logo
Iwi-Crown Relations On The Line After Scathing Audit

Iwi-Crown Relations On The Line After Scathing Audit

Scoop01-05-2025

Article – RNZ
Iwi and hap are legally entitled to their Treaty Settlements, but a new report from the auditor general has found widespread breaches by the Crown .
Sharon Brettkelly, for The Detail
A new report from the auditor general found that every public agency audited had difficulties meeting at least some of their Treaty settlement obligations to iwi and hapū.
The auditor general has put public agencies on notice to do a better job of ensuring iwi and hapū get what they are legally entitled to in their Treaty settlements, after a scathing report on their performance.
The agencies, from local councils to government departments and state owned enterprises, have been given a year by auditor general John Ryan after his audit showed that many public organisations are failing to fulfill their commitments on Treaty settlements.
Ryan says that is unacceptable and he warns that the public sector and the government face a greater risk of legal action because they have failed to fulfill the settlements.
He tells The Detail why this audit is one of the most significant projects in his time as auditor general.
'It's significant financially, it's significant constitutionally, and it's a big accountability question for the public sector to deliver against its commitments. And it's about resetting its relationship with iwi and hapū,' he says.
Many people think that when a Treaty claim is settled with an iwi or hapū and the government has made its apology, it's done and dusted, but the settlements are actually 'massively complicated and span a number of years'.
The report makes it clear that since Te Tiriti o Waitangi was signed, the Crown has not met its obligations.
It says that about 150 public organisations have about 12,000 individual contractual and legal commitments under about 80 settlements, with about 70 groups.
To date, $2.738 billion of financial and commercial redress has been transferred through settlements.
The public organisations that it audited are responsible for 70 percent of individual commitments – more than 8000. The audit found that every one of the public organisations had difficulties meeting some of their commitments as the settlements intended.
'The types of things we've seen and pointed out in our report is that the government may have committed to relationship agreements and those are not being put in place [and] to letters of introduction which have not been put in place.
'But probably the more significant ones we talk to are things like rights of first refusal on particular properties where either they were not put in place and they should have been. Some properties we saw had been sold even though they should have had a right of first refusal given to iwi.
'We also saw Crown forest licensed land not being transferred within the timeframe that was given, which is five years.'
Ryan says the public sector started late on the transfer and did not meet the five-year windows.
Once the deed is signed, a new phase begins, says RNZ Māori news editor Taiha Molyneux.
'It shifts iwi from one phase of navigating a system that wasn't created or designed by them to another phase of navigating a whole other series of processes, policies, acts to start progressing forward.'
Many of the problems highlighted in the report stem from the leadership of the government agencies, most of whom are non-Māori and do not have key performance indicators (KPIs) or responsibilities that align with meeting the requirements of the Treaty settlements.
Molyneux says iwi and hapū leaders are pessimistic about the system changing, but the younger Māori are giving them hope.
'There is a much more powerful voice coming up because there's these young ones that are coming up through the kōhanga that are confident in te ao Māori and te ao Pākehā that are using tools to reach more people. That's definitely something I haven't seen of this magnitude before.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Broadcasting Standards Authority upholds RNZ broadcast
Broadcasting Standards Authority upholds RNZ broadcast

RNZ News

time2 hours ago

  • RNZ News

Broadcasting Standards Authority upholds RNZ broadcast

Photo: RNZ / Cole Eastham-Farrelly The Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA) has agreed with RNZ that a 'fleeting' reference to overseas legislation in a broadcast interview - about the risks of young people developing problem gambling habits from playing video games - was not materially misleading. The BSA has not upheld Leon Xiao's complaint about the December 2024 Morning Report interview with the Problem Gambling Foundation's Director of Advocacy and Public Health. In March, the Media Council upheld a complaint by Mr Xiao about an online article based on the same interview. The BSA decision is available here . The earlier Media Council ruling is available here: Xiao and Radio New Zealand Ltd - 2025-014 (9 June 2025) .

The problem with making ‘educational attainment' the key objective for schools
The problem with making ‘educational attainment' the key objective for schools

