Progressing Ngāti Hāua Settlement At Pace
Hon Paul Goldsmith
Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations
The Government is striving forward with Treaty negotiations at pace as the Ngāti Hāua Claims Settlement Bill passes its first reading in Parliament today, Treaty Negotiations Minister Paul Goldsmith says.
'I am delighted to be able to move forward with this settlement just months after the Crown and Ngāti Hāua signed a Deed in Taumarunui.
'This is testament to Ngāti Hāua's negotiation team and the Government's priority to make significant progress in the Treaty negotiations space.
'It is an honour to welcome Ngāti Hāua to Parliament today. The Bill marks the beginning of the last stage of the iwi's eight-year journey to settlement.
'Today is about looking forward to the future, while acknowledging the past and the long and difficult journey it has taken to get here.'
Key elements of the redress include:
Cultural redress including the return of 64 culturally significant sites like the land at the confluence of the Whanganui and Ongarue rivers (Ngā Huinga).
The payment of $19 million in financial redress to enable the economic revitalisation of Ngāti Hāua.
Statutory pardons for two Ngāti Hāua ancestors who were arrested and treated with exceptional harshness in the 1840s, one of whom was executed.
Ngāti Hāua is an iwi based in the central North Island, centred around Taumarunui. It is a population of approximately 2,500 people.
A copy of the Deed of Settlement is available online at: Te Tari Whakatau - Ngāti Hāua.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
2 hours ago
- Scoop
Keynote Speech: WasteMINZ Conference
Hon Penny Simmonds Minister for the Environment Kia ora tatou. My warmest greetings to you all. It's a pleasure to be here with you at this year's WasteMINZ Conference — the flagship event for New Zealand's waste, resource recovery, and contaminated land sectors. For over 30 years, this conference has been a space for industry leaders and innovators to come together — to be inspired, to share ideas, and to shape the future of this essential work. Thank you for the opportunity to join you today. As I begin, I'd like to acknowledge Parul Sood, Chair of the WasteMINZ Board, along with the board members, CEO Nic Quilty and her team, and all of today's delegates. I also want to recognise the ongoing work of WasteMINZ members — your contribution to the sector is important and appreciated. Today, I'd like to update you on several key areas I'm working on as Minister for the Environment. Over the past year and a half, I've been focused on delivering the Government's priorities for waste, contaminated sites, and broader environmental challenges. We know the waste sector has long-standing issues. But these challenges come with opportunities to improve outcomes for both the natural world and our communities. Before I expand on the Government's work on waste, I'd like to start with some announcements. Last year, as part of Budget 2024, I announced the Government has changed the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 to allow the waste disposal levy to be spent on a wider range of activities. As part of this, levy funds were allowed to support local authorities with the costs of managing waste from emergencies. We know the frequency and magnitude of emergency events are increasing, partly due to the rise in severe weather events. Emergency events often generate large volumes of waste, which needs to be dealt with quickly. Today, I am pleased to confirm that we have now established emergency waste funding. The funding will support councils with the cost of managing waste following an emergency, including repairing or replacing damaged waste infrastructure. The Canterbury and Kaikōura earthquakes, recent cyclones, the Auckland Anniversary floods, and many other large-scale events have underscored the importance of resilient waste management and minimisation facilities and services. So far, the costs of managing waste caused by these events have been dealt with on an ad-hoc basis, with no standing funds available to support councils. The emergency waste funding will give councils timely access to funding to deal with waste in the aftermath of emergency events. This will reduce the financial burden of these events on central and local government. The simple application process means councils will be able to quickly and easily access funding. Waste management in emergency events is a critical service to get up and running quickly, to reduce public health risks and support communities to get back on their feet. This new funding will help councils and communities when they need it most. Now, I would like to draw your attention to a new report on construction and demolition waste, which I know is a topic you will be keenly interested in. Construction projects are essential to growing our economy. However, they also leave behind a staggering amount of waste, which places a burden on New Zealand's landfills and the environment. Yesterday, the Ministry for the Environment published the first national baseline report for construction and demolition waste. This baseline measure is the first of its kind in New Zealand. It will help us evaluate the state of construction and demolition waste, giving us a starting point for comparing changes