Treaty Negotiations Minister Says Settlements With Iwi Can't Be 'Open Ended'
The Treaty Negotiations Minister says money and time spent on progressing settlements with iwi can't be "open ended".
Paul Goldsmith told reporters the process "can't be as long as forever."
It comes as NZ First is drafting a member's bill forcing Aotearoa's largest iwi, Ngāpuhi, into a single commercial settlement.
Last week Goldsmith said it was the government's preference to have one commercial settlement for Ngāpuhi, and on Tuesday said he wouldn't put a timeline on concluding that.
He wouldn't say whether there should be a limit on the amount of money or time spent on reaching a settlement, but said he wasn't comfortable spending as much or as long as it took.
"I don't think it can be open ended. Can't be as long as forever.
"We do need to make progress at some time, but we haven't put an exact date."
When asked if it would be within the political term, he said he wouldn't make any commitments around this, "it's only 18 months".
"There's a tension between - we don't want to impose an unrealistic deadline, but likewise, we don't want things to go on past 2040 when we want to be celebrating our bicentenary.
"We're encouraging proper movement as best we can."
He said currently the various hapū of Ngāpuhi were trying to get an agreement around a mandate to negotiate, "and we're still at that stage."
Labour's Peeni Henare - of Ngāpuhi descent - said Goldsmith's comments had "fiscal envelope tones", referring to 1994 when the then government suggested capping the amount allocated for settlements.
"It's certainly got fiscal envelope tones to it, and that's what they tried to do to our people in the 1990s.
"I suspect that while it might not be an official policy of this government, it's front of mind in terms of the expenditure on settlement."
In regards to Jones' potential Members Bill, Henare said "Ngāpuhi is unique".
"Whatever Mr Jones thinks is going to bring Ngāpuhi to the table, he is misguided if he thinks forcing a bill to bring Ngāpuhi to the table is going to do that.
"I think it's going to be a dismal failure by him and this government."
He said it would go against the "good faith" provisions that had seen settlements conclude.
"If they do that, I think they're setting a really bad precedence."
Labour leader Chris Hipkins also said he did not think sending "veiled threats" was useful. He said everyone needed to continue negotiating in good faith.
Hipkins said the National government's "hostile position" towards Māori was likely to make Treaty settlements in the next few years "very, very difficult to achieve".
He referenced the discussion around the "agree to disagree" clause, which he called an "elegant way out of the issue" of determining who was sovereign.
In 2023, the previous Labour government initialled a Deed of Settlement with East Coast iwi Te Whānau a Apanui which included an "agree-to-disagree" clause where the iwi maintained it was a sovereign nation while the Crown also maintained its own sovereignty.
Goldsmith said that was not something the government was comfortable acknowledging and that the Crown was sovereign and represented the "democratic will" of New Zealand.
Hipkins said if the government walked away from that, it would mean debates around sovereignty would again be "front and centre" of the Treaty settlement debate, which was not helpful for the country moving forward.
Ngāti Hine leader Pita Tipene told RNZ no hapū of Ngāpuhi will be subdued.
"Working together for the common good is still there in 2025 and beyond and "no colonial government then or modern government now will impose themselves on the hapū of Ngāpuhi."
On taxpayer money being spent, he said that money is being wasted "because governments have made serious mistakes in trying to impose themselves on the hapū of Ngāpuhi".
"The moment they listen to the hapū and work with hapū instead of imposing themselves or trying to impose themselves, they will save many a taxpayer dollar.
"And the taxpayer needs to know that the government has tried this in the past and failed."
He suggested the government try a different approach, given they are getting the same result from the same approach.
"They can learn a lot from the previous minister, Chris Finlayson, who realised the way that the government tried then and failed must not be repeated."
Finance Minister Nicola Willis confirmed the government had a goal of progressing and settling any outstanding Treaty claims.
"What we need to do is keep in good faith progressing our desire to negotiate."
She said it was up to Ngāpuhi to decide that they too wanted to do that.
"Settlements have proven to be a really effective tool for advancing relationships between iwi and the crown.
"I would say that any leader needs to be responsive to the needs of their people. Leaders change, but the needs of people don't tend to."
Greens co-leader Marama Davidson said the Treaty of Waitangi was not something to be settled, and wasn't about "ending something", it was an "enduring relationship".
"It needs to go on for as long as it needs to go on for."
Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour said he would support putting a timeline to Ngāpuhi that would require a decision to have been made by a certain point, but said that was ultimately up to the Treaty Negotiations Minister.
Shane Jones told reporters on Tuesday his party would be taking its proposal for how taxpayer money would be used for settlements to the next election.
"We can no longer have 20 years and beyond 20 million of squandered money, someone's gotta draw a line in the sand and stop this dysfunction."
