Waitangi Tribunal already doing exactly what it was originally intended to do, Treaty law experts say
Members of Te Rūnanga Nui, the Waitangi Tribunal and the Ministry of Education being welcomed onto Hoani Waititi Marae in 2023.
Photo:
Pokere Paewai / RNZ
Treaty law experts say the Waitangi Tribunal is already doing exactly what it was originally intended to do.
A government
review announced last week
- part of the coalition agreement between New Zealand First and National - is set to refocus the "scope, purpose and nature" of the Tribunal's inquiries back to its "original intent".
The review will be led by an Independent Technical Advisory Group of four chaired by Bruce Gray KC.
The other members of the group are lawyer and former Waitangi Tribunal member David Cochrane, Te Kotahitanga o Te Atiawa chief executive Dion Tuuta and senior public servant and former chief executive of Te Kohanga Reo National Trust Kararaina Calcott-Cribb.
Te Hunga Rōia Māori, the Māori Law Society co-president Natalie Coates said it would be a big task to conduct a wide sweeping review within the timeframe.
Engagement on the review will begin in mid-2025 and advice will be provided to ministers by September.
Coates was not adverse to an
independent review
taking place, given it has been 50 years, but she said there was a deep scepticism amongst the Māori community given the government's approach to te Tiriti and Māori issues in general.
When the Waitangi Tribunal was set up in 1975, it did not have the ability to look backwards, so the original conception of the Tribunal was to respond to contemporary breaches of te Tiriti or Waitangi, she said.
Natalie Coates.
Photo:
Tania Niwa
"I guess I've been a little bit confused about that kind of wording or at least find it interesting and curious because I think what the Tribunal is currently doing is actually focusing on and doing what they were originally set up to do."
Coates said even though its recommendations weren't binding the Tribunal played a critical role as a check and balance on Crown power.
"It should be a good thing to know whether the Crown is breaching te Tiriti o Waitangi so that informed decisions can be made, and I think the idea being [thrown] around of them being activist is just not true.
"They're doing the job that they were set up to do, and they're doing so with the kind of the full intellectual rigour that applies in those spaces."
Treaty Law scholar Carwyn Jones said he hadn't seen the full terms of reference for the review beyond the statement's by Minister Tama Potaka, and what was contained within National and New Zealand First's coalition agreement to refocus the Tribunal back to its "original intent."
"I was always a bit confused by that because as far as I could tell, the Tribunal was doing exactly what was originally intended.
"Its original intent was that it would focus on current or contemporary crown actions or policy," he said.
The Tribunal had played a crucial role over this term of government in scrutinising Crown policy for its impact particularly on Māori, he said.
"What we see is that the government doesn't like the Tribunal asking questions about quite basic things around good government, about what is your policy intended to do, what's the problem you're trying to solve, have you looked at options, do you know what the impact of it is?
"All of these things the Tribunal is making transparent that the government has no answers to across a whole range of policy so of course the government doesn't like that."
Treaty Law scholar Carwyn Jones.
Photo:
RNZ
That's a sentiment that Coates echoed.
"I mean, no government really loves the Tribunal because their whole purpose is to tell it what it's doing wrong on a treaty front," she said.
Jones said David Seymour's comments about the Tribunal becoming "increasingly activist" showed that from the government's perspective, the Tribunal had been too effective in holding the government to account.
"We've seen that time and again through a whole range of government policy, whether it's the removal of section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act or whether it's through Māori wards or even this review itself, the government has not defined what the problem is... because all it is is this kind of 'government by vibe' this evidence free policy development."
As a permanent Commission of Inquiry, the Tribunal actually had a lot of flexibility about its own process and had been very agile and adaptive in changing to meet different needs across its 50 year history, he said.
"So the Tribunal itself is making those changes, it's constantly reviewing what it's doing and whether it's working.
"So I don't think it's particularly helpful for the government to be doing this, really all the Tribunal needs is more support and resources for it to more effectively deliver."
