www.lesswrong.com/posts/fB5pexHPJRsabvkQ2/unexpected-things-that-are-people

Official New Zealand sources separate these two amounts.

• The New Zealand government’s 2017 release on the bill’s third reading says the settlement included “financial redress of $80 million” and that “The Crown will also contribute $30 million towards a contestable fund to further the health and wellbeing of the Whanganui River.”
• The Whanganui District Council’s settlement summary says the bill provided “a settlement of $80 million to redress these ‘actions and omissions’ of the Crown” and separately that “a $30 million contestable fund was also created to advance the river’s health and restoration.”

So the article has the two pots of money mixed together: the $80 million was compensation/redress in the settlement, while the $30 million was the restoration/wellbeing fund for the river.

The sentence collapses several different things into one and assigns the Byzantine Rhodian Sea-Law an ancient date it does not have.

A modern legal-history reference from Springer explains that:

• the Rhodian Sea-Law is a later Byzantine collection of maritime law provisions, compiled in the seventh or eighth century AD;
• the term is confusing because it can refer either to (1) an ancient Rhodian maritime law of which “we have no direct fragment,” (2) Roman jurists’ references to that older law, or (3) the later Byzantine compilation known in the literature as The Rhodian Sea-Law.

Britannica likewise defines Rhodian Sea Law as a body of regulations in the Byzantine Empire beginning in the 7th century and says it was based partly on older Rhodian custom.

So calling Rhodian sea law “from 900 BCE” is inaccurate: the named Rhodian Sea-Law is a medieval/Byzantine text, not a code from 900 BCE. What can be dated to antiquity is only the older Rhodian maritime tradition behind later Roman and Byzantine texts, and the Springer source explicitly says that ancient law survives only indirectly.