee simple estate in the Pukemoremore site vests in the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa.
2: Subsection (1) is subject to section 98(3)
74: Ngātamawāhine Nohoanga site
1: The fee simple estate in the Ngātamawāhine Nohoanga site vests in the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa.
2: Subsection (1) is subject to section 98(3)
75: Kaiwhatiwhati Pā site
1: The fee simple estate in the Kaiwhatiwhati Pā site vests in the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa.
2: Subsection (1) is subject to section 98(3)
76: Ahiweka Pā site
1: The fee simple estate in the Ahiweka Pā site vests in the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa.
2: Subsection (1) is subject to section 98(3)
77: Ahiwhakamura Kāinga site
1: The fee simple estate in the Ahiwhakamura Kāinga site vests in the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa.
2: Subsection (1) is subject to section 98(3)
78: Kani Rangi Park site
1: The part of the Kani Rangi Park site that is Lot 2 DP 408130 ceases to be Crown forest land.
2: The fee simple estate in the Kani Rangi Park site vests in the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa.
3: Subsections (1) and (2) are subject to section 98(3) School sites
79: Galatea School site
1: The fee simple estate in the Galatea School site vests in the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa.
2: Subsection (1) is subject to the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa granting to the Crown a lease of the Galatea School site in the form set out in Part 13 of the schedule of the deed of settlement.
80: Murupara School site
1: The fee simple estate in the Murupara School site vests in the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa.
2: Subsection (1) is subject to the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa granting to the Crown a lease of the Murupara School site in the form set out in Part 13 of the schedule of the deed of settlement.
81: Te Kura Kaupapa Motuhake o Tāwhiuau site
1: The fee simple estate in the Te Kura Kaupapa Motuhake o Tāwhiuau site vests in the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa.
2: Subsection (1) is subject to the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa granting to the Crown a lease of the Te Kura Kaupapa Motuhake o Tāwhiuau site in the form set out in Part 13 of the schedule of the deed of settlement. Jointly vested sites
82: Hināmoki Pā site
An undivided half share of the fee simple estate in the Hināmoki Pā site vests in the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa as a tenant in common.
83: Okārea Pā site
1: The Okārea Pā site ceases to be part of the Oriuwaka ecological area.
2: The Okārea Pā site ceases to be a conservation area under the Conservation Act 1987
3: An undivided half share of the fee simple estate in the Okārea Pā site vests in the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa as a tenant in common.
4: Subsections (1) to (3) are subject to the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa and the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare providing the Crown with a registrable covenant in relation to the site in the form set out in Part 11 of the schedule of the deed of settlement (the Okārea Pā site covenant
5: The Okārea Pā site covenant is to be treated as a conservation covenant for the purposes of section 77
84: Te Rake Pā site
1: An undivided half share of the fee simple estate in the Te Rake Pā site vests in the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa as a tenant in common.
2: Subsection (1) is subject to section 98(3)
85: Te Tāpiri Pā site
1: The Te Tāpiri Pā site ceases to be a conservation area under the Conservation Act 1987
2: An undivided half share of the fee simple estate in the Te Tāpiri Pā site vests in the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa as a tenant in common.
3: Subsections (1) and (2) are subject to the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa and the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare providing the Crown with a registrable covenant in relation to the site in the form set out in Part 11 of the schedule of the deed of settlement (the Te Tāpiri Pā site covenant
4: The Te Tāpiri Pā site covenant is to be treated as a conservation covenant for the purposes of—
a: section 77
b: section 27
86: Māori reservation
1: The jointly vested sites are set apart as 1 Māori reservation as a wāhi tapu and place of cultural and historical interest as if the sites were set apart under section 338(1)
2: The Māori reservation is held on trust by the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa and the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare for the benefit of Ngāti Manawa and Ngāti Whare.