On the agree-to-disagree issue, he said NZ First's focus was economic empowerment, not funding "unrealistic dreams about hapū sovereignty".
Jones said it had been people from Ngāpuhi who encouraged him to take this step
Tipene acknowledged there are always differing voices in any community or country, but he said the majority of people won't allow the government to impose themselves on the hapū.
"You will find some people in Ngāpuhi who, for their own reasons, want to get on with it.
"Largely, you will find that those people are not connected to the people on the ground."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
1News
7 hours ago
- 1News
Seymour defends posts accusing opponents of 'derangement syndrome'
The Deputy Prime Minister is rubbishing claims that social media posts he has made about opponents of the Regulatory Standards Bill are a breach of the Cabinet Manual. In recent days, David Seymour made a series of social media posts singling out prominent opponents of the Bill, and accusing them of suffering from "Regulatory Standards Derangement Syndrome". Wellington's mayor, Tory Whanau, accused Seymour of setting a "dangerous precedent" for how dissenting voices were treated, and laid a formal complaint with the Prime Minister over the posts. The Regulatory Standards Bill aimed to ensure regulatory decisions were "based on principles of good law-making and economic efficiency", according to Seymour, who had introduced the Bill as Minister of Regulation. Opponents criticised it as advancing corporate interests and an attack on nature and Te Tiriti. ADVERTISEMENT Seymour's targets included academics such as Dame Anne Salmond, Dr George Laking, and Metiria Turei, as well as Labour MP Willie Jackson. Dame Anne Salmond was referred to as the "victim of the day" by Seymour. (Source: Newsroom published an opinion column by Dame Anne, in which she called the bill a "dangerous piece of legislation" and said its principles were "largely inspired by libertarian ideals". In the posts, Seymour called the figures the "Victim of the Day" and set out why he believed their arguments against the Bill were wrong. In Dame Anne's case, Seymour said her "real objection seems to be that the Bill sets limits on arbitrary power". "That it dares to elevate individual rights, due process, and cost-benefit analysis over ideology. That's not a weakness, it's the point." He said Turei was "spinning conspiracies" and that Jackson had a "wild imagination". ADVERTISEMENT The posts prompted Whanau to write to the Prime Minister, accusing Seymour of orchestrating a "campaign of online harassment and intimidation." Whanau's letter said the posts were a "blatant attempt to stifle academic opinion and any dissenting opinion", and a breach of Sections 2.53 and 2.56 of the Cabinet Manual. Wellington Mayor Tory Whanau. (Source: 1News) Section 2.53 called on ministers to "conduct themselves in a manner appropriate to the office", while Section 2.56 said ministers were expected to behave in a way that upheld the highest ethical and behavioural standards. "This includes exercising a professional approach and good judgement in their interactions with the public, staff, and officials, and in all their communications, personal and professional," it says. Whanau, who at this stage has not been the subject of one of Seymour's posts, called on Christopher Luxon to investigate the matter. "For the Deputy Prime Minister to lead this online harassment campaign is quite concerning, as such actions could incite behaviour that spills into real-world violence. ADVERTISEMENT "This is irresponsible and a clear breach of public trust. We expect our leaders to keep us safe, not throw us into harm's way," she wrote. On Monday, standing in for Luxon at the post-Cabinet press conference, Seymour dismissed the criticism and accused the opponents of the bill of making incorrect statements. "There's no such breach. If people want to go out and make completely incorrect statements, then I'm going to get a bit playful and have some fun with them." He argued that pointing out there was a "curious syndrome that is causing people to say untrue things" was different to outright calling them deranged. "I could say that their incorrect statements are deliberate, and therefore they're lying. I could say they're incapable of understanding what they're saying. "I'm not saying that, I'm being a bit playful saying the only reason I can think of for all these totally factually incorrect statements about the Regulatory Standards Bill is that there's some sort of sinister syndrome out there." Labour leader Chris Hipkins said Seymour's behaviour was "inconsistent" with what was expected of MPs, particularly Ministers of the Crown. ADVERTISEMENT Labour leader Chris Hipkins. (Source: "When you're putting photos of people up with the derogatory sorts of claims that David Seymour is, that is online harassment and I don't think it's acceptable," he said. Hipkins said singling out members of the public was different to the cut and thrust of political debate between politicians. "Attacking other politicians is one thing. Attacking members of the public is something entirely different." In a follow-up column, also on Newsroom, Dame Anne said Seymour's campaign was "lame, even laughable" but also an abuse of high office, and she would formally lodge a complaint with the Cabinet Office. The Regulatory Standards Bill passed its first reading in May. Submissions on the Bill closed on Monday. ADVERTISEMENT The Finance and Expenditure Committee will consider the submissions, with its final report due by November 22nd. Labour has pledged to repeal the Regulatory Standards Bill in its first 100 days in office, should it return to government next year.
