Latest news with #TiritioWaitangi
The Spinoff
19 hours ago
- Business
- The Spinoff
From ‘dead horse' to golden child: Why Pāmu is suddenly making millions
Once under threat of privatisation, the state's largest farmer is now forecasting record profits. But what exactly is Pāmu, and should it still be publicly owned? Threatened with privatisation at the beginning of the year, the government's largest land manager Pāmu has had a remarkable financial turnaround. Late last week, it was revealed that the entity previously known as Landcorp Holdings was expecting to report a record profit after years of criticism and struggle. What is Pāmu? Pāmu is the trading name of Landcorp Farming Limited – the government's largest landholder and farming enterprise. With around 360,000 hectares across 110 farms, it's often called 'the state farmer'. It manages about 1.3 million livestock (cows, deer, sheep and beef cattle), and employs around 600 permanent staff. Its farms aren't just about meat and milk – Pāmu is also involved in forestry, horticulture and agricultural research and development. But its roots run deep into colonial New Zealand. Pāmu evolved out of the Department of Lands and Survey, an agency responsible for surveying, leasing and farming land – much of which was confiscated or unjustly acquired from Māori. When the department was broken up in 1987, its commercial farming assets became Landcorp – a state-owned enterprise, with shares held by the minister of finance and minister for SOEs on behalf of the Crown. What does Pāmu actually do? Under its mandate as a state-owned enterprise, Pāmu has three core jobs: Run profitable farming operations Return land as part of Treaty settlements Lead innovation in sustainable farming Lately, its focus has been on research, including efforts to breed low-emissions livestock and improve dairy-beef genetics. It's part business, part science lab, part Treaty partner – which makes it uniquely placed in Aotearoa's economic and cultural landscape. What about Treaty land returns? This is where things get murky. Pāmu is supposed to help facilitate the return of state-owned land through te Tiriti o Waitangi settlements, and while much of the land it owns must be offered to iwi for sale first under the right of first refusal (RFR), in 2024, it was holding just one property (valued at $3m) for potential sale to iwi – down from two the previous year. Why is Pāmu at threat of being sold off? At the beginning of 2025, Pāmu found itself in the crosshairs of the Act Party. Act MP and dairy farmer Mark Cameron – who also chairs parliament's Primary Production Committee – said the organisation was a 'no brainer' for privatisation, arguing that its $2.2bn assets were better off in private hands. 'How is it so that the dear old taxpayers are on the hook continually flogging a dead horse and arguably Pāmu has not managed to get on the right side of the fiscal ledger?' he said in January. Even the prime minister hinted at wider state asset sales. The thinking was simple: if it's not profitable and not serving a clear public purpose, why keep it? So what happened with the turnaround? In July 2025, Pāmu announced a forecasted after-tax profit of up to $122m – an increase of around 563% from its $26m loss the year before. The secret? A few key shifts: Soaring milk prices: The average farmgate milk price jumped from $7.50 to $10 per kgms (kilogram of milk solids), boosting milk revenue by $24m, up 35%. Better lamb prices and operational efficiency: gains were made across livestock categories and in management. Trimming the fat: Pāmu Foods, its experimental consumer brand, was shut down last year. The company's leadership also changed in August 2024, with experienced director John Rae stepping in as chair and Sarah Paterson joining the board. So is it safe from privatisation? It has been pointed out that much of the land managed by Pāmu isn't actually its to sell, as it's leased from private owners or DOC, and much of the land it does own is subject to Treaty settlements, so iwi get RFR. So privatisation could be tricky, but it doesn't mean it's impossible. While the record profit may take the heat off, Pāmu's long-term future is far from certain. Its 2026 profit is forecast to fall back to between $56m and $66m, with risks from volatile commodity prices, currency shifts, geopolitics and extreme weather. And political winds can shift fast. For now, Pāmu is riding high – but whether that's enough to silence calls for privatisation, or to improve its record on Treaty land returns, remains to be seen.
