Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu Claims Settlement Bill
The departmental disclosure statement for a government Bill seeks to bring together in one place a range of information to support and enhance the Parliamentary and public scrutiny of that Bill.
It identifies:
· the general policy intent of the Bill and other background policy material;
· some of the key quality assurance products and processes used to develop and test the content of the Bill;
· the presence of certain significant powers or features in the Bill that might be of particular Parliamentary or public interest and warrant an explanation.
This disclosure statement was prepared by the Office of Treaty Settlements and Takutai Moana: Te Tari Whakatau.
The Office of Treaty Settlements and Takutai Moana: Te Tari Whakatau certifies that, to the best of its knowledge and understanding, the information provided is complete and accurate at the date of finalisation below.
5 November 2025.
Part One: General Policy Statement
Legislation is required to give effect to some elements of the Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu Deed of Settlement signed between Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu and the Crown on 26 September 2025. This bill records the acknowledgements and apology made to Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu by the Crown when the deed was signed and gives effect to redress in the deed that requires legislation.
Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu trace their origins to Te Ruinga, the son of Tumutumu from Ngāti Raukawa. Their area of interest includes Te Aroha, the Kaimai range to Katikati and Te Puna, the Hauraki Plains, and Coromandel Peninsula. The 2023 census estimates Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu as having approximately 510 members.
Negotiations
In June 2009, the Crown proposed a regional approach for Treaty settlements to iwi and hapū with interests in the Hauraki region. The twelve iwi of Hauraki, including Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu, formed the Pare Hauraki Collective for the purpose of negotiating collective redress for shared interests in the Hauraki region.
In June 2011, the Crown recognised the mandate of the Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu negotiators to negotiate the settlement of historical Treaty of Waitangi claims on behalf of Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu through both collective and iwi-specific negotiations.
In June 2017, the Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu Deed of Settlement was initialled and ratification for the iwi-specific deed was ratified in June and July 2017. The signing of the deed was delayed to allow for resolution of final overlapping interests matters. This bill gives effect to the iwi-specific redress that requires legislation and settles the historical Treaty of Waitangi claims of Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu.
On 26 September, Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu signed the Pare Hauraki Collective Redress Deed and will receive redress through the collective deed, which also has associated collective legislation.
Key elements of the Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu settlement
The settlement contains acknowledgement of a number of Crown breaches of te Tiriti o Waitangi / the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles including the confiscation of land by the Crown, the impact and operations of Native land laws and Crown land acquisitions that left Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu virtually landless.
The settlement includes an apology from the Crown to Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu for promoting laws and policies that led to loss of land, damaged sacred taonga Te Aroha maunga, and undermined their wellbeing and ability to pass on mātauranga Māori to their mokopuna.
Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu will receive redress that includes seventeen sites of cultural significance and financial and commercial redress valued at $5.5 million, along with a wide range of other commercial, cultural and relationship items.
Part Two: Background Material and Policy Information
Published reviews or evaluations
Relevant international treaties
|
2.2. Does this Bill seek to give effect to New Zealand action in relation to an international treaty? |
NO |
Regulatory impact analysis
|
2.3. Were any regulatory impact statements provided to inform the policy decisions that led to this Bill? |
NO |
Extent of impact analysis available
|
2.4. Has further impact analysis become available for any aspects of the policy to be given effect by this Bill? |
NO |
|
2.5. For the policy to be given effect by this Bill, is there analysis available on: |
|
|
(a) the size of the potential costs and benefits? |
NO |
|
(b) the potential for any group of persons to suffer a substantial unavoidable loss of income or wealth? |
NO |
|
2.6. For the policy to be given effect by this Bill, are the potential costs or benefits likely to be impacted by: |
|
|
(a) the level of effective compliance or non-compliance with applicable obligations or standards? |
NO |
|
(b) the nature and level of regulator effort put into encouraging or securing compliance? |
NO |
Part Three: Testing of Legislative Content
Consistency with New Zealand’s international obligations
|