over time. The national baseline report provides an overview of how much construction and demolition waste New Zealand is sending to landfill, and what materials make up this waste stream. The results show that construction and demolition waste is New Zealand's largest waste stream and highlight the significant role that surplus soil and rubble play. To cover off a few key statistics from the report: An estimated 5.25 million tonnes of construction and demolition waste was disposed at levied facilities (class 1-4) in 2023. This represents almost 70 per cent of all waste disposed at levied facilities. Of all levied construction and demolition waste disposed, nearly 80 per cent of that waste is soil or rubble. Of the remaining construction and demolition waste, timber, plastics, plasterboard and textiles (i.e. carpet) make up notable proportions of the overall waste stream. Further to these findings, as many of you will know, last month I met with the WasteMINZ sector group on surplus soils. This was to discuss the group's proposal to develop a national soils management framework through a Waste Minimisation Fund grant. I would like to thank Nic Quilty, Parul Sood, Rod Lidgard and James Corbett for taking the time to meet with me to discuss this important issue. I understand managing surplus soils is a long-standing challenge, with no national rules or clear guidance on how to reuse them. The national baseline report highlights the scale of the problem. Valuable soil resources are being lost to landfill, with clean or slightly contaminated soils often unnecessarily landfilled. This contributes to landfill overuse, emissions, and high project costs. For these reasons, I am pleased to confirm today that I support the WasteMINZ proposal to fund a national soils management framework. Ministry for the Environment officials will be working with WasteMINZ to develop a phased approach for addressing these issues. Details are still to be finalised, and the sector will be kept updated. Following these announcements, I'd like to now move on to our waste strategy and work programme. You may be aware that I recently launched the Government's strategy to reduce waste and improve how it's managed in New Zealand. The strategy sets out the Government's approach to reducing the environmental and economic harm caused by waste. Alongside that, I confirmed a comprehensive waste work programme to implement the strategy's goals. You'll be aware of some changes made late last year to existing waste policies. We're reducing costs to ratepayers by leaving decisions about kerbside collections, including food scraps, up to local councils. The Waste Minimisation Fund will continue to support councils that choose to adopt these services. We've also removed the 2025 deadline to phase out all PVC and polystyrene food and drink packaging. We have had a positive response from industry on this decision as it gives them more time to adopt alternatives, while ensuring that new regulations are practical and workable. These adjustments support our waste strategy while minimising cost-of-living pressures. Our waste work programme is well underway, and I'd like to start by highlighting the proposed amendments to our waste legislation. These changes would replace the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 and the Litter Act 1979, with the aim of reducing inefficiencies and providing greater clarity around the roles of central government, local government, and the wider waste sector. We recently consulted on these proposals, which aim to make the legislative framework clearer and more effective. Consultation closed on 1 June, and I want to sincerely thank everyone who took the time to make a submission. Officials are now carefully considering that feedback to help inform the policy development. The aim is to introduce the new legislation before the next general election. We also recently asked New Zealanders to share their views on proposed regulations to improve the way waste from commonly used farm plastic products is managed. We're proposing new regulations to support a national product stewardship scheme covering agrichemical containers and other farm plastics, such as bale wrap. As someone who has lived on a farm almost all my life, I know how important this is. It would bring together the services of existing schemes Agrecovery and Plasback, simplifying recycling and disposal for farmers and growers, and expanding access into a nationwide service. This scheme would be funded through an advance disposal fee and offer free, nationwide take-back services. And it won't just benefit farmers—sectors like forestry, tourism, hospitality, and manufacturing could also participate. We have had strong engagement and feedback throughout the consultation process. Thank you to everyone who shared their valuable insights. In addition to the consultation on farm plastics, I'd like to provide a brief update on the progress of other product stewardship schemes. Product stewardship schemes are designed to ensure everyone in a product's life cycle shares responsibility to reduce its environmental impact at the end of its life. The Tyrewise scheme is a strong example of this principle in action. Tyrewise addresses the estimated 6.5 million tyres that reach end of life in New Zealand each year. Since