The House: Wake-Up Call To MPs Over Building Relationships After Treaty Settlements
Article – RNZ
Public organisations are treating Treaty commitments like transactions, not relationships, the Auditor-General says.
The Auditor-General issued a wake-up call to MPs this week during his briefing to Parliament's Māori Affairs Committee on how poorly public organisations are fulfilling Treaty settlements.
Public organisations are treating Treaty commitments like transactions, not relationships, John Ryan told Parliament's Māori Affairs Committee.
'Fundamentally, this is the law, and we should be complying with it.'
The briefing follows an investigation from the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General (an independent Parliamentary watchdog), who wanted to see 'how effective the public sector arrangements for Treaty settlement commitments are'.
Appearing before the Committee on Wednesday, Controller and Auditor-General John Ryan told MPs that the report, which he viewed as one of the most important in his seven year term, found that the Crown was failing to honour its legal and contractual settlement commitments, of which there are 12,000 across approximately 80 settlements.
'This is a legal compliance issue. If you just take everything else away from it, fundamentally, this is the law, and we should be complying with it as public agencies. The Auditor-General is normally a cold hearted accountant, but when I read this, I felt like we needed to act on this,' Ryan told Māori Affairs Committee MPs.
The report found that most of the 150 responsible public organisations treated settlements as one-off transactions, and failed to recognise that, at their core, settlements are about resetting relationships. Relationships which should be durable and ongoing.
'The Crown, I think, has seen it like this after the treaty settlement process – as a series of transactions that needed to be managed rather than a relationship that needed to be reset.'
Ryan and his team suggested that public organisations are often inclined to, at worst, just ignore commitments, and at best, treat them with a bureaucratic tick-box KPI mentality.
The Treaty Settlement process has been a defining facet of Māori-Crown relations for decades. Since the first settlements in the 1990s, $2.738 billion of financial and commercial redress has been given by the Crown to Post-Settlement Governance Entities (PSGEs), the term for claimant groups, usually represented by a particular iwi.
In a moment of reflection following Ryan's presentation, committee chair National MP David MacLeod suggested that a lack of personal connection could potentially be part of the problem.
'We have people that represent the Crown in negotiations, on a daily basis for a long time, they almost become emotionally tied to what the settlement is all about,' MacLeod said. 'Then post settlement, that group of people move on to the next one, and then there's a whole fresh one that actually doesn't have any of that history [and] the relationship that's being formed in that.'
The Auditor-General said MacLeod's observation was probably a fair one.
'I think that's an interesting observation because I think what the public sector does once the settlement been reached, is it looks like a series of tasks to deliver rather than the bigger intent that's behind it, because as you say, there's people that go through the settlement process, I hate using the phrase, but on a journey to get to the point of settlement, legislation, deed of settlement. Then the public sector picks that up in various agencies rather than takes that intent that was formed here, and puts it in place over here.'
Armed with insight from the Auditor-General's report and briefing, Māori Affairs Committee MPs may perhaps think differently (and encourage their colleagues to do the same) the next time a settlement comes through Parliament. They didn't need to wait long. The first reading of the Ngāti Hāua Claims Settlement Bill, and all stages of the Ngā Hapū o Ranginui Claims Settlement Bill were also occurring at Parliament this week.
What are briefings?
This meeting of the Māori Affairs Committee and Auditor-General was a briefing. Briefings are a less formal version of the inquiry function that committees can initiate. In some cases, once members have learned more about an issue through briefings they may launch an inquiry to dig deeper. There's no requirement though.
Briefings give committees the chance to get the low-down of an issue from subject matter experts. This can be members of the public, a visiting overseas delegation, or as in this case, an Officer of Parliament – the Controller and Auditor-General.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
2 hours ago
- Scoop
Why Is The New Zealand Media Not Questioning The Implications Of The Gene Technology Bill?