Scoop
12-07-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Sovereignty ‘Red Line' In Any Future Ngāpuhi Settlement Message At Whangārei Hapū Hui
Article – RNZ Much of hap hui agenda taken up by discussions of sovereignty and bill which aims to impose a single settlement on Ngpuhi. A hapū hui in Whangārei has sent a clear message that sovereignty is a 'red line' in any future Ngāpuhi settlement. The vexed issue of sovereignty hit the headlines again recently when Treaty Negotiations Minister Paul Goldsmith said settlement talks with Bay of Plenty iwi Te Whānau-ā-Apanui had been put on hold over a controversial 'agree to disagree' clause. The clause, added during the previous government in 2023, spells out the iwi's claim it is a sovereign nation – while at the same time allowing the Crown to maintain it has sovereignty over New Zealand. A landmark Waitangi Tribunal report in 2014 sided with iwi by ruling that Ngāpuhi chiefs did not cede sovereignty when they signed Te Tiriti in 1840. Wednesday's hui at Ngāraratunua Marae was to have been a routine gathering of Te Kotahitanga o Ngā Hapū Ngāpuhi. Instead, much of the agenda was consumed by discussions of sovereignty and NZ First Minister Shane Jones' member's bill which aims to impose a single settlement on Ngāpuhi, instead of the multiple smaller settlements sought by some hapū. Te Kotahitanga co-chair Pita Tipene said he would not enter any discussions with the Crown if there was no acknowledgement of hapū sovereignty. 'It's a red line for me, a bottom line … it would mean everything that we've been fighting for, prosecuting through the Waitangi Tribunal that we have never ceded our sovereignty, will be signed away by a couple of signatures on a piece of paper,' he said. Anyone willing to sign such a settlement was 'giving up their soul for pieces of silver and gold'. However, Tipene said he was still willing to meet Goldsmith if he travelled to Northland in coming weeks, as indicated by the minister in an interview last week. 'We're always willing to meet with the minister. He's responsible for the government in terms of our Tiriti o Waitangi claims so it's only right that we sit down and talk with him instead of talking with him through the media.' Tipene was also dismissive of Jones' member's bill, which he described as a distraction. 'We will not be corralled into a single settlement. If hapū want to come together, they will do it because they want to, not because they have to.' Tipene said East Coast iwi Ngāti Kahungunu had proven it was possible to split the settlement for a large and complex iwi into smaller agreements based on taiwhenua, or regional hapū groupings. With Ngāpuhi, however, Tipene said successive governments seemed to consider settlement as a kind of trophy, with politicians like big game hunters hoping to be photographed with a gun in hand and a foot on the head of the biggest lion. While he didn't agree with Jones on Treaty matters, Tipene said he respected him and valued his role in stirring up debate. 'One must admire him for agitating. By agitating, it gets people thinking and moving and having conversations that they may not ordinarily have.' 'We do not want a single commercial settlement' – Tipene Tipene said the message from Wednesday's hui was clear. 'We do not want a single commercial settlement. We will be adhering strongly to our own rangatiratanga or sovereignty, and we won't be signing anything that may undermine that.' Earlier, Jones said multiple smaller settlements risked turning Ngāpuhi – which had some of the worst socio-economic statistics in the country – into 'economic confetti'. He told RNZ his bill would bring clarity as to how the claim could be settled. 'Then people can consult on the member's bill, and I accept it will take some time, but they will have a clear target, because at the moment, it's like a flock of ducks quacking loudly, flying in all different directions, and sadly, that's what the Ngāpuhi claim has turned into,' Jones said. Te Kotahitanga co-chair Lee Harris, who also co-chairs the Hokianga Taiwhenua, said a meeting in Rāwene a day earlier came to the same conclusions as the Whangārei hui. 'The position of the hapū that attended was complete opposition to Shane Jones' proposal. We do not accept one settlement for Ngāpuhi. In regard to Minister Goldsmith's kōrero about the removal of any possible clause acknowledging sovereignty, well, we don't agree with that either, especially in light of the stage one Te Paparahi o Te Raki report [that found Ngāpuhi did not cede sovereignty],' she said. Harris also rejected the argument that a single settlement was needed so work could begin quickly on turning around Northland's dire poverty statistics. 