Scoop
7 hours ago
- Scoop
Treaty Negotiations Minister Says Settlements With Iwi Can't Be 'Open Ended'
The Treaty Negotiations Minister says money and time spent on progressing settlements with iwi can't be "open ended". Paul Goldsmith told reporters the process "can't be as long as forever." It comes as NZ First is drafting a member's bill forcing Aotearoa's largest iwi, Ngāpuhi, into a single commercial settlement. Last week Goldsmith said it was the government's preference to have one commercial settlement for Ngāpuhi, and on Tuesday said he wouldn't put a timeline on concluding that. He wouldn't say whether there should be a limit on the amount of money or time spent on reaching a settlement, but said he wasn't comfortable spending as much or as long as it took. "I don't think it can be open ended. Can't be as long as forever. "We do need to make progress at some time, but we haven't put an exact date." When asked if it would be within the political term, he said he wouldn't make any commitments around this, "it's only 18 months". "There's a tension between - we don't want to impose an unrealistic deadline, but likewise, we don't want things to go on past 2040 when we want to be celebrating our bicentenary. "We're encouraging proper movement as best we can." He said currently the various hapū of Ngāpuhi were trying to get an agreement around a mandate to negotiate, "and we're still at that stage." Labour's Peeni Henare - of Ngāpuhi descent - said Goldsmith's comments had "fiscal envelope tones", referring to 1994 when the then government suggested capping the amount allocated for settlements. "It's certainly got fiscal envelope tones to it, and that's what they tried to do to our people in the 1990s. "I suspect that while it might not be an official policy of this government, it's front of mind in terms of the expenditure on settlement." In regards to Jones' potential Members Bill, Henare said "Ngāpuhi is unique". "Whatever Mr Jones thinks is going to bring Ngāpuhi to the table, he is misguided if he thinks forcing a bill to bring Ngāpuhi to the table is going to do that. "I think it's going to be a dismal failure by him and this government." He said it would go against the "good faith" provisions that had seen settlements conclude. "If they do that, I think they're setting a really bad precedence." Labour leader Chris Hipkins also said he did not think sending "veiled threats" was useful. He said everyone needed to continue negotiating in good faith. Hipkins said the National government's "hostile position" towards Māori was likely to make Treaty settlements in the next few years "very, very difficult to achieve". He referenced the discussion around the "agree to disagree" clause, which he called an "elegant way out of the issue" of determining who was sovereign. In 2023, the previous Labour government initialled a Deed of Settlement with East Coast iwi Te Whānau a Apanui which included an "agree-to-disagree" clause where the iwi maintained it was a sovereign nation while the Crown also maintained its own sovereignty. Goldsmith said that was not something the government was comfortable acknowledging and that the Crown was sovereign and represented the "democratic will" of New Zealand. Hipkins said if the government walked away from that, it would mean debates around sovereignty would again be "front and centre" of the Treaty settlement debate, which was not helpful for the country moving forward. Ngāti Hine leader Pita Tipene told RNZ no hapū of Ngāpuhi will be subdued. "Working together for the common good is still there in 2025 and beyond and "no colonial government then or modern government now will impose themselves on the hapū of Ngāpuhi." On taxpayer money being spent, he said that money is being wasted "because governments have made serious mistakes in trying to impose themselves on the hapū of Ngāpuhi". "The moment they listen to the hapū and work with hapū instead of imposing themselves or trying to impose themselves, they will save many a taxpayer dollar. "And the taxpayer needs to know that the government has tried this in the past and failed." He suggested the government try a different approach, given they are getting the same result from the same approach. "They can learn a lot from the previous minister, Chris Finlayson, who realised the way that the government tried then and failed must not be repeated." Finance Minister Nicola Willis confirmed the government had a goal of progressing and settling any outstanding Treaty claims. "What we need to do is keep in good faith progressing our desire to negotiate." She said it was up to Ngāpuhi to decide that they too wanted to do that. "Settlements have proven to be a really effective tool for advancing relationships between iwi and the crown. "I would say that any leader needs to be responsive to the needs of their people. Leaders change, but the needs of people don't tend to." Greens co-leader Marama Davidson said the Treaty of Waitangi was not something to be settled, and wasn't about "ending something", it was an "enduring relationship". "It needs to go on for as long as it needs to go on for." Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour said he would support putting a timeline to Ngāpuhi that would require a decision to have been made by a certain point, but said that was ultimately up to the Treaty Negotiations Minister. Shane Jones told reporters on Tuesday his party would be taking its proposal for how taxpayer money would be used for settlements to the next election. "We can no longer have 20 years and beyond 20 million of squandered money, someone's gotta draw a line in the sand and stop this dysfunction." On the agree-to-disagree issue, he said NZ First's focus was economic empowerment, not funding "unrealistic dreams about hapū sovereignty". Jones said it had been people from Ngāpuhi who encouraged him to take this step Tipene acknowledged there are always differing voices in any community or country, but he said the majority of people won't allow the government to impose themselves on the hapū. "You will find some people in Ngāpuhi who, for their own reasons, want to get on with it. "Largely, you will find that those people are not connected to the people on the ground."