Press Release – Lisa Er Despite the profound ethical, environmental, and societal implications, there has been a noticeable lack of critical scrutiny from the mainstream media, says Lisa Er. As the Gene Technology Bill advances through Parliament, New Zealand faces a pivotal moment in science, agriculture, and public health. The proposed legislation would significantly relax restrictions on gene technology, enabling broader research, development, and use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in New Zealand for the first time in nearly 30 years Yet, despite the profound ethical, environmental, and societal implications, there has been a noticeable lack of critical scrutiny from the mainstream media. 'It is plausible that political and economic factors are influencing the nature and depth of media coverage regarding the Gene Technology Bill,' says Lisa Er, author of a petition to 'halt the progress of the Gene Technology Bill and instead set up a Commission of Inquiry into the health and safety of people and the environment on behalf of citizens, to allow time for wider community and stakeholder consultation.' Key Concerns: Environmental Risks: The Bill paves the way for the release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into New Zealand's unique ecosystems, risking irreversible impacts on native species, biodiversity, crops, and the country's global clean, green brand. Lack of Public Consultation: The Government has failed to meaningfully consult with Māori, scientists, and the wider public, ignoring Treaty of Waitangi obligations and indigenous rights, community concerns about food safety, cultural values, and environmental protection. Threat to Export Markets: New Zealand's primary export markets, especially in Europe and Asia, have strict GM-free requirements. The Bill endangers market access and could jeopardize billions in export earnings. Undermining Precaution: The Bill abandons the precautionary principle that has underpinned New Zealand's cautious approach to gene technology, exposing the country to unknown long-term risks. Ignoring International Best Practice: Leading nations are strengthening, not weakening, their oversight of gene technologies in response to new scientific evidence and public concern. Insufficient Public Debate: The bill has generated over 1,500 public submissions, reflecting deep divisions and strong opinions across the country. The removal of labelling GE is of considerable public concern. Why has the minimal media coverage largely focused on official statements and the potential benefits, with little attention paid to the risks, opposition viewpoints, or the broader societal debate that is unfolding in submissions and community discussions? Risk Oversight and Regulatory Gaps: the bill will open the door to unintended consequences, including ecosystem disruption, cross-contamination of crops, and unclear long-term health effects Transparency and Accountability: Some have questioned whether the bill is being rushed or if consultation has been adequate, particularly given the timing of the public submission period over the summer holidays Media outlets have an essential role in holding lawmakers accountable and ensuring transparency in the legislative process, and these risks deserve deeper journalistic investigation and public explanation. A Call to Action for the Media: We urge New Zealand's journalists and editors to fulfil their democratic duty by: – Investigating the full range of concerns about the Gene Technology Bill, including those raised in public submissions. – Highlighting the ethical, cultural, and environmental questions that remain unresolved. – Providing balanced, evidence-based coverage that empowers New Zealanders to make informed decisions about the future of gene technology in their country. 'The Gene Technology Bill represents a generational shift in New Zealand's approach to biotechnology', says Er. 'The public deserves robust, critical journalism that examines not only the promises but also the very real perils of this legislation.' Lisa Er, founder of Lisa's Hummus Issued in the public interest to encourage transparent, balanced, and investigative reporting on a matter of national importance Petition with over 4,000 signatures Petition request: That the House of Representatives halt the progress of the Gene Technology Bill and instead set up a Commission of Inquiry into the health and safety of people and the environment on behalf of citizens, to allow time for wider community and stakeholder consultation. Petition reason: I consider the Gene Technology Bill has failed to follow sound and fair processes by not consulting enough with the public and other stakeholders. I believe there is inadequate consideration of Te Tiriti obligations, and insufficient requirements to protect people and the environment from the risks of GE contamination. A range of gene editing techniques would be excluded from regulation. This would mean GE products would enter the environment and food supply untested, unregistered and unlabeled.
