Latest news with #TreatyNegotiations
RNZ News
3 days ago
- Politics
- RNZ News
Another Cabinet minister caught up in United Nations letter-writing saga
Treaty Negotiations Minister Paul Goldsmith. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii Another Cabinet minister has been caught up in the United Nations letter-writing imbroglio, with new documents showing David Seymour first ran his response past Paul Goldsmith before he sent it. Seymour, writing as Regulations Minister, fired off a blunt reply to the UN in July that prompted public rebukes from both Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Foreign Minister Winston Peters for bypassing proper processes. Seymour refused to concede any mistake but agreed to formally withdraw his letter so Peters could issue one on behalf of the full government. New correspondence, released to RNZ under the Official Information Act, reveals Goldsmith, the Treaty Negotiations Minister, had been looped in early on and appeared comfortable with Seymour's approach. On 1 July, two days before the letter went to the UN, one of Seymour's advisors sent a draft to Goldsmith's office. "Attached is the Minister for Regulation's proposed response... He mentioned that we had agreed to run it past your Minister before we sent it off," the email read. "It is a little more direct than what MFAT might draft. Please let me know if your Minister is happy." Goldsmith's office responded the next day, asking for a phone call. By the morning of 3 July, Seymour's advisor emailed him: "Goldie is happy for us to send it. He is going to send his own mild MFAT holding letter on behalf of himself and [Māori Development Minister Tama] Potaka." David Seymour. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii Seymour replied: "Ok, great." His letter was sent to the UN that afternoon. In a statement provided to RNZ on Saturday, Goldsmith said: "When asked, I did not object to [Seymour] sending the letter, but when commenting on UN matters, it is the Foreign Minister's views that are relevant, not mine." A spokesperson for Seymour said he had nothing further to add. Emails between Seymour's staff in June canvassed the options for responding to the UN and noted MFAT's preferred approach was a joint reply from "relevant Ministers" Seymour, Goldsmith and Potaka, in line with previous UN communications in 2024. Instead, Peters ultimately issued a government-wide letter on 11 August, striking a softer tone and expressing regret for the "breakdown in protocol". The UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of Indigenous Peoples, Albert K Barume, had raised concerns on 12 June about Seymour's Regulatory Standards Bill, suggesting it failed to recognise Māori traditions or uphold Treaty principles. Seymour's reply branded the critique "presumptive, condescending and wholly misplaced" and "an affront to New Zealand's sovereignty". After news of Seymour's letter broke in July, Luxon told media he agreed with its content but Seymour was wrong to have sent it: "I expect Winston Peters to be the person that engages with the UN." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
24-06-2025
- Business
- RNZ News
Treaty Negotiations Minister says settlements with iwi can't be 'open ended'
Treaty Negotiations Minister Paul Goldsmith. Photo: RNZ / Marika Khabazi 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." 'Peeni Henare. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone 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. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone Labour leader Chris Hipkins also said he didn't 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. RNZ has contacted Ngāpuhi for comment. The NZ Herald reported Ngāti Hine leader Pita Tipene had ruled out a settlement with the current government following Goldsmith's comments. 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 wasn't helpful for the country moving forward. Finance Minister Nicola Willis. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone The 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." The 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." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
17-06-2025
- Politics
- RNZ News
Goldsmith answers questions on progress of Ngāpuhi and other settlements
The Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Paul Goldsmith. Photo: RNZ / Marika Khabazi The Minister for Treaty Negotiations says the government is open to dealing with multiple Ngāpuhi groupings to get a settlement done. Successive governments have been trying to get a settlement with the country's largest iwi for decades but have struggled to settle with the sprawling iwi under a single mandate. However, speaking to the Māori Affairs committee, Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Paul Goldsmith said the government's stance was softening. "Our preference would be to have, if we could arrange one commercial settlement across Ngāpuhi and then recognise a number of cultural underneath that. It might be six, it might be seven - we haven't got a hard view on that. "Our goal, if possible, is to have a single commercial settlement." Asked by Labour MP Ginny Andersen if government actions like the disestablishment of Te Aka Whai Ora, the Māori Health Authority, the removal of section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act and the introduction of the Treaty Principles Bill had damaged the Crown's relationship with Ngāpuhi, Goldsmith said Māori had a variety of views. "The Māori population, just like the Ngāpuhi population, don't all think the same. "There's a variety of views across Ngāpuhi and there are many that see huge opportunities to work with a government that has an instinct that empowers local communities to do things, frankly, in contrast to a more centralising impulse from the previous government. "There is lots of discussions being had around housing, lots of discussions being had around the delivery of public services at the local level so while there are things that people disagree over there's plenty we do agree over and plenty of scope for conversations to occur." Answering a question by Green MP Steve Abel on whether the Office of Treaty Settlements and Takutai Moana's ambition to complete all Treaty settlements by 2035 was realistic, Goldsmith said settling was not something that could be forced. "A settlement requires two parties to settle. I don't think the patience of New Zealanders as a whole is infinite and people do want to see this process completed. "I think it would be a massive problem for this country, ultimately, if we get to 2040 and we're still having these conversations." The "tension" in the settlement process came from those groups who were eager to settle and those who were not, Goldsmith said. "It may well be that some groups never settle, that may be what they want, and we can't force that." In 2023, the previous Labour government initialled a Deed of Settlement with East Coast iwi Te Whānau a Apanui. The settlement package included an "agree-to-disagree" clause where the iwi maintained it was a sovereign nation while the Crown also maintained its own sovereignty. Speaking to media, Goldsmith said that was not something the government was comfortable acknowledging. "It makes it difficult, in the sense that you're signing up to a full and final settlement, but the entity fundamentally doesn't acknowledge the authority of the Crown to do it, in one respect - we weren't comfortable with that. "The Crown's position is clear. The Crown is sovereign. The Crown is simply a representation of the democratic will of the people of New Zealand here today." In 2014, the Waitangi Tribunal found the Māori chiefs who signed the Treaty of Waitangi did not cede sovereignty to the Crown and upheld the claims of Ngāpuhi and other northern iwi that the chiefs never handed over their power and authority to the British in 1840. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