going live last September, the scheme has collected and repurposed more than 2.8 million tyres into fuel and other useful products. It is also on track to exceed its first-year targets – an incredible achievement. I commend everyone involved in the development and daily operation of the scheme for their dedication and impact. I also want to acknowledge the efforts of everyone involved in the accredited synthetic refrigerants scheme, known as Cool-Safe. This scheme has been operating since 1993 and has now successfully collected over 600,000 kilograms of synthetic refrigerants, significantly reducing their environmental impact. We are actively working with this scheme and the wider industry to support the responsible end-of-life management of these gases. Earlier this year I received the Plastic Packaging Product Stewardship scheme co-design recommendations report. I want to sincerely thank everyone who contributed to this report – it represents the culmination of over two years of dedicated work. We will carefully consider the recommendations and continue to work with stakeholders to plan the next steps in developing this important scheme. Work is also progressing on electrical and electronic products (e-waste). I'm aware safe battery disposal is a growing concern for the sector, as improperly disposed of batteries pose significant fire risks. There is currently a high level of activity in the battery space, with multiple stakeholders across industry and government actively engaged. This momentum is encouraging, and I look forward to seeing continued progress toward a safe, more sustainable approach to managing e-waste in New Zealand. Another area of focus focuses is remediating contaminated sites, including historic landfills vulnerable to weather events. Historic landfills can be compromised by erosion, storm surges, rainfall events, high river levels and flooding. There are hundreds of historic landfills and contaminated sites around New Zealand vulnerable to severe weather. Remediating these sites is vital for protecting our environment from harm. No-one wants a repeat of the Fox River landfill event in 2019. Communities should not be left dealing with the aftermath of old landfill breaches. Acting early to remediate these sites also saves money in the long run. Councils have been asking for more support – and now they have it. Last year, I opened the new Contaminated Sites and Vulnerable Landfills Fund, a $20 million fund to support councils and landowners. This fund replaces the previous Contaminated Sites Remediation Fund and significantly increases support. Regional, unitary and territorial authorities can now apply. The Ministry is actively supporting councils with applications. There has been great progress already, like the remediation project at Tāhunanui Beach in Nelson where $2.9 million of Government support has helped remove more than 10,000 cubic metres of contaminated material from underneath the beach carpark. This project is a great example of what this new fund can support. More information is on the Ministry for the Environment website. I would like to now move onto our work in improving recycling. Standardising the materials accepted in kerbside recycling was a vital first step — sending a clear signal to businesses and households about what can be recovered through kerbside systems across New Zealand. Thank you to everyone who helped develop this policy. There is still work to do, but the new Recycling Leadership Forum is a great next step. The forum is exploring challenging kerbside issues, including the tricky items that don't currently fit the system. I'm watching their work with interest and expect to receive their first report on potential solutions soon. Plastic is part of daily life, and while it has benefits, it creates far-reaching waste problems. On the international stage, New Zealand is playing a part in negotiating a treaty to tackle plastic pollution globally. Our delegation is heading to the next round of negotiations in Geneva in August. Domestically, we continue to reduce waste and support recycling innovation. The latest Our Environment 2025 report shows that our landfills received 11 per cent less waste per capita in 2023 than the peak in 2018. The Waste Minimisation Fund is providing grant funding to upgrade resource recovery centres, transfer stations, and materials recovery facilities to increase the volume and quality of recovered plastic materials. The fund is also supporting the construction of processing infrastructure to facilitate the reuse of this recovered material, stimulating the local economy and reducing our reliance on overseas markets. We're managing hard-to-recycle plastics and working with industry to move away from problematic packaging like PVC and polystyrene. Thank you for your efforts. I understand that tomorrow, Ministry for the Environment officials will be speaking to the waste work programme in more detail. I encourage you to attend and ask any questions you may have. In closing, I want to thank you for your time, for your contributions, and for your commitment to innovation. Your leadership matters. Together, we are building a more resilient and sustainable New Zealand—for our people, our economy, and our environment. I wish you all the very best for the rest of the conference. Thank you.
