Treaty Negotiations Minister Says Settlements With Iwi Can't Be 'Open Ended'
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."
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 also said he did not 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.
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 was not helpful for the country moving forward.
Ngāti Hine leader Pita Tipene told RNZ no hapū of Ngāpuhi will be subdued.
"Working together for the common good is still there in 2025 and beyond and "no colonial government then or modern government now will impose themselves on the hapū of Ngāpuhi."
On taxpayer money being spent, he said that money is being wasted "because governments have made serious mistakes in trying to impose themselves on the hapū of Ngāpuhi".
"The moment they listen to the hapū and work with hapū instead of imposing themselves or trying to impose themselves, they will save many a taxpayer dollar.
"And the taxpayer needs to know that the government has tried this in the past and failed."
He suggested the government try a different approach, given they are getting the same result from the same approach.
"They can learn a lot from the previous minister, Chris Finlayson, who realised the way that the government tried then and failed must not be repeated."
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."
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."
Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour said he would support putting a timeline to Ngāpuhi that would require a decision to have been made by a certain point, but said that was ultimately up to the Treaty Negotiations Minister.
Shane Jones told reporters on Tuesday his party would be taking its proposal for how taxpayer money would be used for settlements to the next election.
"We can no longer have 20 years and beyond 20 million of squandered money, someone's gotta draw a line in the sand and stop this dysfunction."
On the agree-to-disagree issue, he said NZ First's focus was economic empowerment, not funding "unrealistic dreams about hapū sovereignty".
Jones said it had been people from Ngāpuhi who encouraged him to take this step
Tipene acknowledged there are always differing voices in any community or country, but he said the majority of people won't allow the government to impose themselves on the hapū.
"You will find some people in Ngāpuhi who, for their own reasons, want to get on with it.
"Largely, you will find that those people are not connected to the people on the ground."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
1News
8 hours ago
- 1News
Longer jail terms proposed for assaults on first responders, prison officers
People who assault on-duty police officers, firefighters, paramedics, or prison officers would face longer prison sentences under new criminal offences announced by the Government today. Under the proposed legislation, an existing provision for assaulting police would be expanded to cover paramedics, firefighters and prison officers with a maximum sentence of up to three years' imprisonment. Those who assault with intent to injure will face up to five years, while those who injure with intent could receive up to seven years — an offence that will also trigger the Three Strikes regime, requiring mandatory minimum sentences. Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said first responders ran towards danger to help those who needed urgent assistance. "Assaulting them puts multiple lives at risk, so there must be greater consequences for these heinous acts of violence. We want to send a very clear message that assaults against our first responders will not be tolerated." ADVERTISEMENT Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith. (Source: 1News) He said it was part of the Government's plan to "restore real consequences for crime". "It's all part of our plan to restore law and order, which we know is working." The new offences expand on existing laws which currently applied to assaults on police staff and were a commitment in the National - New Zealand First coalition agreement. New Zealand First leader Winston Peters told 1News that the bill had long been a priority for his party. "It's simply wrong that people carrying out their lawful duties—ambulance officers, firefighters, police, and, dare I say, prison officers—are being assaulted without consequences," he said. An earlier version of the legislation from NZ First MP Darroch Ball was voted down ahead of its third reading in 2020. It would have introduced a minimum six-month mandatory sentence for assaults on police, corrections officers, paramedics, nurse and fire services. ADVERTISEMENT New Zealand First leader Winston Peters. (Source: 1News) Peters said he was "really saddened" by the bill's earlier failure but was now "seriously confident" it will pass into law. "We negotiated this, and we expect people to keep their word," he added. Labour justice spokesperson Duncan Webb said first responders did a tough job and needed to be protected both by the law and by being properly paid and supported. "However, the Government has failed to recruit the 500 frontline police they promised they would and at the same time, meth usage has doubled. This puts those at the frontline under great pressure. "We also need to be looking at the causes of crime before offending occurs, such as homelessness, unemployment, mental health and addiction, and poverty." AUT law professor Kris Gledhill. (Source: Auckland University of Technology) ADVERTISEMENT List of workers covered 'limited' - law professor AUT law professor Kris Gledhill said the Sentencing Act 2002 already treated assaults on emergency workers and prison officers as an aggravating factor during sentencing. "Some might suggest that this makes it unnecessary to have a separate offence because the status of the worker is already reflected in sentencing practice." Gledhill also said the list was "limited" and that having separate offences created "anomalies". He pointed out that UK legislation includes public health workers like nurses and doctors, whereas New Zealand's proposal did not. "Nurses, doctors and other workers in New Zealand's hospitals or other health settings might ask why they are not covered," he said. "There are also lots of other workers in public services who may consider that they are at risk of assault when they are just carrying out their jobs – traffic wardens, dog control officers, for example." ADVERTISEMENT Asked about protections for workers in the New Zealand health system, Goldsmith said it was a fair question and that it could be considered as the bill progresses through Parliament. "What we've chosen at the start here is ambulance workers, firefighters and police and corrections officers, but you know, that's a debate we could have during the select committee." Frontline leaders back tougher penalties St John deputy chief executive of ambulance operations Dan Ohs said there were daily reports of workers being hit, kicked, spat on, abused, and threatened. "That's a 10% year-on-year increase and that's of significant concern to us." He said anything which discourages people from assaulting ambulance personnel was a "fantastic initiative". "The only caution I would make is in our situation, people have specific medical problems which may make them behave in a certain way." ADVERTISEMENT Corrections Association president Floyd du Plessis (left), St John deputy chief executive of ambulance operations Dan Ohs (right). (Source: 1News) Corrections Association president Floyd du Plessis said staff assaults were "extremely high" across the country. "Police look at it as not being within the public interest to prosecute because of the fact that they're already in prison. We need to see consequence for these things, and staff need to feel like them being injured matters to somebody." He said the legislation was "absolutely needed". "We need more consequence, because without consequence, why would you stop?" The Police Association told 1News it welcomed the intent of the legislation and looked forward to considering the details of the bill when they were released. The Government was hopeful it would pass the legislation by the middle of this year.