3: The Māori reservation is held on the following terms as if the Māori Land Court had set out the terms of the trust under section 338(8)
a: the jointly vested sites are inalienable; and
b: the conservation values of the Okārea Pā site must be maintained; and
c: the conservation covenant registered over the Okārea Pā site must not be varied without the consent of the Minister of Conservation; and
d: the conservation values of the Te Tāpiri Pā site must be maintained; and
e: public access to the Te Tāpiri Pā site must be maintained; and
f: the conservation covenant registered over the Te Tāpiri Pā site must not be varied without the consent of the Minister of Conservation; and
g: in relation to the Te Rake Pā site and until the return date in respect of that site, nothing in sections 86 87
h: any other terms relating to the governance and management of the Māori reservation that the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa and the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare agree on.
4: The Māori Land Court has jurisdiction under section 338(8)
5: No other provision of Part 17 section 338(15)
87: How various Acts affect jointly vested sites
1: In relation to the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 section 9
2: In relation to the Public Works Act 1981
3: In relation to the Resource Management Act 1991 section 108(9) Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993
4: In relation to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 sections 18(1)(c) and (d) 19(1)(a) 20 24 26 194 342
5: Section 51
7: No person may, for the purpose of carrying out a minimum impact activity, enter on any land without the consent of the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare and the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa (as those terms are defined in section 10 section 10
8: Subsection (1)(b) applies in relation to land registered in the names of Wharepakau and Tangiharuru as tenants in common under section 104 section 88 section 10 section 10
88: Title to jointly vested sites
1: For a jointly vested site, the Registrar-General must, in accordance with a written application by an authorised person,—
a: create a separate computer freehold register for the undivided half share vested under whichever of sections 82 83 84 85
b: enter Tangiharuru, not the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa, on the register as the registered proprietor; and
c: enter on the register encumbrances that are registered, notified, or notifiable and described in the application; and
d: make a notation on the register that the land—
i: is a Māori reservation created under section 86
ii: is subject to section 87
2: Subsection (1) applies subject to the completion of any survey necessary to create the computer freehold register.
3: Despite the jointly vested sites being registered in the name of Tangiharuru,—
a: the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa have all the duties, powers, and rights of a registered proprietor of the land as a tenant in common; and
b: the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa perform the duties, and exercise the powers and rights, as a tenant in common in their own names and not in the name of Tangiharuru; and
c: the Registrar-General must have regard to the matters in paragraphs (a) and (b).
4: A computer freehold register must be created under this section—
a: as soon as is reasonably practicable after the settlement date; and
b: no later than—
i: 24 months after the settlement date; or
ii: a later date that may be agreed in writing by the Crown and the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa. General provisions relating to vesting of properties
89: Properties vest subject to or together with encumbrances
Each cultural redress property vests under this Act subject to, or together with, any encumbrances listed in relation to the property in Schedule 3
90: Registration of ownership
1: This section applies to the fee simple estate in a cultural redress property (other than a jointly vested property) vested in the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa under this Act.
2: The Registrar-General must, on written application by an authorised person, comply with subsections (3) and (4).
3: To the extent that a cultural redress property is all of the land contained in a computer freehold register, the Registrar-General must—
a: register the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa as the proprietors of the fee simple estate in the land; and
b: make any entries in the register and do all other things that are necessary to give effect to this Act and to Part 6 of the deed of settlement.
4: To the extent that a cultural redress property is not all of the land contained in a computer freehold register, or there is no computer freehold register for all or part of the property, the Registrar-General must, in accordance with an application received from an authorised person,—
a: create 1 or more computer freehold registers for the fee simple estate in the property in the names of the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa; and
b: enter on the register any encumbrances that are registrable, notified, or notifiable and that are described in the application.
5: Subsection (4) applies to the completion of any survey necessary to create the computer freehold register.
6: A computer freehold register must be created under this section as soon as is reasonably practicable after the settlement date, but no later than—
a: 24 months after the settlement date; or
b: any later date that may be agreed in writing by the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa and the Crown.
