Latest news with #TreatyofWaitangiNegotiations
Scoop
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
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.
Scoop
03-05-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Prime Minister Rejects Claims That There Are Too Many Ministers
, Deputy Political Editor Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has rejected claims by ACT leader David Seymour that the ministerial line-up has become "bloated" and riddled with "meaningless titles". But former ministers from across the political spectrum have backed Seymour's assessment and his calls to slash the number of ministers, portfolios and departments. In a speech on Thursday, Seymour proposed capping the executive at just 20 ministers - all inside Cabinet - and scrapping associate positions, except in finance. As well, he suggested slashing the 41 government agencies down to 30, with each minister assigned a single department rather than multiple symbolic portfolios. The size and make-up of the executive is ultimately determined by the prime minister - in this case, Luxon. Speaking from Dunedin on Friday, Luxon brushed off Seymour's suggestions and pointed out that ACT had pushed for a new department in the Ministry for Regulation. "What we are focused on is making sure the public service is as efficient as it possibly can be." Luxon denied the executive had become bloated or that many portfolios were mere symbolism, and he pushed back on those - like Seymour - questioning the value of the new South Island portfolio created earlier this year. "Absolutely disagree, completely. We want to focus on the South Island. We want to make sure the South Island is getting its fair share of infrastructure and delivery, and I want the voice of the South Island in the Cabinet as well." The new Minister for the South Island James Meager sits outside Cabinet. The only Cabinet minister based in the South Island is Matt Doocey, with responsibility for Mental Health. Asked about the looming Budget, Luxon told RNZ the government would find savings across all departments but would not disband any of them entirely. Former ministers swing in behind Seymour Speaking to RNZ, former National minister Christopher Finlayson said there were "far too many" ministers, associates and under-secretaries, mostly due to the nature of governing in a coalition. "A few baubles have to be handed to otherwise unimpressive Members of Parliament who really shouldn't be there - or should be on a backbench." Finlayson, now an independent barrister, served in Cabinet from 2008 to 2017 as Attorney-General and Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. He said he never needed associates and preferred a streamlined approach where each minister had clear responsibility for a single department: "And if you don't measure up, it's fail and farewell." Finlayson described New Zealand's approach as borderline embarrassing: "if you send out a letter to someone and you're the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and then underneath it's got the Minister for Racing and the Minister for Railways... it looks kind of goofy to foreigners, I would have thought." He said many portfolios could be eliminated, citing the recent South Island role as "pretty much a non-job". He also suggested a more coherent structure for government agencies. "I've often sat down - and this will confirm that I'm a geek - and drawn up my list of government departments, and I think you could get it down to about 20. "It's not just reducing the size of a bloated executive and jobs for the boys and the girls, but it's making a more effective administration." Former United Future leader Peter Dunne - who was a minister outside Cabinet in both Labour and National governments - told RNZ future prime ministers should take a "much more rigorous" approach than their recent predecessors. He suggested a structure of 15 ministers in Cabinet and six outside. "There are a lot of portfolios which, as David Seymour says, are symbolic. The titles are there really to appease sector groups, rather than to deliver specific policy." Dunne proposed consolidating certain portfolios - such as Internal Affairs, Local Government, and the Voluntary Sector - under a single umbrella. However, he opposed a hard legislative limit on the number of ministers and questioned Seymour's comparison with Ireland. Ireland's Constitution limits the size of its Cabinet to a maximum of 15 full ministers, but governments can also appoint junior Ministers of State - of which there are currently 23. Of those, three are designated "super junior ministers" who attend Cabinet meetings - a practice currently being challenged in the courts. Former Labour minister Stuart Nash said Seymour's argument had some merit, though considered it ironic coming from someone who had set up the new Ministry for Regulation. "Do you really need a new agency to reduce red tape?" Nash said. "There would never have been a Minister of Regulation - or whatever David Seymour's title is - if it wasn't for ACT. Now is that necessary?" Nash - who held several Cabinet roles from 2017 through to 2023 - said portfolios were often invented to placate coalition partners or key stakeholders. "Do we really need a Minister of Fishing and Hunting?" Nash said. "Under this government, there is now a Minister for Space and a Minister for Manufacturing. When I was [in charge of] economic development, both those portfolios were included [there]." Still, Nash acknowledged there was sometimes a case for such standalone portfolios to send a message that they were a priority area. In his Thursday speech, Seymour anticipated accusations of hypocrisy over the Ministry for Regulation and said that was different as his agency was designed to cut bureaucratic bloat, not expand it. Seymour also argued regulation was a core function of government and so deserved its own oversight.
