In the beningin…
There was a video.
There was confidence.
There was a woman running for council.
There was a clause she did not understand.
There was… a “confused young lady.” (Hi. That would be me.)
But in the actual beginning?
I warned her.
And then she posted it anyway.
So now, less than 8 days before voting closes for the Taupō District Council election, we need to talk about Clause 27B, public misinformation, and why this matters to everyone not just me, not just my parents, and not just the “Ngaroto estate.”
I warned her before the video
Before Ann Tweedie published her video, I contacted her. I let her know that her interpretation of Clause 27B was incorrect, and that pushing this narrative could hurt people including Ngāti Tūwharetoa, who were being falsely implicated in “land grab” theories.
She ignored that warning.
Then she posted a video confidently stating she was “totally, totally right,” brushed off the facts, and referred to me again, without naming me; as a “confused young lady.”
I may be young. I am not confused.
This is more than politics, this is harm.
My parents are trying to sell their home in Ngaroto. Since that video went up, viewings have stalled and buyers are second-guessing. That is not just bad timing. That is what happens when a candidate weaponises land law without understanding it.
This is not just misinformation. This is a ripple effect.
And it is already costing people.
What is Clause 27B?
Clause 27B is a memorial provision in the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986. It ensures that, if the Waitangi Tribunal recommends certain Crown-owned land be returned as part of a Treaty settlement, the Crown can legally do so — but only if the land is still owned by the Crown.
Once land is sold into private ownership, Clause 27B remains on the title as a historical notation, but it has no legal effect on the private owner.
That is it.
Clause 27B does not apply to land that has been sold into private ownership.
It does not give iwi any power to “take land.”
It does not involve councils.
It does not stop you from selling your house.
You can read more at www.linz.govt.nz
Why is Clause 27B still on titles?
When the Crown sold land to a State-Owned Enterprise in the 80s and 90s, it added a “memorial” a kind of legal post-it note just in case that land was later needed for a Treaty claim.
That memorial often stays on the title forever, even after private sale. But once you own the land, it has no effect on you. It is a ghost clause. A footnote. A leftover.
What Clause 27B does not do:
- It does not prevent private sale
- It does not empower iwi
- It does not change ownership
- It does not restrict mortgages, fences, driveways, or extensions
- It does not mean land is “at risk”
Even the Waitangi Tribunal only deals with Clause 27B in relation to Crown-owned land, not your backyard.
To Ann Tweedie
You referred to me as a confused young lady.
You made a video that suggested land in the Ngaroto subdivision might be taken, and that iwi had something to do with it. You used legal language you clearly did not understand. You dismissed the warning I gave you privately. You posted it anyway.
I followed up with an email, with facts, sources, and others copied in. You still have not corrected yourself.
You are running for public office. That means your words carry weight. You do not get to hide behind “just asking questions” when those questions are built on bad information and fear.
I did the research. I contacted Council. I spoke to LINZ. I read the legislation. I checked our land title.
You didn’t.
You owe the public a correction. You owe Tūwharetoa an apology. And you owe the families in this district the truth before they cast their votes.
To everyone else: do not panic
If Clause 27B is on your title, it is not a trap.
It is not a land grab.
It is not a legal threat.
It is not a council loophole.
It is a legacy clause that protects the Treaty process — and unless your property is still owned by the Crown, it does not affect you.
If you want to see our title, or the emails I sent and received, I will share them. No spin. No panic. Just facts.
Sources
- State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986 — Section 27BOutlines the legal basis for memorials on land titles transferred from the Crown to state-owned enterprises. The memorial protects the Crown’s right to resume the land, only if it is still Crown-owned and recommended by the Waitangi Tribunal for return. Read more at: www.legislation.govt.nz
- LINZ — Treaty Claim Memorials Land Information New Zealand has previously explained that Clause 27B memorials do not affect privately owned land. They are legacy notations with no impact on ownership or sale once land has been transferred into private hands. General site: www.linz.govt.nz
- Waitangi Tribunal — Settlement Process and Memorialised Land The Waitangi Tribunal provides information about how section 27B operates within the Treaty claims process, specifically relating to Crown-owned land that may be recommended for resumption. See: www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz
- NZ Law Society — Conveyancing Practice Provides guidance for lawyers and buyers on interpreting land titles. Memorials such as Clause 27B are noted to be non-restrictive and are not treated as caveats or claims. More at: www.lawsociety.org.nz
And finally…
In the nidi beningin…
there was a clause, a title, a warning,
and a confident candidate who got it all wrong.
But now you know better.
And knowledge, unlike bad campaign videos ; never needs a retraction.
Addendum: What the Waitangi Tribunal Actually Says About Clause 27B
Some people have since pointed to the Waitangi Tribunal’s explanation of Clause 27B and said, “Well, actually… the Tribunal can recommend the return of private land.”
Let’s clear that up.
Yes, the Waitangi Tribunal can, in very specific cases, recommend that land with a Clause 27B memorial be purchased by the Crown and returned to Māori ownership. This process is called resumption, and it is extremely rare.
Here is what the Tribunal actually says:
“If the Tribunal finds that a claim relating to that land is well founded, it can make a binding recommendation to the Crown that it purchase the land and return it to Māori ownership as a way of settling a claim.”
— Waitangi Tribunal, http://www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz
Key points:
The land must still have a valid 27B memorial
A claim must be found valid by the Tribunal
The Tribunal can only recommend that the Crown buy the land
The landowner is paid at market value
The land is not forcibly seized
It is not automatic, and it involves a full legal process
So yes, the clause technically allows the Crown to re-purchase land in rare Treaty settlement cases. But this is not the same as what was claimed in Ann’s video, and it absolutely does not mean that iwi or councils can “take your land” or that your title is compromised.
This clause is a legacy safeguard, not a threat.
Leave a Reply