91: Application of Part 4A of Conservation Act 1987
1: The vesting of the fee simple estate (or a share of the fee simple estate) in a cultural redress property under this Act is a disposition for the purposes of Part 4A sections 24(2A) 24A 24AA
2: The trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa are appointed as the manager of any marginal strip created by virtue of subsection (1) as if that appointment were made under section 24H
3: Despite subsection (1), the rest of section 24
4: If the reservation, under this Act, of a reserve site is revoked in relation to all or part of the site, then the vesting of the site is no longer exempt from the rest of section 24
92: Recording application of Part 4A of Conservation Act 1987 and sections of this Act
1: The Registrar-General must record on the computer freehold register for—
a: a reserve site—
i: that the land is subject to Part 4A section 24
ii: that the land is subject to sections 91(4) 97
b: any other cultural redress property that the land is subject to Part 4A
2: A notification made under subsection (1) that land is subject to Part 4A section 24D(1)
3: If the reservation, under this Act, of a reserve site is revoked in relation to—
a: all of the site, then the Director-General must apply in writing to the Registrar-General to remove from the computer freehold register for the site the notifications that—
i: section 24
ii: the site is subject to sections 91(4) 97
b: part of the site, then the Registrar-General must ensure that the notifications referred to in paragraph (a) remain only on the computer freehold register for the part of the site that remains a reserve.
4: The Registrar-General must comply with an application received in accordance with subsection (3)(a).
93: Application of other enactments
1: Sections 24 25
2: Section 11 Part 10
a: the vesting of the fee simple estate (or a share of the fee simple estate) in a cultural redress property under this Act; or
b: any matter incidental to, or required for the purpose of, the vesting.
3: The vesting of the fee simple estate (or a share of the fee simple estate) in a cultural redress property under this Act does not—
a: limit section 10 11
b: affect other rights to subsurface minerals.
4: The permission of a council under section 348
5: Subsection (6) applies if immediately before the vesting of a site under sections 64 to 85
a: the site comprised the whole of a reserve or conservation area; and
b: an official geographic name had been assigned to that site under the New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Act 2008
6: That official geographic name is discontinued and the New Zealand Geographic Board Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa must ensure that, as soon as is reasonably practicable, that official geographic name is removed from the Gazetteer.
7: However, if a site vested under sections 64 to 85
a: the official geographic name is discontinued only in respect of the part of the site that is vested under sections 64 to 85
b: the New Zealand Geographic Board Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa must amend the Gazetteer so that the official geographic name applies only to the part of the reserve or conservation area that is not vested under sections 64 to 85
8: If a site is vested under sections 64 to 85 New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Act 2008
9: In this section, Gazetteer section 4
94: Provisions of other Acts that have same effect for jointly vested sites
If a provision in this Act has the same effect for a jointly vested site as a provision in the Ngāti Whare Claims Settlement Act 2012
95: Non-cultural redress properties
Sections 15 16 89 90 91(1) 92(1)(b) 92(2) 93(2) to (4) Provisions relating to reserve sites
96: Application of Reserves Act 1977 to reserve sites
1: The trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa are the administering body of a reserve site for the purposes of the Reserves Act 1977
2: Despite sections 48A(6) 114(5) 115(6)
3: Sections 78(1)(a) 79 to 81 88
4: If the reservation under this Act of a reserve site is revoked under section 24 section 25
97: Subsequent transfer of reserve land
1: Subsections (2) to (7) apply to all, or the part, of a reserve site that, at any time after vesting in the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa, remains a reserve under the Reserves Act 1977 reserve land
2: The fee simple estate in the reserve land may be transferred to any other person only in accordance with subsections (3) to (7), despite any other enactment or rule of law.
3: The Minister of Conservation must give written consent to the transfer of the fee simple estate in the reserve land to another person or persons (the new owners
a: comply with the requirements of the Reserves Act 1977
b: perform the duties of an administering body under the Reserves Act 1977
4: The Registrar-General must, upon receiving the documents specified in subsection (5), register the new owners as the proprietors of the fee simple estate in the reserve land.
5: The documents are—
a: a transfer instrument to transfer the fee simple estate in the reserve land to the new owners, including a notification that the new owners are to hold the reserve land for the same reserve purposes as it was held by the administering body immediately before the transfer; and
b: the written consent of the Minister of Conservation to the transfer of the reserve land; and
c: any other document required for the registration of the transfer instrument.
6: The new owners, from the time of registration under subsection (4),—
a: are the administering body of the reserve land for the purposes of the Reserves Act 1977
b: hold the reserve land for the same reserve purposes as it was held by the administering body immediately before the transfer.