'In Hokianga, we're pretty sick and tired of people using our existing very poor standards of living against us as a weapon by trying to push a settlement over the top of us. Paparahi o Te Raki [The Waitangi Tribunal's Northland inquiry] addressed historical grievances. Therefore, any settlement is to pay for the wrongs of yesterday that happened to our tūpuna. It's not to be used to tidy up the contemporary mess of the poor living conditions in which we live in today. That is a separate issue, and that is solely on the Crown.' Not all at the hui, however, considered sovereignty a sticking point. Kaumatua Waihoroi 'Wassie' Shortland said Crown sovereignty was the only way the nation could operate collectively, even if history was littered with examples of governments exercising that sovereignty badly. However, if the Crown maintained Ngāpuhi had lost its sovereignty, that came at a cost that needed to be factored into any future settlement. Like Tipene, Shortland said he was ready to talk to Goldsmith, because he did not have to agree with people to engage with them. Shortland believed settlement would come when Ngāpuhi, which made up one in five Māori and one in 25 New Zealanders, learnt to use the strength of its numbers. About 120 people attended Wednesday's hui. Te Kotahitanga o Ngā Hapū Ngāpuhi is an informal group initially set up by Tipene and the late Rudy Taylor to oppose Tuhoronuku, an earlier attempt to set up a mandated iwi authority to negotiate a single Ngāpuhi settlement. Tuhoronuku was recognised by the government in 2014 but abandoned in late 2018.
Scoop
12-07-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Sovereignty 'Red Line' In Any Future Ngāpuhi Settlement Message At Whangārei Hapū Hui
A hapū hui in Whangārei has sent a clear message that sovereignty is a "red line" in any future Ngāpuhi settlement. The vexed issue of sovereignty hit the headlines again recently when Treaty Negotiations Minister Paul Goldsmith said settlement talks with Bay of Plenty iwi Te Whānau-ā-Apanui had been put on hold over a controversial "agree to disagree" clause. The clause, added during the previous government in 2023, spells out the iwi's claim it is a sovereign nation - while at the same time allowing the Crown to maintain it has sovereignty over New Zealand. A landmark Waitangi Tribunal report in 2014 sided with iwi by ruling that Ngāpuhi chiefs did not cede sovereignty when they signed Te Tiriti in 1840. Wednesday's hui at Ngāraratunua Marae was to have been a routine gathering of Te Kotahitanga o Ngā Hapū Ngāpuhi. Instead, much of the agenda was consumed by discussions of sovereignty and NZ First Minister Shane Jones' member's bill which aims to impose a single settlement on Ngāpuhi, instead of the multiple smaller settlements sought by some hapū. Te Kotahitanga co-chair Pita Tipene said he would not enter any discussions with the Crown if there was no acknowledgement of hapū sovereignty. "It's a red line for me, a bottom line … it would mean everything that we've been fighting for, prosecuting through the Waitangi Tribunal that we have never ceded our sovereignty, will be signed away by a couple of signatures on a piece of paper," he said. Anyone willing to sign such a settlement was "giving up their soul for pieces of silver and gold". However, Tipene said he was still willing to meet Goldsmith if he travelled to Northland in coming weeks, as indicated by the minister in an interview last week. "We're always willing to meet with the minister. He's responsible for the government in terms of our Tiriti o Waitangi claims so it's only right that we sit down and talk with him instead of talking with him through the media." Tipene was also dismissive of Jones' member's bill, which he described as a distraction. "We will not be corralled into a single settlement. If hapū want to come together, they will do it because they want to, not because they have to." Tipene said East Coast iwi Ngāti Kahungunu had proven it was possible to split the settlement for a large and complex iwi into smaller agreements based on taiwhenua, or regional hapū groupings. With Ngāpuhi, however, Tipene said successive governments seemed to consider settlement as a kind of trophy, with politicians like big game hunters hoping to be photographed with a gun in hand and a foot on the head of the biggest lion. While he didn't agree with Jones on Treaty matters, Tipene said he respected him and valued his role in stirring up debate. "One must admire him for agitating. By agitating, it gets people thinking and moving and having conversations that they may not ordinarily have." 