Scoop
7 hours ago
- Scoop
David Seymour Defends Social Media Posts Accusing Regulatory Standards Opponents Of 'Derangement Syndrome'
The Deputy Prime Minister is rubbishing claims that social media posts he has made about opponents of the Regulatory Standards Bill are a breach of the Cabinet Manual. In recent days, David Seymour made a series of social media posts singling out prominent opponents of the Bill, and accusing them of suffering from "Regulatory Standards Derangement Syndrome." Wellington's mayor, Tory Whanau, accused Seymour of setting a "dangerous precedent" for how dissenting voices were treated, and laid a formal complaint with the Prime Minister over the posts. The Regulatory Standards Bill aimed to ensure regulatory decisions were "based on principles of good law-making and economic efficiency," according to Seymour, who had introduced the Bill as Minister of Regulation. Opponents criticised it as advancing corporate interests, and an attack on nature and Te Tiriti. Seymour's targets included academics such as Dame Anne Salmond, Dr George Laking, and Metiria Turei, as well as Labour MP Willie Jackson. Newsroom published an opinion column by Dame Anne, in which she called the bill a "dangerous piece of legislation" and said its principles were "largely inspired by libertarian ideals." In the posts, Seymour called the figures the "Victim of the Day" and set out why he believed their arguments against the Bill were wrong. In Dame Anne's case, Seymour said her "real objection seems to be that the Bill sets limits on arbitrary power. That it dares to elevate individual rights, due process, and cost-benefit analysis over ideology. That's not a weakness, it's the point." He said Turei was "spinning conspiracies" and that Jackson had a "wild imagination." The posts prompted Whanau to write to the Prime Minister, accusing Seymour of orchestrating a "campaign of online harassment and intimidation." Whanau's letter said the posts were a "blatant attempt to stifle academic opinion and any dissenting opinion," and a breach of Sections 2.53 and 2.56 of the Cabinet Manual. Section 2.53 called on ministers to "conduct themselves in a manner appropriate to the office," while Section 2.56 said ministers were expected to behave in a way that upheld the highest ethical and behavioural standards. "This includes exercising a professional approach and good judgement in their interactions with the public, staff, and officials, and in all their communications, personal and professional," it says. Whanau, who at this stage has not been the subject of one of Seymour's posts, called on Christopher Luxon to investigate the matter. "For the Deputy Prime Minister to lead this online harassment campaign is quite concerning, as such actions could incite behaviour that spills into real-world violence. "This is irresponsible and a clear breach of public trust. We expect our leaders to keep us safe, not throw us into harm's way," she wrote. On Monday, standing in for Luxon at the post-Cabinet press conference, Seymour dismissed the criticism, and accused the opponents of the bill of making incorrect statements. "There's no such breach. If people want to go out and make completely incorrect statements, then I'm going to get a bit playful and have some fun with them." He argued that pointing out there was a "curious syndrome that is causing people to say untrue things" was different to outright calling them deranged. "I could say that their incorrect statements are deliberate, and therefore they're lying. I could say they're incapable of understanding what they're saying. "I'm not saying that, I'm being a bit playful saying the only reason I can think of for all these totally factually incorrect statements about the Regulatory Standards Bill is that there's some sort of sinister syndrome out there." Labour leader Chris Hipkins said Seymour's behaviour was "inconsistent" with what was expected of MPs, particularly Ministers of the Crown. "When you're putting photos of people up with the derogatory sorts of claims that David Seymour is, that is online harassment and I don't think it's acceptable," he said. Hipkins said singling out members of the public was different to the cut and thrust of political debate between politicians. "Attacking other politicians is one thing. Attacking members of the public is something entirely different." In a follow-up column, also on Newsroom, Dame Anne said Seymour's campaign was "lame, even laughable" but also an abuse of high office, and she would formally lodge a complaint with the Cabinet Office. The Regulatory Standards Bill passed its first reading in May. Submissions on the Bill closed on Monday. The Finance and Expenditure Committee will consider the submissions, with its final report due by November 22nd. Labour has pledged to repeal the Regulatory Standards Bill in its first 100 days in office, should it return to government next year.