7: Despite subsections (1) and (2), subsections (3) to (6) do not apply to the transfer of the fee simple estate in the reserve land if—
a: the transferors of the reserve land are or were trustees of a trust; and
b: the transferees are the trustees of the same trust, after any new trustee has been appointed to the trust or any transferor has ceased to be a trustee of the trust; and
c: the instrument to transfer the reserve land is accompanied by a certificate given by the transferees, or the transferees’ solicitor, verifying that paragraphs (a) and (b) apply. Provisions relating to forest sites
98: CNI forests sites
1: The CNI forests sites were vested in CNI Iwi Holdings Limited under the Central North Island Forest Land Collective Settlement Act 2008
2: The vesting of the CNI forests sites under this Act is deemed to be a transfer from CNI Iwi Holdings Limited to the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa under paragraph 10 of schedule 3 of the deed of trust, as defined in section 4
3: The vestings of the Kani Rangi Park site and the CNI forests sites under this Act are subject to the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa, and in relation to the Te Rake Pā site the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa and the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare, entering into a deed of covenant (or deeds of covenant as applicable), in the form set out in Part 10 of the schedule to the deed of settlement, under which, in assuming the owner's interest in those sites, they agree in favour of the other parties to the Kaingaroa Forest Road Network deed dated 3 June 2009 and the deed in relation to reciprocal access over Bonisch Road and the Kaingaroa Forest Road Network dated 26 June 2009 (or any amended or replacement deeds) to be bound by the terms of those deeds, while those deeds each remain in force and to the extent applicable to those sites.
4: Upon the vesting of the Te Rake Pā site in the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa,—
a: section 10
b: the public right of way easement is extinguished.
99: Removal of Crown forestry licence memorial
1: Subsection (2) applies if the registered proprietor of a CNI forests site makes a written application to the Registrar-General—
a: confirming that all of the land contained in the computer freehold register or registers for the site was returned on the return date; and
b: containing a statement from the relevant licensee under the Crown forestry licence endorsing paragraph (a)
2: The Registrar-General must remove the Crown forestry licence memorial from the computer freehold register or registers for the site. Tangiharuru title
100: Registration of land in name of Tangiharuru
1: This section does not apply to the jointly vested sites.
2: Despite anything in the Land Transfer Act 1952
a: be registered in the name of Tangiharuru, rather than in the names of the trustees; or
b: be no longer registered in the name of Tangiharuru, and instead be registered in the names of the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa.
3: If the Registrar-General receives a notice under subsection (2)(a), the Registrar-General must comply with it by—
a: registering the computer freehold register to the land in the name of Tangiharuru; and
b: entering a notation on the computer freehold register to the land that the land is subject to this section.
4: If the Registrar-General receives a notice under subsection (2)(b), the Registrar-General must comply with it by—
a: registering the computer freehold register to the land in the names of the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa; and
b: cancelling the notation on the computer freehold register entered under subsection (3).
5: In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is sufficient evidence that the notice has been properly given to the Registrar-General under subsection 2(a) or (b), if the notice—
a: is executed or purports to be executed by the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa; and
b: relates to the land registrable or registered in the names of the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa.
6: If the fee simple estate in land is registered in the name of Tangiharuru,—
a: the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa have all the duties, powers, and rights of the registered proprietor of the land; and
b: the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa must perform the duties, and exercise the powers and rights, in their own names and not in the name of Tangiharuru; and
c: the Registrar-General must have regard to paragraphs (a) and (b). Vesting and gift back of Tāwhiuau
101: Tāwhiuau
1: The trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa may give written notice to the Minister of Conservation of the date for the commencement of the vesting and gifting back process for Tāwhiuau.
2: The date for the commencement of the vesting and gifting back process for Tāwhiuau must be within 5 years after the settlement date.
3: The trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa must give the notice at least 80 business days before the commencement of the vesting and gift back process for Tāwhiuau.
4: The Minister of Conservation must publish a Gazette
5: On the date identified in the Gazette vesting date
6: On the seventh day after the vesting,—
a: the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa are deemed to have gifted Tāwhiuau back to the Crown and to all the people of New Zealand for continued inclusion in Te Urewera National Park; and
b: the fee simple estate in Tāwhiuau vests in the Crown.