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero
,
a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
2 hours ago
- RNZ News
Potential insurance costs cast shadow over parent visa
Christchurch resident Xiuyun Liu (top left) with her parents, husband and children. Photo: Supplied Insurance experts have raised concerns about potential costs for the long-awaited Parent Boost Visa that was announced by the government last weekend. Immigration Minister Erica Stanford said Sunday the visa would allow parents of citizens and residents to stay in New Zealand for up to five years, with an opportunity for the visa to be extended another five years. Included in the health and income conditions of the visa was a requirement for the parents to obtain sufficient health insurance to cover the first 12 months of their stay. Anyone staying longer than a year would need to renew their health insurance policies for the duration of their stay. Christchurch resident Xiuyun Liu questioned whether the insurance conditions could make it harder for her parents to take advantage of the new visa. Her parents, 70 and 73, had been on visitor and study visas to stay in New Zealand, helping her to look after her young children. "I think it's good that the policy is out now. At least we have hope for the next five years," Liu said. "But what if I can't get insurance for my parents? Even if they can get insurance [now], there will be a day they won't be able to. "For example, my father has high blood pressure and some other issues. ... I think getting insurance will be a problem." The government requires applicants to hold at least one year of health insurance that covers emergency healthcare (minimum $250,000 a year), medical repatriation, return of remains and cancer treatment (minimum $100,000). Paula Lorgelly says many existing health insurance policies have upper age limits. Photo: Supplied Paula Lorgelly, a professor of health economics at the University of Auckland, said she was unaware of any matching insurance products currently on the market, but she expected providers to start work on delivering them. "Currently a number of insurers have a visiting New Zealand policy to provide cover for a range of travel and medical related claims," Lorgelly said. "These do have considerable exclusions with respect to pre-existing conditions, which means they are somewhat affordable, about $2200 a year [for a couple who are both 60 years old]." Lorgelly said many existing policies had upper age limits of 65 or 75, and they would also include exclusions for pre-existing conditions. "If you have such conditions, which often come with age, then the policy holder will need to pay more to cover them," she said. The $2200 figure was likely to be on the low side of what a new policy would offer, if cancer treatment was included, Lorgelly said. Insurance consultant Amy Tao believed any new insurance products would effectively be like existing travel insurance policies. "It will just be upgraded to include the $100,000 cancer treatment cover, for example," Tao said. She said insurance companies might cover some low-risk pre-existing conditions with extra premiums. "But underwriting is definitely required," she said. "If they think the risk is too high, they may not be able to provide insurance even if you pay more." Her estimation of existing travel insurance policies for an elderly couple was similar to the figure Lorgelly shared, citing $1840 for a couple of 65-year-olds and $2514 for two 70-year-olds, with both policies carrying an excess of $100. Tao said any new product would be more expensive, adding extra cover for cancer and pre-existing conditions. "Insurance is for sure going to cost a bit," she said. "Currently, some insurance companies only allow travel insurance to be purchased for a maximum of one year or two years," she said. "It can be renewed after the expiration date but cannot be purchased directly for five years." Speaking to Morning Report on Monday, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said people needed to hold health insurance for the duration of their stay. "We're striking the balance of making sure that ... these folks who are not taxpayers, haven't contributed to our publicly funded healthcare system, won't be eligible for those services." Immigration minister Erica Stanford Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone Rob Hennin, New Zealand chief executive of health insurance provider NIB, said the company had begun work in line with the government's announcement. "We are already working on a product that aligns with the requirements for this visa, and aim to launch it in September," Hennin said. "While all of the details are yet to be determined, the product would be available to purchase for at least one year to align with government requirements, and cover clients for the entirety of their stay while residing in New Zealand." When asked about the costing, Hennin said it was too soon to say. "We will be working through the product design and details and aim to have this ready by the deadline," he said. Financial Services Council chief executive Kirk Hope said the government had consulted with the industry before the decision was made, and the requirements were reasonable. "I think it's reasonable given what the costs of the taxpayer would be if someone didn't have insurance and had to rely on the taxpayers," Hope said. "So, it's important that people are insured when they're here on visitor visits." Hope said it was important for the types of insurance to be provided by the visitors' home market. Despite the visa's hefty application fee and additional insurance requirements, immigration lawyer Sonny Lam believed the visa would still be popular at face value. "It is not excessively high - flying every six months back and forth is going to cost more than $3000," Lam said. "But the insurance requirement may be harder than it looks," he said. "I had a look at Southern Cross and travel insurance for people over 75 is not so easy." Immigration lawyer Arran Hunt also said the cost of insurance would be "the biggest factor for many". "We expect we'll see more competition in the market, with insurance policies being created to solely meet the criteria of this visa," Hunt said. "The requirements for the visa, as in the pay levels required for sponsors, should mean it is open to almost all couples where both are working," he said. "However, some may struggle to cover the insurance costs, especially for older applicants."