RNZ News
02-05-2025
- Business
- RNZ News
Prime Minister rejects claims that there are too many ministers
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has rejected claims by ACT leader David Seymour that the ministerial line-up has become "bloated" and riddled with "meaningless titles". But former ministers from across the political spectrum have backed Seymour's assessment and his calls to slash the number of ministers, portfolios and departments. In a speech on Thursday, Seymour proposed capping the executive at just 20 ministers - all inside Cabinet - and scrapping associate positions, except in finance. As well, he suggested slashing the 41 government agencies down to 30, with each minister assigned a single department rather than multiple symbolic portfolios. The size and make-up of the executive is ultimately determined by the prime minister - in this case, Luxon. Speaking from Dunedin on Friday, Luxon brushed off Seymour's suggestions and pointed out that ACT had pushed for a new department in the Ministry for Regulation. "What we are focused on is making sure the public service is as efficient as it possibly can be." Luxon denied the executive had become bloated or that many portfolios were mere symbolism, and he pushed back on those - like Seymour - questioning the value of the new South Island portfolio created earlier this year. "Absolutely disagree, completely. We want to focus on the South Island. We want to make sure the South Island is getting its fair share of infrastructure and delivery, and I want the voice of the South Island in the Cabinet as well." The new Minister for the South Island James Meager sits outside Cabinet. The only Cabinet minister based in the South Island is Matt Doocey, with responsibility for Mental Health. Asked about the looming Budget, Luxon told RNZ the government would find savings across all departments but would not disband any of them entirely. Speaking to RNZ, former National minister Christopher Finlayson said there were "far too many" ministers, associates and under-secretaries, mostly due to the nature of governing in a coalition. "A few baubles have to be handed to otherwise unimpressive Members of Parliament who really shouldn't be there - or should be on a backbench." Finlayson, now an independent barrister, served in Cabinet from 2008 to 2017 as Attorney-General and Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. He said he never needed associates and preferred a streamlined approach where each minister had clear responsibility for a single department: "And if you don't measure up, it's fail and farewell." Christopher Finlayson. Photo: Nicola Edmonds Finlayson described New Zealand's approach as borderline embarrassing: "if you send out a letter to someone and you're the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and then underneath it's got the Minister for Racing and the Minister for Railways... it looks kind of goofy to foreigners, I would have thought." He said many portfolios could be eliminated, citing the recent South Island role as "pretty much a non-job". He also suggested a more coherent structure for government agencies. "I've often sat down - and this will confirm that I'm a geek - and drawn up my list of government departments, and I think you could get it down to about 20. "It's not just reducing the size of a bloated executive and jobs for the boys and the girls, but it's making a more effective administration." Former United Future leader Peter Dunne - who was a minister outside Cabinet in both Labour and National governments - told RNZ future prime ministers should take a "much more rigorous" approach than their recent predecessors. He suggested a structure of 15 ministers in Cabinet and six outside. "There are a lot of portfolios which, as David Seymour says, are symbolic. The titles are there really to appease sector groups, rather than to deliver specific policy." Former United Future leader Peter Dunne. Photo: RNZ Dunne proposed consolidating certain portfolios - such as Internal Affairs, Local Government, and the Voluntary Sector - under a single umbrella. However, he opposed a hard legislative limit on the number of ministers and questioned Seymour's comparison with Ireland. Ireland's Constitution limits the size of its Cabinet to a maximum of 15 full ministers, but governments can also appoint junior Ministers of State - of which there are currently 23. Of those, three are designated "super junior ministers" who attend Cabinet meetings - a practice currently being challenged in the courts. Former Labour minister Stuart Nash said Seymour's argument had some merit, though considered it ironic coming from someone who had set up the new Ministry for Regulation. Stuart Nash. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone "Do you really need a new agency to reduce red tape?" Nash said. "There would never have been a Minister of Regulation - or whatever David Seymour's title is - if it wasn't for ACT. Now is that necessary?" Nash - who held several Cabinet roles from 2017 through to 2023 - said portfolios were often invented to placate coalition partners or key stakeholders. "Do we really need a Minister of Fishing and Hunting?" Nash said. "Under this government, there is now a Minister for Space and a Minister for Manufacturing. When I was [in charge of] economic development, both those portfolios were included [there]." Still, Nash acknowledged there was sometimes a case for such standalone portfolios to send a message that they were a priority area. In his Thursday speech, Seymour anticipated accusations of hypocrisy over the Ministry for Regulation and said that was different as his agency was designed to cut bureaucratic bloat, not expand it. Seymour also argued regulation was a core function of government and so deserved its own oversight. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
The Guardian
11-04-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
New Zealand's divisive treaty principles bill has been defeated – but the fight against populism isn't over