Scoop
4 hours ago
- Scoop
Why Is The New Zealand Media Not Questioning The Implications Of The Gene Technology Bill?
Press Release – Lisa Er Despite the profound ethical, environmental, and societal implications, there has been a noticeable lack of critical scrutiny from the mainstream media, says Lisa Er. As the Gene Technology Bill advances through Parliament, New Zealand faces a pivotal moment in science, agriculture, and public health. The proposed legislation would significantly relax restrictions on gene technology, enabling broader research, development, and use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in New Zealand for the first time in nearly 30 years Yet, despite the profound ethical, environmental, and societal implications, there has been a noticeable lack of critical scrutiny from the mainstream media. 'It is plausible that political and economic factors are influencing the nature and depth of media coverage regarding the Gene Technology Bill,' says Lisa Er, author of a petition to 'halt the progress of the Gene Technology Bill and instead set up a Commission of Inquiry into the health and safety of people and the environment on behalf of citizens, to allow time for wider community and stakeholder consultation.' Key Concerns: Environmental Risks: The Bill paves the way for the release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into New Zealand's unique ecosystems, risking irreversible impacts on native species, biodiversity, crops, and the country's global clean, green brand. Lack of Public Consultation: The Government has failed to meaningfully consult with Māori, scientists, and the wider public, ignoring Treaty of Waitangi obligations and indigenous rights, community concerns about food safety, cultural values, and environmental protection. Threat to Export Markets: New Zealand's primary export markets, especially in Europe and Asia, have strict GM-free requirements. The Bill endangers market access and could jeopardize billions in export earnings. Undermining Precaution: The Bill abandons the precautionary principle that has underpinned New Zealand's cautious approach to gene technology, exposing the country to unknown long-term risks. Ignoring International Best Practice: Leading nations are strengthening, not weakening, their oversight of gene technologies in response to new scientific evidence and public concern. Insufficient Public Debate: The bill has generated over 1,500 public submissions, reflecting deep divisions and strong opinions across the country. The removal of labelling GE is of considerable public concern. Why has the minimal media coverage largely focused on official statements and the potential benefits, with little attention paid to the risks, opposition viewpoints, or the broader societal debate that is unfolding in submissions and community discussions? Risk Oversight and Regulatory Gaps: the bill will open the door to unintended consequences, including ecosystem disruption, cross-contamination of crops, and unclear long-term health effects Transparency and Accountability: Some have questioned whether the bill is being rushed or if consultation has been adequate, particularly given the timing of the public submission period over the summer holidays Media outlets have an essential role in holding lawmakers accountable and ensuring transparency in the legislative process, and these risks deserve deeper journalistic investigation and public explanation. A Call to Action for the Media: We urge New Zealand's journalists and editors to fulfil their democratic duty by: – Investigating the full range of concerns about the Gene Technology Bill, including those raised in public submissions. – Highlighting the ethical, cultural, and environmental questions that remain unresolved. – Providing balanced, evidence-based coverage that empowers New Zealanders to make informed decisions about the future of gene technology in their country. 'The Gene Technology Bill represents a generational shift in New Zealand's approach to biotechnology', says Er. 'The public deserves robust, critical journalism that examines not only the promises but also the very real perils of this legislation.' Lisa Er, founder of Lisa's Hummus Issued in the public interest to encourage transparent, balanced, and investigative reporting on a matter of national importance Petition with over 4,000 signatures Petition request: That the House of Representatives halt the progress of the Gene Technology Bill and instead set up a Commission of Inquiry into the health and safety of people and the environment on behalf of citizens, to allow time for wider community and stakeholder consultation. Petition reason: I consider the Gene Technology Bill has failed to follow sound and fair processes by not consulting enough with the public and other stakeholders. I believe there is inadequate consideration of Te Tiriti obligations, and insufficient requirements to protect people and the environment from the risks of GE contamination. A range of gene editing techniques would be excluded from regulation. This would mean GE products would enter the environment and food supply untested, unregistered and unlabeled.