RNZ News
2 hours ago
- RNZ News
Pressue on Agriculture Minister to deliver on KiwiSaver promise
The heat is on the agriculture minister to deliver this term on a pre-election promise to unlock KiwiSaver so it can be used to buy a first farm, and not just a house. At the moment if you have been contributing to KiwiSaver for three years you can withdraw almost all the money to buy a first home to live in, although there a few exceptions. Federated Farmers has launched a petition urging the government to losen the rules for accessing the retirement scheme saying it will turbo charge the next generation of farmers and deliver on a committment that Todd Mclay made during a meeting in Morrinsville. Agriculture Minister Todd McClay spoke to Lisa Owen. Tags: To embed this content on your own webpage, cut and paste the following: See terms of use.
RNZ News
2 hours ago
- RNZ News
Stalking law changes lower threshold for jail time
Paul Goldsmith says stalkers have been able to evade real consequences for their actions for far too long. Photo: Laurence Smith / STUFF NZ LTD The government will strengthen its proposed law to criminalise stalking, including broadening the criteria to a longer timeframe. The Crime Legislation (Stalking and Harassment) Amendment Bill would have sent stalkers to jail for five years if they committed three such acts within a year, that threshold now being lowered to two acts over two years. Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said the government had accepted the change as one of several recommended unanimously by the Select Committee in response to 608 written and 62 oral submissions. Changes to the bill include: Victims had warned the previous approach - limited to three offences over 12 months - would "do more harm than good" and protect stalkers rather than victims - in part because the existing criminal harassment offence, which would be abolished under the changes, only requires two acts. Goldsmith said the change would strengthen the law. "This change better recognises patterns in stalking behaviour and time that can pass between incidents. For example, stalking that occurs around anniversaries would not be covered under the original 12-month period," he said. "We've said from day one victims are our priority... stalkers have been able to evade real consequences for their actions for far too long." The Select Committee report also proposed a definition of doxing as "publishing any statement or other material relating or purporting to relate to a person, or purporting to originate from a person", but the alleged offender would also need to know their behaviour was likely to cause fear or distress to the victim. Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith says the changes would strengthen the law. Photo: RNZ / Marika Khabazi The law would also provide exemptions for those who could prove the behaviour was for a lawful purpose, or done with a reasonable excuse, or in the public interest. The government parties National, ACT and New Zealand First agreed to the changes, although ACT argued there was a "need to strike a balance between ensuring a sufficient pattern of behaviour is established to protect victims while not unintentionally creating offenders and burdening the courts". The party suggested police should make use of the powers to provide a written notice warning potential offenders that their behaviour could amount to stalking "to the fullest extent possible". The opposition parties Labour, the Greens and te Pāti Māori also supported the changes recommended by the committee, but said they believed further amendments would be needed in future. These included changes to limit the police use of written notices to avoid retaliation against the victims, and expanding the requirement for the alleged offender to have received police notification to instead only require that they "ought to know" their behaviour was likely to cause fear or distress. They also proposed someone charged with stalking should face an automatic suspension of any firearms licence, and called for stalking-specific rehabilitation programmes. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