7: Despite sections 100(5)
a: Tāwhiuau is and remains part of Te Urewera National Park; and
b: the National Parks Act 1980
c: every encumbrance and other instrument in effect immediately before the vesting date has uninterrupted effect on and from the settlement date as if Tāwhiuau had remained Crown-owned land at all times; and
d: the Crown retains all liability for Tāwhiuau during the period between vesting and gifting back as if Tāwhiuau had remained Crown-owned land at all times.
8: No gift duty is payable for the gifting of Tāwhiuau by the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa to the Crown and to all the people of New Zealand.
9: Nothing in this section is affected by—
a: section 11 Part 10
b: any other provision of the Resource Management Act 1991
c: any other enactment.
10: Nothing in this section affects sections 20 to 32 Rangitaiki River Management Framework
102: Definitions for sections 103 to 129
In sections 103 to 129 catchment Rangitaiki River
a: the Rangitaiki River; and
b: the Whirinaki River; and
c: the Wheao River; and
d: the Horomanga River.
103: Acknowledgements
The Crown acknowledges—
a: the historical and enduring relationship between Ngāti Manawa and the Rangitaiki River; and
b: the importance of the health and wellbeing of the Rangitaiki River to Ngāti Manawa; and
c: the commitment of Ngāti Manawa to—
i: protecting and enhancing the health and wellbeing of the Rangitaiki River; and
ii: restoring and protecting its relationship with the Rangitaiki River in accordance with Ngāti Manawa tikanga. Rangitaiki River Forum
104: Establishment and purpose of Forum
1: A statutory body called the Rangitaiki River Forum is established.
2: The purpose of the Forum is the protection and enhancement of the environmental, cultural, and spiritual health and wellbeing of the Rangitaiki River and its resources for the benefit of present and future generations.
3: Despite the composition of the Forum as described in section 108 clause 30(1)(b)
4: Despite Schedule 7
a: is a permanent committee; and
b: must not be discharged unless all appointers agree to the Forum being discharged.
5: The members of the Forum must act in a manner so as to achieve the purpose of the Forum.
105: Functions of Forum
1: The principal function of the Forum is to achieve its purpose.
2: The other functions of the Forum are to—
a: prepare and approve the Rangitaiki River Document in accordance with section 117
b: promote the integrated and co-ordinated management of the Rangitaiki River; and
c: engage with and provide advice to—
i: local authorities on statutory and non-statutory processes that affect the Rangitaiki River, including under the Resource Management Act 1991
ii: Crown agencies that exercise functions in relation to the Rangitaiki River; and
d: monitor the extent to which the purpose of the Rangitaiki River Forum is being achieved including the implementation and effectiveness of the Rangitaiki River Document; and
e: gather information, disseminate information, and hold meetings; and
f: take any other action that is related to achieving the purpose of the Forum.
3: To avoid doubt, except as provided for in subsection (2)(a), the Forum has discretion to determine in any particular circumstances—
a: whether to exercise any function identified in subsection (2); and
b: how, and to what extent, any function identified in subsection (2) is exercised.
106: Capacity
The Forum has full capacity to carry out its functions.
107: Procedures of Forum
The provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 Local Authorities (Members' Interests) Act 1968
a: to the extent relevant to the purpose and functions of the Forum; and
b: except as otherwise provided for in sections 102 to 115
108: Members of Forum
1: As at the settlement date, the Forum consists of 8 members as follows (each organisation being an appointer):
a: 1 member appointed by Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whare; and
b: 1 member appointed by Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa; and
c: 1 member appointed by Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Awa; and
d: 1 member appointed by Ngāti Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Settlement Trust; and
e: 3 members appointed by the Bay of Plenty Regional Council (such members to be a current chairperson or councillor of that council); and
f: 1 member appointed by the Whakatane District Council (such member to be a current mayor or councillor of that council).