The Spinoff

time5 hours ago

  • The Spinoff

The problem with making ‘educational attainment' the key objective for schools

Honouring a promise in the National-Act coalition agreement, a bill that proposes to demote the place of te Tiriti in the official objectives for state schools is part of a concerning wider pattern, argues Jessie Moss. At first glance, it might look straightforward. The government's Education and Training Amendment Bill (No 2) proposes to 'enshrine educational attainment as the paramount objective for state schools'. But scratch the surface of the bill, on which submissions close this week, and you quickly start asking, educational attainment for whom? Spoiler alert: it's not Māori or disabled tamariki. It all gets alarming in section 127, which sets out the objectives for school boards in governing state and state-integrated kura and schools. That's where the government pulls apart education's current focus on inclusive, authentic, localised and culturally affirming schooling for all tamariki. You can trace it back to Act's coalition deal with National. Act wanted (and National agreed to) 'amend the Education and Training Act 2020 to enshrine educational attainment as the paramount objective for state schools'. And so here we are, with almost that same wording typed into this bill. The problem is that by promoting one objective as 'paramount', you demote all others – and the objectives we currently have are pretty bloody important. They are: That every student is able to attain their highest possible standard in educational achievement. That schools are safe for students and staff and give effect to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the Human Rights Act 1993. And, that they take steps to eliminate racism, stigma, bullying and other discrimination. That schools are inclusive of and cater for students with 'differing needs'. And, critically, that schools give effect to te Tiriti o Waitangi. Educators, disability rights groups and Māori fought to have the current objectives introduced in order to reverse the equity gap and address institutional racism and ableism in education. The Act Party has no record of evidence-based education policy, but it does have a record of protesting loudly against te Tiriti and equity-based approaches. When this bill was first proposed in October last year, Māori, as well those working in education and children's rights, scrutinised it and then tried to stop this rollback. The Ministry of Education's summary of consultation on the bill (prior to it heading to select committee) shows 80.5% of submitters opposed giving one objective 'paramount' status. Submitters said, 'educational achievement [was] already a key focus of schools and their core responsibility'. They felt the bill's changes 'would deprioritise the other objectives' and 'undermine the requirement to give effect to Te Tiriti'. These submissions explained what should be obvious; that educational achievement can't occur without focus on te Tiriti o Waitangi, inclusion and wellbeing. The consultation on the bill also proposed removing 'unnecessary references' to the Human Rights Act and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in the objectives. It was only submissions by Māori, educators and disability rights groups that saved the references. As for demoting te Tiriti o Waitangi? Educator Kārena Ngata puts it simply: 'Our obligations to te Tiriti o Waitangi should be realised in every aspect of the school's systems, policies and practices.' Māori tino rangatiratanga over Māori education has been sidelined, and the bill also weakens schools' responsibilities for engaging with mana whenua and local communities. Given the impact for Māori, you'd expect consultation would be solid, but the Regulatory Impact Statement for the bill said otherwise, noting there was 'inadequate time for comprehensive consultation with Māori, iwi and hapū'. Once again, the government has decided on a timeframe too short for real engagement. Zoom out and this bill is just part of a wider pattern emerging in education. This government has already downgraded te Tiriti in the New Zealand curriculum, scrapped Te Ahu o Te Reo Māori language programme for teachers, and defunded resource teachers of Māori. So, strap in, because here we go again. The government is taking another crack at putting Māori second in education. And that diminishes education for us all.

Prime Minister's 'worthies' insult concerns scientists
Prime Minister's 'worthies' insult concerns scientists

Otago Daily Times

time6 hours ago

  • Otago Daily Times

Prime Minister's 'worthies' insult concerns scientists

By Eloise Gibson of RNZ A British scientist says it's concerning Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has dismissed him and other climate scientists as "worthies" for raising concerns about plans to lower New Zealand's methane emissions target. Paul Behrens, the global professor of environmental change at Oxford University, said the government appeared to be trying to deflect attention from questions about the country's agricultural greenhouse gases. "I think the characterisation of climate scientists as 'worthies' reflects a really concerning dismissal of evidence-based policy making," he said. "While the Prime Minister's remarks may aim to deflect criticism of New Zealand's agricultural emissions profile they overlook the clear global consensus that methane reductions are critical to limiting near term warming." Luxon denied he was dismissing science or deflecting attention from this country's farming emissions. "What a load of rubbish. My point was very clear - those scientists can write to leaders of 194 countries before they send it to me," he said. Though a decision is yet to be revealed, farming groups appear have swayed the government to reduce the current target, which is shrinking emissions somewhere between 24% and 47% by 2050. Several climate experts say the country will set a dangerous precedent for Ireland and other big methane emitters if it aims too low. When 26 international climate change scientists wrote to Luxon accusing him of "ignoring scientific evidence" showing global heating caused by methane has to reduce, the Prime Minister said it was lovely if "worthies" wanted to write him letters but New Zealand was already managing methane emissions better than "every other country on the planet". The scientists were worried that the government might be about to adopt a target that lets heating caused by methane emissions stay the same, rather than turning down the thermostat on the country's cows and sheep. That is because the government asked a scientific panel to tell it how much methane emissions would need to drop to just level off global heating from methane, not reduce it. The answer was 14% to 24% by 2050, about half the current target. The debate is whether that is enough. Federated Farmers and Beef + Lamb say yes, because methane is much shorter lived than the other main heating gases, carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide. One of the members of the government's panel, climate scientist Dave Frame, said New Zealand should lower its target unless other countries commit to bigger cuts to methane from farming than they have currently. He said the planet was not on track to limit heating inside 1.5°C hotter than pre-industrial times, despite countries' promises. "If the world really did cut emissions in line with what those kind of guys are talking about, then I think we should absolutely be part of it. In the absence of that action, I think a 'no additional warming target' is a reasonable fall back position." Dr Frame said unlike more profitable dairy farming, sheep and beef farms could not absorb the cost of methane-cutting technologies. Another member of the government's panel, atmospheric scientist Laura Revell, said it was a tricky call for the government. "Everyone is in agreement - those on the panel, those who wrote the letter - that methane is a greenhouse gas which global action is needed to address. "We know that the consequences of climate change are severe, we are seeing it already and every bit of warming we can avoid helps. "On the other hand, farming is a big part of the New Zealand economy and these emissions are associated with feeding people." The Climate Change Commission said the country should aim for a cut of at least 35% because the costs and impacts of global heating are turning out worse than expected. It said there is no reasonable excuse to do less on methane, under New Zealand's climate commitments.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store