3.1. What steps have been taken to determine whether the policy to be given effect by this Bill is consistent with New Zealand’s international obligations? |
|
No steps have been undertaken. |
Consistency with the government’s Treaty of Waitangi obligations
|
3.2. What steps have been taken to determine whether the policy to be given effect by this Bill is consistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi? |
|
During the settlement negotiations, the Office of Treaty Settlements and Takutai Moana: Te Tari Whakatau and formerly the Office for Māori Crown Relations – Te Arawhiti and Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu negotiators engaged with iwi and hapū whose interests are directly affected by the settlement. The redress given effect by this Bill is consistent with Treaty principles and Treaty of Waitangi settlement policy. |
Consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990
|
3.3. Has advice been provided to the Attorney-General on whether any provisions of this Bill appear to limit any of the rights and freedoms affirmed in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990? |
YES |
|
Advice provided to the Attorney-General by the Crown Law Office, or a section 7 report of the Attorney- General, is generally expected to be available on the Ministry of Justice website upon introduction of a Bill. Such advice, or reports, will be accessible on the Ministry’s website at http://www.justice.govt.nz/policy/constitutional-law-and-human-rights/human-rights/bill-of-rights/ |
|
Offences, penalties and court jurisdictions
|
3.4. Does this Bill create, amend, or remove: |
|
|
(a) offences or penalties (including infringement offences or penalties and civil pecuniary penalty regimes)? |
NO |
|
(b) the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal (including rights to judicial review or rights of appeal)? |
YES |
|
The Bill settles historic Treaty of Waitangi claims and removes the jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and other judicial bodies into the claims, deed of settlement and redress provided (clauses 15, 16, 17 and 18). |
|
|
3.4.1. Was the Ministry of Justice consulted about these provisions? |
YES |
|
The provisions were developed by the former Office of Treaty Settlements which was part of the Ministry of Justice. |
|
Privacy issues
|
3.5. Does this Bill create, amend or remove any provisions relating to the collection, storage, access to, correction of, use or disclosure of personal information? |
NO |
External consultation
|
3.6. Has there been any external consultation on the policy to be given effect by this Bill, or on a draft of this Bill? |
YES |
|
Overlapping groups and relevant councils were informed of the key relevant provisions contained in the Bill as the settlement was negotiated and agreed. Councils were invited to comment on relevant parts of the Bill affecting them. Overlapping groups: Ngāti Maru, Ngāti Tamaterā, Ngāti Paoa, Te Patukirikiri, Ngaati Whanaunga, Ngāti Hei, Ngāti Tara Tokanui, Hako, Ngāti Porou ki Hauraki, Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, Ngāti Pūkenga, Ngāi Te Rangi, Ngā Hapū o Ngāti Ranginui, Ngāti Hinerangi, Ngāti Hauā, Waikato-Tainui and Ngāpuhi. Councils: Hauraki District Council, Thames Coromandel District Council, Western Bay of Plenty District Council, Matamata Piako District Council, Waikato Regional Council. |
|
Other testing of proposals
|
3.7. Have the policy details to be given effect by this Bill been otherwise tested or assessed in any way to ensure the Bill’s provisions are workable and complete? |
YES |
|
The proposed provisions are tested throughout the negotiations process through consultation with iwi and engagement with third parties. The Deed of Settlement provisions were ratified by Ngāti Rāhiri Tumutumu before the Deed of Settlement was signed on [26 September 2025]. |
|
Part Four: Significant Legislative Features
Compulsory acquisition of private property
|
4.1. Does this Bill contain any provisions that could result in the compulsory acquisition of private property? |
NO |
Charges in the nature of a tax
|
4.2. Does this Bill create or amend a power to impose a fee, levy or charge in the nature of a tax? |
NO |
Retrospective effect
|
4.3. Does this Bill affect rights, freedoms, or impose obligations, retrospectively? |
NO |
Strict liability or reversal of the usual burden of proof for offences
|
4.4. Does this Bill: |
|
|
(a) create or amend a strict or absolute liability offence? |
NO |
|
(b) reverse or modify the usual burden of proof for an offence or a civil pecuniary penalty proceeding? |
NO |
Civil or criminal immunity
|
4.5. Does this Bill create or amend a civil or criminal immunity for any person? |
NO |
Significant decision-making powers
|
4.6. Does this Bill create or amend a decision-making power to make a determination about a person’s rights, obligations, or interests protected or recognised by law, and that could have a significant impact on those rights, obligations, or interests? |
NO |
Powers to make delegated legislation
|
4.7. Does this Bill create or amend a power to make delegated legislation that could amend an Act, define the meaning of a term in an Act, or grant an exemption from an Act or delegated legislation? |
NO |
|
|
|
|
4.8. Does this Bill create or amend any other powers to make delegated legislation? |
NO |
Any other unusual provisions or features
|
4.9. Does this Bill contain any provisions (other than those noted above) that are unusual or call for special comment? |
NO |