'We do not want a single commercial settlement' - Tipene Tipene said the message from Wednesday's hui was clear. "We do not want a single commercial settlement. We will be adhering strongly to our own rangatiratanga or sovereignty, and we won't be signing anything that may undermine that." Earlier, Jones said multiple smaller settlements risked turning Ngāpuhi - which had some of the worst socio-economic statistics in the country - into "economic confetti". He told RNZ his bill would bring clarity as to how the claim could be settled. "Then people can consult on the member's bill, and I accept it will take some time, but they will have a clear target, because at the moment, it's like a flock of ducks quacking loudly, flying in all different directions, and sadly, that's what the Ngāpuhi claim has turned into," Jones said. Te Kotahitanga co-chair Lee Harris, who also co-chairs the Hokianga Taiwhenua, said a meeting in Rāwene a day earlier came to the same conclusions as the Whangārei hui. "The position of the hapū that attended was complete opposition to Shane Jones' proposal. We do not accept one settlement for Ngāpuhi. In regard to Minister Goldsmith's kōrero about the removal of any possible clause acknowledging sovereignty, well, we don't agree with that either, especially in light of the stage one Te Paparahi o Te Raki report [that found Ngāpuhi did not cede sovereignty]," she said. Harris also rejected the argument that a single settlement was needed so work could begin quickly on turning around Northland's dire poverty statistics. "In Hokianga, we're pretty sick and tired of people using our existing very poor standards of living against us as a weapon by trying to push a settlement over the top of us. Paparahi o Te Raki [The Waitangi Tribunal's Northland inquiry] addressed historical grievances. Therefore, any settlement is to pay for the wrongs of yesterday that happened to our tūpuna. It's not to be used to tidy up the contemporary mess of the poor living conditions in which we live in today. That is a separate issue, and that is solely on the Crown." Not all at the hui, however, considered sovereignty a sticking point. Kaumatua Waihoroi "Wassie" Shortland said Crown sovereignty was the only way the nation could operate collectively, even if history was littered with examples of governments exercising that sovereignty badly. However, if the Crown maintained Ngāpuhi had lost its sovereignty, that came at a cost that needed to be factored into any future settlement. Like Tipene, Shortland said he was ready to talk to Goldsmith, because he did not have to agree with people to engage with them. Shortland believed settlement would come when Ngāpuhi, which made up one in five Māori and one in 25 New Zealanders, learnt to use the strength of its numbers. About 120 people attended Wednesday's hui. Te Kotahitanga o Ngā Hapū Ngāpuhi is an informal group initially set up by Tipene and the late Rudy Taylor to oppose Tuhoronuku, an earlier attempt to set up a mandated iwi authority to negotiate a single Ngāpuhi settlement. Tuhoronuku was recognised by the government in 2014 but abandoned in late 2018.
Scoop
07-07-2025
- Business
- Scoop
Treaty Principles 2.0? Hearings Begin Into Seymour's Regulatory Standards Bill
Analysis: A week of political scrutiny lies ahead for one of the government's most polarising bills, dubbed by some critics as "Treaty Principles 2.0". Starting Monday morning, the Finance and Expenditure select committee will reconvene for about 30 hours over four days to hear public submissions on the lightning rod Regulatory Standards Bill. The bill - championed by ACT's David Seymour - sets out "principles of responsible regulation" and would require ministers to explain whether they are following them. It would also set up a new board to assess legislation against those benchmarks. But while it may sound dry and technical, the legislation has become a flashpoint in a wider debate about the country's constitution, te Tiriti o Waitangi, and competing ideologies. Among the submitters on day one: former prime minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer, former Green MP Darleen Tana, Transpower, and the Royal Australian and NZ College of Psychiatrists. What's in the bill? The bill lists principles that Seymour believes should guide all law-making. These include: Respect for the rule of law Protection of individual freedom and property rights Keeping taxes and fees fair and reasonable Proper consultation and clear cost-benefit analysis Ministers introducing new laws would have to declare whether they meet these standards, and justify those that do not. The new Regulatory Standards Board - appointed by the Minister for Regulation - could also review older laws and make non-binding recommendations. "We need to make regulating less rewarding for politicians by putting more sunlight on their activities," Seymour told Parliament in May. Why are people so upset? Opposition to the bill has been intense. An early round of consultation last year attracted about 23,000 submissions, with 88 percent in opposition and just 0.33 percent in support. Seymour has dismissed that as "meaningless" and initially claimed many of the