NZ Herald
3 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Mark Rutte warns Britain to boost defence or ‘learn to speak Russian'
People in Britain had 'better learn to speak Russian' if the Government does not ramp up defence spending, Nato chief Mark Rutte has suggested. Asked by the Telegraph if Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves should increase taxes to fund a defence budget of 5% of GDP, Rutte said that
Otago Daily Times
3 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
The Regulatory Standards Bill: What is it and why the controversy?
By Nik Dirga of RNZ Explainer - A new bill would make big changes to how legislation is drafted in New Zealand, but has also drawn considerable criticism as it works its way through Parliament. The Regulatory Standards Bill presented by ACT Party leader David Seymour is complex, but the heart of the matter is about how the rules and regulations that we all live by are put together, and whether that can or should be done better. It's now out for public comment through submissions to the select committee, due by 23 June. The bill has been called everything from a libertarian power grab to a common-sense solution to cutting red tape. But what's it all about, really? RNZ is here to tell you what you need to know. What is the bill? The bill proposes a set of regulatory principles that lawmakers, agencies and ministries would have to consider in regulation design. Those principles cover the rule of law, personal liberties, taking of property, taxes, fees and levies and the role of courts. Makers of legislation would be required to assess proposed and existing legislation against those principles. The definitions in the legislation as drafted set out Seymour's ideal for what makes good law, but are contested. (See end of article for a complete summary of the principles.) Seymour called the principles "focused on the effect of legislation on existing interests and liberties," while Victoria University of Wellington law professor Dean Knight said they are "strongly libertarian in character". The bill would set up a Regulatory Standards Board to consider how legislation measures up to the principles. Members of the board would be appointed by the Minister for Regulation, currently Seymour. In putting the bill forward, Seymour said: "In a high-cost economy, regulation isn't neutral - it's a tax on growth. This government is committed to clearing the path of needless regulations by improving how laws are made." The bill wants politicians to show their workings, he said. "This bill turns the explanation from politicians' 'because we said so' into 'because here is the justification according to a set of principles'." The bill was part of the coalition agreements National, ACT and New Zealand First agreed to in 2023 which included a pledge to improve the quality of regulation and pass a "Regulatory Standards Act as soon as practicable" (page 4). The bill passed its first reading in Parliament on 23 May. It is now before the Finance and Expenditure Select Committee and open for public feedback. You can read the complete text of the bill right here: Read the Regulatory Standards Bill 2025. The government's departmental disclosure statement also gives further information regarding the scrutiny of the bill. Okay, but what is regulation, anyway? The Ministry of Regulation, which was formed just last year with Seymour named as the minister in charge, says that "regulation is all around us in our daily lives". "It's in the workplace, the sports field, the home, the shopping mall - in our cities and the great outdoors. Regulation protects our rights and safety, our property and the environment." But what does that actually mean? "Fundamentally, it's a law, something that tells you you have to do something or something that tells you you can't do something," said constitutional law expert Graeme Edgeler. Aren't there already legislative guidelines for Parliament? Yes, such as the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee (LDAC), which produce legislative guidelines and advises on legislative design. "There already are a range of 'best practice' lawmaking guides and practices within government, such as the LDAC's 'Legislation Guidelines', Regulatory Impact Statements, and departmental disclosure statements under the Legislation Act," University of Otago law professor Andrew Geddis said. Seymour has said the bill is about adding transparency, not enforcement. In an FAQ on the bill, the Ministry for Regulation says the bill "does not require new legislation to be consistent with the principles". "It requires that legislation is assessed for any inconsistency with the principles, and that this assessment is made available to the public. Agencies and ministers are required to be transparent about any identified inconsistencies, but this would not stop new legislation from progressing." Geddis said while the bill was intended to operate in the executive branch of government only, it may have implications for the courts. "Once the particular standards of 'good lawmaking' included in the RSB are written into our law by Parliament, the courts cannot but take notice of that fact," he said. "And so, these standards may become relevant to how the courts interpret and apply legislation, or how they review the way the executive government makes regulatory decisions." Haven't ACT tried to pass something like this bill before? That's right - similar legislation has been introduced to the