Otago Daily Times
9 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Sentencing reforms come into effect as govt targets crime
By Natalie Akoorie of RNZ Sentencing reforms which will cap discounts judges can give to an offender and introduce aggravating factors at sentencing, have come into effect as the government targets tougher crime consequences. The Labour Party says the move will only exacerbate an already clogged court system, add huge costs to the taxpayer by increasing the prison population, and will not reduce crime or the number of victims. But Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said the sentencing reforms, which came into effect on Sunday, were about restoring real consequences for crime. Communities and hardworking New Zealanders should not be made to live and work in fear of criminals who had a "flagrant disregard for the law, corrections officers and the general public", he said. "We know that undue leniency has resulted in a loss of public confidence in sentencing, and our justice system as a whole. We had developed a culture of excuses." The tougher stance was part of the government's plan to "restore law and order, which we know is working", he said. "It signals to victims that they deserve justice, and that they are our priority." The changes include: • Capping sentence discounts when considering mitigating factors • Preventing repeat discounts for youth and remorse • Introducing aggravating factors at sentencing for offences against sole charge workers and those whose home and business are interconnected • Encouraging the use of cumulative sentencing when someone commits a crime on bail, in custody or on parole • Requiring courts to take victims' needs and interests into account at sentencing Act backs reforms Act MP Nicole McKee welcomed the new rules saying there had been a steady erosion of public confidence in the justice system. "Offenders faced fewer and shorter prison sentences, while communities paid the price." She said police data showed a 134 percent increase in serious assault leading to injury from 2017 to 2023 under "Labour's failed experiment of being kind to criminals". "We've restored Three Strikes, and from today additional measures are coming into force to make the message even clearer." She said the vulnerability of people who worked alone or in a business attached to their home would be "recognised in law" thanks to Act's coalition agreement to crack down on retail crime with the introduction of the aggravating factors. 'Smart on crime' Labour's spokesperson for Justice Duncan Webb, however, said tough on crime sounded good but did not actually have the effect of reducing crime. "We've got to be smart on crime as well. We've got to address the causes of crime which we know are poverty, family violence, mental illness and addiction, and until we address those, there'll continue to be crime and there'll continue to be victims." Tougher sentences were just one option, he said. "If we're gonna be serious about reducing crime and reducing harm, we've got to address those causes of crime." Evidence showed tough on crime initiatives such as the Three Strikes law, which the government had reinstated, did not reduce victims, Webb said. "Victims are absolutely central to the approach and the best thing we could ever have is avoiding someone becoming a victim and that means addressing the causes of crime before crime occurs. "And absolutely I understand that when people are victims of crime they want to see the perpetrator punished and that's the right thing to happen, but I'd rather see the appropriate amount of resources put into mental health, reducing poverty, [and] eliminating homelessness, because those are things that create crime and we've seen them all increase under this government." The fact white collar crime such as fraud - which was one of the few crimes that responded to deterrents - was not captured by Three Strikes was inconsistent, Webb said. Webb said he had sought feedback from those in the social services, intervention, and criminal justice sectors. "They're all frustrated with the fact the direction that's being taken is going to clog up the courts, it's going to create more offenders, it's going to create more victims and it's not actually going to address what we really want to address which is the things that cause crime."
Scoop
9 hours ago
- Scoop
Backing First Responders And Prison Officers
The Government is introducing new offences to ensure those who assault on-duty first responders or prison officers spend longer in prison, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith says. 'Where others may flee, first responders and prison officers run towards danger to help those who need urgent assistance. 'Assaulting them puts multiple lives at risk, so there must be greater consequences for these heinous acts of violence. Our hardworking police officers, firefighters, paramedics and prison officers deserve better.' Under these proposed offences: Assaulting a first responder or prison officer will have a maximum sentence of three years imprisonment. This expands an existing provision on assaulting Police to cover all first responders and prison officers. Assaulting a first responder or prison officer with intent to injure will have a maximum sentence of five years imprisonment. This is a two-year increase in penalty from the standard offence. Injuring a first responder or prison officer with intent to injure will have a maximum sentence of seven years' imprisonment and will be added to Three Strikes to ensure mandatory minimum sentences in line with that regime. This is also a two-year increase in penalty from the standard offence. 'This builds on our sentencing reforms which came into affect today, and is another way we will denounce violence in New Zealand,' Mr Goldsmith says. 'It fulfils a commitment in the National/New Zealand First coalition agreement, to introduce the Protection for First Responders and Prison Officers legislation to create a specific offence for assaults on first responders which includes minimum mandatory prison sentences. 'We promised to restore real consequences for crime. That's exactly what we're delivering. It's all part of our plan to restore law and order, which we know is working.'