submissions had been created by "bots". He later walked that back, but maintained they were driven by non-representative online campaigns. It is true campaign groups have provided templates for submissions or even offered to write them on people's behalf. But the pushback has come from far and wide: lawyers, academics, advocacy groups and public servants. Even Seymour's own Ministry of Regulation has raised concerns. Seymour has labelled much of the criticism "alarmist" and grounded in misinformation. He's also targetted some critics on social media, accusing them of having "derangement syndrome" and conspiracy thinking. The most common criticisms are: 1. That it elevates ACT's values above all else Critics argue the bill embeds ACT's political ideology into law, particularly its emphasis on individual rights and private property, while ignoring other considerations. Notably, te Tiriti o Waitangi is not mentioned in the bill - an omission which critics fear could undermine the Treaty's legal status and influence. Seymour says he has yet to hear a convincing reason why the Treaty should get special consideration when evaluating good law-making. Critics also object to the principle of individual property rights being given prominence over, say, collective rights. They fear the bill could dissuade governments from introducing rules that protect the environment, or restrictions on tobacco and alcohol, because that might be seen as breaching the listed principles. Even though the government could still pass those laws, critics worry it would send a message that profits and property are more important than public health or environmental protections. For his part, Seymour is unapologetic about the principles proposed and open that he wants to reset the culture of government. "If you want to tax someone, take their property, and restrict their livelihood, you can, but you'll actually have to show why it's in the public interest," Seymour says. 2. That it's a solution in search of a problem New Zealand already has a raft of systems in place to check laws are made properly. For example, Cabinet's Legislation Guidelines require ministers to follow best practice principles - including the rule of law, human rights compliance and consultation. The Legislation Design and Advisory Committee, made up of experts and officials, also provides detailed feedback on bills, and Treasury checks the impact of major policy decisions. As well, Justice officials and Crown Law conduct Bill of Rights vetting of legislation, with the Attorney-General required to report any breaches. Critics say this bill just adds another layer of process - increasing cost and workload for little benefit. To that, Seymour says: "If the public service think being required to justify their laws is a faff, imagine what it's like for the public they have to serve who are obliged to follow them." 3. That it is a corporate power grab A lingering concern has been whether the bill could open the government up to legal challenges or claims for compensation - especially from large corporations. Among its principles, the bill does include the concept that property should not usually be taken without consent and "fair compensation". But the legislation also clearly states that it does not create any new legal rights or obligation enforceable through the courts. That means companies would not have a new avenue to sue the government if a law affected their property or profits. Still, critics argue that simply embedding the principle in law could alter expectations over time. Businesses or lobby groups, for example, might point to it to put pressure on ministers to avoid certain policies. As well, lawyers say the courts could take note of the new principles when interpreting legislation or reviewing regulatory decisions elsewhere. The political debate The National-ACT coalition agreement includes a firm commitment to pass the bill through into law - though not necessarily in its current form. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon says the government will pay close attention to the select committee process and remains open to changes. "The devil is in the detail," he told reporters on Friday. New Zealand First leader Winston Peters has described the bill as "a work in progress" and has indicated his party wants changes. He has not specified which provisions in particular concern him. The opposition parties, Labour, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori, have already promised to repeal the bill if elected next year. That means, for all the noise, the bill's practical impact may be limited, affecting only the parties introducing it - which presumably would adhere to these principles whether they were codified in law or not. The select committee hearings will run from 8:30am till 5pm, Monday through Thursday.