House three times, and failed to become law three times. Previous tries saw the 2006 Regulatory Responsibility Bill Member's Bill by former ACT leader Rodney Hide; the Regulatory Standards Bill in 2011 also introduced by Hyde and produced by the Regulatory Responsibility Taskforce; and a 2021 Member's Bill by Seymour. Unlike previous versions of the bill, the 2025 iteration adds a regulatory standards board to consider issues, removing courts from the equation "in relation to a recourse mechanism for legislation inconsistent with the principles". The bill has been somewhat softened in this incarnation, Edgeler said. "This is the weakest form of the regulatory standards proposal that there has been." He also noted that future governments could repeal or amend the bill as well. And as the Ministry for Regulation says, "any recommendations made by the Regulatory Standards Board would be non-binding". "It won't stop any future government doing something it actually wants to do," Edgeler said. So what are some of the concerns about the bill? The bill has drawn considerable feedback, with earlier public submissions strongly negative. After the discussion document was launched on the bill in November, the Ministry of Regulation received about 23,000 submissions. Of those, 88 percent opposed the bill, 0.33 percent - or 76 submissions - supported or partially supported it, and about 12 percent did not have a clear position, the ministry reported. Seymour has since dismissed the negative submissions and alleged some of them were made by 'bots'. Among the top concerns the ministry's analysis of the feedback found were that the bill would "attempt to solve a problem that doesn't exist"; "result in duplication and increase complexity in lawmaking" and "undermine future Parliaments and democracy". Bill opponent University of Auckland Emeritus Professor Jane Kelsey has said the bill is too in line with minority party ACT's ideology and will "bind governments forever to the neoliberal logic of economic freedom". Other government agencies have also weighed in. In a report on the bill after launching an urgent inquiry, the Waitangi Tribunal found that "if the Regulatory Standards Act were enacted without meaningful consultation with Māori, it would constitute a breach of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, specifically the principles of partnership and active protection". It called for an immediate halt to the bill's advancement to allow more engagement with Māori. In a submission received by Newsroom under the Official Information Act, the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee said it had "misgivings about the capacity of this bill to offer improvement" and it might have "significant unintended consequences". In terms of the financial impact, a regulatory impact statement by the Ministry for Regulation estimated the bill would cost a minimum of $18 million a year across the public service under the minister's preferred approach. Seymour said the cost of policy work across the government was $870m a year, and the bill was about 2 percent of that. And in an interim regulatory impact statement, the Ministry of Regulation itself expressed some ambivalence about the bill. The ministry said its preferred approach was to "build on the disclosure statement regime ... and create new legislative provisions". It said it supported the overall objectives of the bill but "that an enhanced disclosure statement regime with enhanced obligations, will achieve many of the same benefits" and also impose fewer costs. Does it remove the Treaty of Waitangi from governance? It does not say that, but the bill's silence on Māori representation in government has troubled opponents. "On the consultation point, Māori clearly weren't adequately engaged with before the RSB was created and introduced into the House," Geddis said. "The Waitangi Tribunal's report on the RSB is unequivocal on this issue." Geddis said in contrast, that LDAC guidelines contain an entire chapter of guidance on how Te Tiriti should be considered. "That very silence creates uncertainty as to how the principles in the RSB are meant to interact with these principles of the Treaty." Under principles of responsible legislation outlined at the start the bill, there is a statement that "every person is equal before the law," which some have said dismisses Māori concerns. Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer at the bill's first reading last month attacked the bill. "If you look through the whole 37 pages, which I encourage that you don't, the silence on the impact for Te Tiriti is on purpose. The bill promotes equal treatment before the law but it opens the door [for] government to attack every Māori equity initiative." Seymour has insisted Māori voices were heard through public consultation. "We had 144 Iwi-based groups who submitted... If that's not enough, then I don't know what is," he told RNZ's Guyon Espiner. What does the bill say about property rights? A section that has drawn attention says "legislation should not take or impair, or authorise the taking or impairment of, property without the consent of the owner unless there is a good justification for the taking or impairment; and fair compensation for the taking or impairment is provided to the owner; and the compensation is provided, to the extent practicable, by or on behalf of the persons who obtain the benefit of the taking or impairment". The question many opponents have raised is what "compensation" might mean and who might seek it. "Applied to the real world, this means that anything the government does that decreases corporate profits opens it up to possible legal action," bill opponent Ryan Ward wrote for E-Tangata. What do supporters say? Writing for the New Zealand Institute, Bryce Wilkinson said criticisms of the bill as "a 'dangerous ideological' drive towards limited government are arrant nonsense". "The bill itself is a mild transparency measure," Wilkinson has also written. "The Regulatory Standards Bill's modest aim is to make wilful lack of disclosure harder." "At the end of the day we are putting critical principles into lawmaking," Seymour told Newsroom. "We know bureaucrats don't like this law. For New Zealanders that's a good thing." So how can we have our say on it? Now is the time to do it. Public submissions to the Finance and Expenditure Committee will be accepted until 1pm Monday 23 June. Submissions are publicly released and will be published to the Parliament website. What happens after that? Does the bill look likely to pass? Here's what happens next. The select committee is due to report back on submissions by 22 November, although Seymour has asked that to be moved up to 23 September, Newsroom reported. After the select committee, the bill would proceed to a second reading, then a committee of the Whole House, and a final vote in the third reading, which would need support from more than half of Parliament to pass. If the bill passes, it would likely come into effect on 1 January 2026. While the Treaty Principles Bill, also championed by ACT, failed in Parliament in April and was voted down by every party but ACT, Edgeler said the path for this one was less shaky. "This one, of course, is more likely to pass because the promise in the coalition agreement is to pass it," Edgeler said. That agreement requires National to support the bill all the way through, which is different to the agreement's clause on the Treaty Principles Bill. By extension it also requires New Zealand First to support it all the way through because their agreement requires them to support the agreement with ACT. "Whether it passes in the exact form, who knows, whether New Zealand First continues its support or insists on changes which might drastically alter it, or even water it down further, is a different question." NZ First leader Winston Peters has described the bill as a "work in progress" and Geddis said: "It is possible that the changes NZ First want so alter the RSB's content that it ceases to deliver what ACT wants it to, creating a stand-off between the two coalition partners." Geddis agreed the coalition agreement makes it difficult for National to not support the bill. "Given that these agreements are treated as being something close to holy writ, and given how much political capital David Seymour is investing in this bill, it seems unlikely that National will feel able to withhold its support. That then leaves NZ First as being, in effect, the decider." One last question - what were those regulatory principles again? From the bill itself, in summary, the principles are: • the importance of maintaining consistency with various aspects of the rule of law; and • legislation should not unduly diminish a person's liberty, personal security, freedom of choice or action, or various property rights, except as is necessary to provide for, or protect, any such liberty, freedom, or right of another person; and • legislation should not take or impair property without the owner's consent unless certain requirements are met. The requirements include that there is a good justification for the taking or impairment and fair compensation is provided to the owner; and • the importance of maintaining consistency with section 22 of the Constitution Act 1986. Section 22 of that Act provides that it is not lawful for the Crown, except by or under an Act, to levy a tax, borrow money, or spend public money; and • legislation should impose a fee for goods or services only if the amount of the fee bears a proper relation to the cost of providing the good or service; and • legislation should impose a levy to fund an objective or a function only if the levy is reasonable in relation to: - the benefits that the payers are likely to derive or the risks attributable to them; and - the costs of efficiently achieving the objective or providing the function; and • legislation should preserve the courts' constitutional role of ascertaining the meaning of legislation; and • legislation should make rights and liberties, or obligations, dependent on administrative power only if the power is sufficiently defined and subject to appropriate review; and • the importance of consulting, to the extent that is reasonably practicable, the persons that the responsible agency considers will be directly and materially affected by the legislation; and • the importance of carefully evaluating various matters as part of a good law-making process. These include: - the issue concerned; and - the effectiveness of any relevant existing law; and - the public interest; and - any reasonably available options (including non-legislative options); and • who is likely to benefit and who is likely to suffer a detriment; and • legislation should be expected to produce benefits that exceed the costs of the legislation to the public or persons; and • legislation should be the most effective, efficient, and proportionate response to the issue concerned that is available.