2: In appointing members to the Forum, appointers—
a: must be satisfied that the person has the skills, knowledge, or experience to—
i: participate effectively in the Forum; and
ii: contribute to the achievement of the purpose of the Forum; and
b: must have regard to any members already appointed to the Forum to ensure that the membership reflects a balanced mix of knowledge and experience in relation to the Rangitaiki River.
3: A member may be discharged by that member's appointer.
4: A member appointed by an iwi may resign by giving written notice to that person's appointer.
5: Where there is a vacancy on the Forum, the relevant appointer must fill that vacancy as soon as is reasonably practicable.
6: Clause 31(1)
7: Clauses 30(2), (3), (5), (7) 31(2) to (6)
8: To avoid doubt, members of the Forum who are appointed by iwi are not, by virtue of that membership, members of a local authority.
109: Chair and deputy chair
1: The Forum must appoint a chair at its first meeting.
2: The chair's appointment is for a term of 3 years, unless the chair resigns or is removed by the Forum during that term.
3: The chair of the Forum may be reappointed or removed by the Forum.
4: The Forum may appoint a deputy chair, and if so, that appointment is subject to the same conditions as set out in subsections (1) to (3).
5: The Forum may appoint subcommittees that the Forum considers appropriate, and clause 30(4)
6: Clauses 26(3) and (4)
110: Standing orders
1: The Forum must at its first meeting adopt a set of standing orders for the operation of the Forum.
2: The standing orders of the Forum must not contravene this Act, the Local Government Act 2002 Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987
3: A member of the Forum must comply with the standing orders of the Forum.
4: Clause 27
111: Meetings of Forum
1: Clauses 19 20 22
a: all references to a local authority being references to the Forum; and
b: the reference in clause 19(5)
2: The quorum for a meeting of the Forum is—
a: 3 members appointed by the iwi appointers; and
b: 3 members appointed by the local authority appointers.
3: Clauses 23(3)(b) 30(9)(b)
112: Decision making
1: The decisions of the Forum must be made by vote at a meeting.
2: A decision of the Forum may only be made by a 75% majority of those members present at a meeting of the Forum.
3: The chair of the Forum may vote on any matter but does not have a casting vote.
4: Clause 24
5: The members of the Forum must approach decision making in a manner that—
a: is consistent with, and reflects, the purpose of the Forum; and
b: acknowledges as appropriate the interests of iwi in particular parts of the Rangitaiki River and its catchment.
113: Conflict of interest
A member of the Forum is not precluded by the Local Authorities (Members' Interests) Act 1968
a: merely because the member is a member of an iwi or a hapū; or
b: merely because the economic, social, cultural, and spiritual values of any iwi or hapū and their relationships with the Forum are advanced by or reflected in—
i: the subject matter under consideration; or
ii: any decision by or recommendation of the Forum; or
iii: participation in the matter by the member.
114: Application of other statutory provisions
Despite clause 19(2)
a: have the right to attend any meeting of the Forum; but
b: do not have the right to attend meetings of the local authorities by reason merely of their membership of the Forum.
115: Forum to be open and inclusive
The Forum must operate in an open manner that is inclusive of those iwi with interests in the Rangitaiki River that are not represented on the Forum.
116: Administrative and technical support of Forum
1: The Bay of Plenty Regional Council is responsible for the administrative support of the Forum.
2: The administrative support referred to in subsection (1) includes the provision of those services required for the Forum to carry out its functions, including under the settlement legislation, the Local Government Act 2002
3: The Bay of Plenty Regional Council must provide technical support to the Forum from existing work programmes, and must endeavour to accommodate unbudgeted resource requests from the Forum where possible. Rangitaiki River Document
117: Preparation and approval of Rangitaiki River Document
1: The Forum must prepare and approve the Rangitaiki River Document in accordance with the process set out in sections 121 to 124
2: The Forum must—
a: commence the preparation of the Rangitaiki River Document no later than 2 months after the settlement date; and
b: approve the Rangitaiki River Document no later than 12 months after the settlement date.
3: The Forum may decide to alter any of the timeframes set out in subsection (2).
4: In preparing the Rangitaiki River Document, the Forum must—
a: consider the interests in the area covered by the Rangitaiki River Document; and
b: consider, and document the potential alternatives to, and the potential benefits and costs of, the matters provided for in the Rangitaiki River Document.