Scoop
03-07-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Open Letter Calls For Halt To The Undemocratic Regulatory Standards Bill
As some of the country's senior lawyers and researchers in a range of disciplines (law, economics, Tiriti o Waitangi, public policy, environment), including a former Prime Minister and two New Zealanders of the Year, we cannot stand by as the Regulatory Standards Bill is rushed through a parliamentary select committee next week. Each of us has written extensively and spoken out against this Bill from our respective areas of expertise. Many of us have done so for the three previous iterations of this Bill when it was promoted unsuccessfully by the Act Party and the Business Round Roundtable (later, the New Zealand Institute). On each of those occasions Parliament has rejected the Bill as philosophically and legally unsound, profoundly undemocratic, and contrary to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. This time the Act Party has sought to bypass rigorous parliamentary scrutiny by securing commitments from the National and New Zealand First parties to legislate the Bill into law. There was an opportunity for public submissions on the proposal late last year, where it secured the support of only 0.33% of the over 23,000 New Zealanders who expressed their views on the consultation document. It is evident that the advice in virtually all the submissions was ignored by the government. The Bill could have profound constitutional consequences. It establishes a set of principles as a benchmark for good legislation/regulation, many of which are highly questionable and designed to establish a presumption in favour of a libertarian view of the role of the state - one that ceased to have any currency globally more than a century ago. Te Tiriti o Waitangi has been excluded altogether. The power vested in the Minister for Regulation and a ministerial-appointed board is not subject to the normal accountabilities of Crown entities, conferring significant yet largely unaccountable authority on the executive. Advertisement - scroll to continue reading Dr Jim Salinger, 2024 New Zealander of the Year, further notes the chilling effect the Bill will have on any future policy on climate change and adaptation following the almost $4 billion cost of the 2023 Auckland Anniversary weekend floods and Cyclone Gabrielle, the highest in our history. While there is a select committee review of the Bill, it is truncated and circumscribed. The Coalition government has decided to submit the Bill to the Finance and Expenditure Committee rather than the Justice Committee, limiting the time to hear many tens of thousands of oral submissions to just 30 hours – at most 360 submissions - with 5 minutes per submitter, and truncating the period for those hearings and the committee's report, further exposes the hypocrisy that this Bill is about good governance, better laws, improved regulation, greater transparency and enhanced governmental accountability. We are gravely concerned that the National Party and New Zealand First appear to be complicit in this undemocratic process. We have each thought long and hard about whether to say we want to challenge this Bill before the select committee, lest it give some credibility to a process that is devoid of legitimacy. Some of us, such as Professor Dame Anne Salmond, 2013 New Zealander of the Year, and Professor Andrew Geddis, made written submissions, but feel there is no point in participating such a harmful process. Professor Emeritus Jonathan Boston, Dr Geoffrey Bertram, Dr Bill Rosenberg and Dr Max Harris have indicated they want to address the committee to reinforce their submissions. In Professor Boston's view: 'The current Bill is destined to have a very short and ignominious life as an Act of Parliament: it enjoys virtually no public support; it lacks cross-party backing; it is opposed by the very Ministry that will be responsible for its implementation; and it endorses principles that have been found wanting by multiple generations of people throughout the world". In similar vein, long-standing academic critic of the Bill Professor Emeritus Jane Kelsey feels a responsibility 'to speak truth to power' - in this case the abuse of proper process and the Act Party's ongoing contempt for Te Tiriti o Waitangi. For a time it appeared the Sir Geoffrey Palmer, former Prime Minister and Minister of Justice, Professor of Law at Te Herenga Waka/ Victoria University of Wellington, author of numerous books on parliamentary constitutinalism, and staunch critic of the Bill, was originally not invited to address the select committee, despite saying but he wanted to be heard. He was subsequently offered an opportunity. All of us appeal to the National and New Zealand First parties to find their democratic voice and prevent this Bill from proceeding past the select committee. Equally importantly, they are calling on Speaker of the House Gerry Brownlee, as the Chair of the forthcoming review of Standing Orders, to conduct a first principles review of the select committee processes to find an appropriate balance for democratic participation in the digital era, and an effective way to reinstate some degree of integrity and rigorous review to law-making in Aotearoa New Zealand. Dame Anne Salmond Sir Geoffrey Palmer Professor Emeritus Jonathan Boston Professor Andrew Geddis Dr Jim Salinger Dr Geoff Bertram Dr Bill Rosenberg Dr Max Harris