The New Zealand parliament this week voted down the treaty principles bill – legislation that has caused more division in our country than any other proposal in recent memory. I have been around for long enough to remember the debates about the nuclear free legislation and homosexual law reform in the 1980s, and the treaty bill generated at least as much debate as those two highly controversial measures. It sought to redefine the principles that flow from New Zealand's founding document, the Treaty of Waitangi. While the bill is dead, the damage it caused will take some time to repair. The legislation has been the major contributor to deteriorating relations between Māori and the crown in New Zealand since 2023 and its effects will be felt for many years to come. David Seymour, the Act party leader who introduced the bill, has said that this is really the beginning of the debate, not the end of it. Some background is required. New Zealand has a proud history of attempting to address historical grievances. In 1975, the Waitangi tribunal was created. Its task was to consider contemporary breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi and make recommendations to the crown about how those breaches could be addressed. In 1985, the jurisdiction of the tribunal was extended so that it could inquire into historical grievances going back to 6 February 1840, the day the Treaty of Waitangi was signed. The tribunal has been very busy over the last few decades inquiring into those grievances and making recommendations to the crown. That is how the treaty settlements process developed and it has been highly successful. I was the minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations between 2008 and 2017 during which time the crown and various iwi (tribes) signed more than 60 deeds of settlement which were given effect to by legislation. The statute which established the Waitangi tribunal referred for the first time to breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi 'and its principles'. Since that time, many statutes have been enacted requiring a minister or government department to take into account 'the principles of the Treaty' when making decisions or formulating policy. None of them has provided a definition of what the principles are. Instead, the definition has been developed by the courts over time, just as the common law has developed in other areas of the law, such as insolvency and tax. The principles developed by the courts are nothing revolutionary and include things such as a duty to act reasonably and in good faith. The principles have largely remained the same since they were developed in the late 1980s. Every once in a while, certain elements on the right of politics have said that the phrase 'principles of the Treaty' is vague and uncertain and has empowered activist judges. From time to time legislation has been introduced with the aim of either deleting references to the principles or, as in the case of the treaty principles bill, redefining what those principles are. In 2023, as usual under New Zealand's proportional voting system, an election failed to deliver a majority government. A coalition was formed between the National party (traditionally a liberal conservative party), New Zealand First (a mildly populist party) and the Act party (originally formed as a neoliberal, low regulation party, but adopting increasingly populist policies). As part of the negotiations, the National party agreed that Act could introduce a bill to define the treaty principles in law, and have it referred to a select committee for public submission. There were no guarantees that there would be any support after that. So in due course, Act introduced the treaty principles bill. It sought more or less to write the Treaty out of New Zealand history and replace it with a set of statements more suited to inclusion in the preamble of a written constitution. Understandably, Māori – who have had to fight every step of the way to have their grievances addressed – were shocked by this legislation. It caused huge upset throughout New Zealand and thousands marched on parliament in what was one of the largest demonstrations in the country's history. There was mayhem in parliament when it was first tabled – as members of the Māori party performed a haka or war dance which was watched all over the world. A record number of public submissions on the bill were made. The process was divisive and unfortunate – and ultimately pointless. Will this issue just go away to be replaced by more pressing issues like the economy and the infrastructure deficit? I hope so, but I doubt it. One can see the Act party campaigning on treaty principles at next year's election in an endeavour to increase its vote at the expense of the liberal-conservative National party and be in a position to have a greater say in any future centre right coalition. The performance of the Act party on this issue means that would be a bad outcome for New Zealand. Much of the work that was done in the treaty settlement space was spearheaded by the National party governments of the 1990s and 2010s. In those days the National party was a liberal conservative party, the heir to both the liberal and the conservative traditions of politics. Unfortunately, throughout the world, centre right parties like the misnamed Liberals in Australia, the Conservatives in the United Kingdom and the Republicans in the United States, have ceased to be liberal conservative parties, and have leaned in a more populist direction. In doing so, they have betrayed their traditions and encouraged discourse which is at best counter-productive. The National party has so far avoided that pitfall, and one can only hope it will start asserting itself over its populist smaller partners in the lead-up to the 2026 general election. Chris Finlayson KC, barrister and New Zealand's attorney general and minister for Treaty of Waitangi negotiations between 2008 and 2017