5: The obligation under subsection (4) applies only to the extent that is relative to the nature and contents of the Rangitaiki River Document.
118: Contents of Rangitaiki River Document
The Rangitaiki River Document may contain—
a: a vision for the Rangitaiki River; and
b: objectives for the Rangitaiki River; and
c: desired outcomes for the Rangitaiki River.
119: Effect on Resource Management Act 1991 planning documents
1: In preparing or changing the Bay of Plenty regional policy statement, the Bay of Plenty Regional Council must recognise and provide for any vision, objectives, and desired outcomes contained in the Rangitaiki River Document.
2: The Bay of Plenty Regional Council must comply with subsection (1) each time that it prepares or changes the Bay of Plenty regional policy statement.
3: Until such time as the obligation under subsection (1) is complied with, where a local authority is preparing or changing a regional plan or district plan, that authority must have particular regard to the Rangitaiki River Document.
4: The obligations under subsections (1) to (3) apply only to the extent that—
a: the vision, objectives, and desired outcomes contained in the Rangitaiki River Document relate to the resource management issues of the region or district; and
b: recognising and providing for the vision, objectives, and desired outcomes contained in the Rangitaiki River Document under subsection (1) is consistent with the purpose of the Resource Management Act 1991
c: having particular regard to the Rangitaiki River Document under subsection (3) is consistent with the purpose of the Resource Management Act 1991
5: Subsection (6) applies where—
a: the Bay of Plenty Regional Council notifies a proposed Bay of Plenty regional policy statement before the Rangitaiki River Document is approved; and
b: the Forum approves the Rangitaiki River Document before the Bay of Plenty regional policy statement is declared operative under clause 20
6: Where subsection (5) applies, the Bay of Plenty Regional Council—
a: must, within 6 months after the approval of the Rangitaiki River Document by the Forum, notify a variation to the proposed Bay of Plenty regional policy statement, for the purpose of recognising and providing for the Rangitaiki River Document as provided for in subsection (1); and
b: must not declare the Bay of Plenty regional policy statement operative under clause 20
7: The obligation under subsection (6) applies only on the first occasion on which the Forum approves the Rangitaiki River Document.
120: Effect on conservation planning documents
1: In approving a conservation management strategy that is relevant to the Rangitaiki River, the New Zealand Conservation Authority must have particular regard to any vision, objectives, and desired outcomes contained in the Rangitaiki River Document.
2: The New Zealand Conservation Authority must comply with subsection (1) each time that it approves a conservation management strategy that is relevant to the Rangitaiki River.
3: Until such time as the obligation under subsection (1) is complied with, where a person is reviewing, preparing, or changing a relevant conservation management plan, that person must have particular regard to any vision, objectives, or desired outcomes contained in the Rangitaiki River Document.
4: The obligations under subsections (1) to (3) apply only to the extent that—
a: the vision, objectives, and desired outcomes contained in the Rangitaiki River Document relate to the conservation issues of the area; and
b: having particular regard to the vision, objectives, and desired outcomes contained in the Rangitaiki River Document is consistent with the purpose of the Conservation Act 1987 Process for preparation and approval of Rangitaiki River Document
121: Preparation of draft River Document
The following process applies to the preparation of a draft of the River Document:
a: the Forum must meet to discuss and commence the preparation of the draft River Document; and
b: the Forum may consult and seek comment from appropriate persons and organisations on the preparation of the draft River Document.
122: Notification and submissions on draft River Document
1: When the Forum has prepared the draft River Document, it—
a: must notify it by giving public notice; and
b: may notify it by any other means that the Forum thinks appropriate; and
c: must ensure that the draft River Document is available for public inspection.
2: The public notice must—
a: state that the draft River Document is available for inspection at the places and times specified in the notice; and
b: state that interested persons or organisations may lodge submissions on the draft River Document—
i: with the Forum; and
ii: at the place specified in the notice; and
iii: before the date specified in the notice; and
c: set a date for the lodging of submissions that is at least 20 business days after the date of the publication of the notice.
3: Any person or organisation may make a written or electronic submission on the draft River Document in the manner described in the public notice.