Scoop
6 hours ago
- Scoop
Why Is The New Zealand Media Not Questioning The Implications Of The Gene Technology Bill?
As the Gene Technology Bill advances through Parliament, New Zealand faces a pivotal moment in science, agriculture, and public health. The proposed legislation would significantly relax restrictions on gene technology, enabling broader research, development, and use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in New Zealand for the first time in nearly 30 years Yet, despite the profound ethical, environmental, and societal implications, there has been a noticeable lack of critical scrutiny from the mainstream media. 'It is plausible that political and economic factors are influencing the nature and depth of media coverage regarding the Gene Technology Bill,' says Lisa Er, author of a petition to 'halt the progress of the Gene Technology Bill and instead set up a Commission of Inquiry into the health and safety of people and the environment on behalf of citizens, to allow time for wider community and stakeholder consultation.' Key Concerns: Environmental Risks: The Bill paves the way for the release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into New Zealand's unique ecosystems, risking irreversible impacts on native species, biodiversity, crops, and the country's global clean, green brand. Lack of Public Consultation: The Government has failed to meaningfully consult with Māori, scientists, and the wider public, ignoring Treaty of Waitangi obligations and indigenous rights, community concerns about food safety, cultural values, and environmental protection. Threat to Export Markets: New Zealand's primary export markets, especially in Europe and Asia, have strict GM-free requirements. The Bill endangers market access and could jeopardize billions in export earnings. Undermining Precaution: The Bill abandons the precautionary principle that has underpinned New Zealand's cautious approach to gene technology, exposing the country to unknown long-term risks. Ignoring International Best Practice: Leading nations are strengthening, not weakening, their oversight of gene technologies in response to new scientific evidence and public concern. Insufficient Public Debate: The bill has generated over 1,500 public submissions, reflecting deep divisions and strong opinions across the country. The removal of labelling GE is of considerable public concern. Why has the minimal media coverage largely focused on official statements and the potential benefits, with little attention paid to the risks, opposition viewpoints, or the broader societal debate that is unfolding in submissions and community discussions? Risk Oversight and Regulatory Gaps: the bill will open the door to unintended consequences, including ecosystem disruption, cross-contamination of crops, and unclear long-term health effects Transparency and Accountability: Some have questioned whether the bill is being rushed or if consultation has been adequate, particularly given the timing of the public submission period over the summer holidays Media outlets have an essential role in holding lawmakers accountable and ensuring transparency in the legislative process, and these risks deserve deeper journalistic investigation and public explanation. A Call to Action for the Media: We urge New Zealand's journalists and editors to fulfil their democratic duty by: - Investigating the full range of concerns about the Gene Technology Bill, including those raised in public submissions. - Highlighting the ethical, cultural, and environmental questions that remain unresolved. - Providing balanced, evidence-based coverage that empowers New Zealanders to make informed decisions about the future of gene technology in their country. 'The Gene Technology Bill represents a generational shift in New Zealand's approach to biotechnology', says Er. 'The public deserves robust, critical journalism that examines not only the promises but also the very real perils of this legislation.' Lisa Er, founder of Lisa's Hummus Issued in the public interest to encourage transparent, balanced, and investigative reporting on a matter of national importance Petition with over 4,000 signatures Petition request: That the House of Representatives halt the progress of the Gene Technology Bill and instead set up a Commission of Inquiry into the health and safety of people and the environment on behalf of citizens, to allow time for wider community and stakeholder consultation. Petition reason: I consider the Gene Technology Bill has failed to follow sound and fair processes by not consulting enough with the public and other stakeholders. I believe there is inadequate consideration of Te Tiriti obligations, and insufficient requirements to protect people and the environment from the risks of GE contamination. A range of gene editing techniques would be excluded from regulation. This would mean GE products would enter the environment and food supply untested, unregistered and unlabeled.