123: Approval of River Document
1: The Forum must consider submissions made under section 122(3)
2: The Forum may then approve the River Document.
3: The Forum—
a: must notify the River Document by giving public notice; and
b: may notify the River Document by any other means that the Forum thinks appropriate.
4: The public notice must—
a: state where the River Document is available for public inspection; and
b: state when the River Document comes into force.
5: The River Document—
a: must be available for public inspection at the local offices of the relevant local authorities and appropriate agencies; and
b: comes into force on the date specified in the public notice.
124: Review of and amendments to River Document
1: The Forum may at any time review and, if necessary, amend the River Document or any component of the River Document.
2: The Forum must start a review of the River Document no later than 10 years after the later of—
a: the first time that the River Document is approved; or
b: the completion of the previous review of the River Document.
3: In undertaking a review under subsections (1) and (2), the Forum must apply section 121
4: If the Forum considers as a result of the review that the River Document should be amended in a material way, the amendment must be prepared and approved in accordance with sections 121 to 123
5: If the Forum considers the River Document should be amended in a way that is not material, the amendment may be approved under section 123(2) sections 123(3) to (5) Recognition of tuna
125: Recognition of habitat of tuna
All persons exercising functions and powers under the Resource Management Act 1991 anguilla dieffenbachia anguilla australis Joint management agreements
126: Duty to make joint management agreement
1: Where Ngāti Manawa provide notice in writing to a local authority referred to in subsection (2) that a joint management agreement is to be entered into, such joint management agreement must be in force between that local authority and Ngāti Manawa no later than—
a: 18 months after the date of that notice; or
b: a later date that they agree on electronically or in writing.
2: The reference to a local authority in subsection (1) is a reference to—
a: the Bay of Plenty Regional Council; or
b: the Whakatane District Council.
127: Scope of joint management agreements
A joint management agreement referred to in section 126 Resource Management Act 1991
128: Legal framework
1: Sections 36C 36D section 126
2: Sections 36B 36E section 126
3: Neither party has the right to terminate a joint management agreement without the agreement of the other party.
129: Horomanga Wash local purpose reserve
The joint management agreement with the Bay of Plenty Regional Council must include a section providing for the role of Ngāti Manawa in the management by that Council under relevant statutory frameworks of the Horomanga Wash local purpose reserve (which is vested in the Bay of Plenty Regional Council and described by Gazette Commercial redress
130: Transfer of deferred selection properties
To give effect to Part 7 of the deed of settlement, the Crown (acting by and through the chief executive of the land holding agency) is authorised to do 1 or both of the following:
a: transfer the fee simple estate in a deferred selection property to the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa:
b: sign a transfer instrument or other document, or do any other thing, to effect the transfer.
131: Registrar-General to create computer freehold register
1: This section applies to a deferred selection property that is transferred to the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa to the extent that it is not all of the land contained in a computer freehold register or there is no computer freehold register for all or part of the property.
2: The Registrar-General must, in accordance with a written application by an authorised person, and after completion of any necessary survey, create 1 computer freehold register in the name of the Crown—
a: subject to, and together with, any encumbrances that are registered, notified, or notifiable and that are described in the written application; but
b: without any statement of purpose.
3: The authorised person may grant a covenant to arrange for the later creation of a computer freehold register for any land that is transferred to the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa under section 130
4: Despite the Land Transfer Act 1952
a: the authorised person may request the Registrar-General to register a covenant (referred to in subsection (3)) under the Land Transfer Act 1952
b: the Registrar-General must register the covenant in accordance with paragraph (a).
132: Application of other enactments
1: Section 11 Part 10
a: the transfer of a deferred selection property to the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa; or
b: a matter incidental to, or required for the purpose of, that transfer.
2: The transfer of a deferred selection property to the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa does not—
a: limit section 10 11
b: affect other rights to subsurface minerals.
3: The transfer of a deferred selection property to the trustees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Manawa is a disposition for the purposes of Part 4A sections 24(2A) 24A 24AA
4: In exercising the powers conferred by section 130
5: Subsection (4) is subject to subsections (2) and (3).
6: The permission of a council under section 348