A man in a suit gestures while speaking, set against a background of handwritten notes. A red letter "F" is superimposed on the image.
Design: The Spinoff

ĀteaApril 10, 2025

New report reveals public organisations are falling short on treaty settlements

Ātea editor
A man in a suit gestures while speaking, set against a background of handwritten notes. A red letter "F" is superimposed on the image.
Design: The Spinoff

A new report from the auditor general reveals serious failings in how public agencies are honouring treaty settlement commitments and outlines what needs to change.

When iwi and hapū sign Treaty of Waitangi settlements with the Crown, they’re not just accepting redress for historic breaches. They’re entering into a renewed, long-term relationship with the state – one built on acknowledgment, apology and partnership. Already fragile and with a fraught history, those relationships are constantly under strain.

A new report from the controller and auditor general makes it clear that public organisations are not meeting the commitments laid out in treaty settlements. Despite a system that now spans more than 12,000 active obligations across roughly 150 public agencies, the Crown is underperforming and putting the durability of settlements at risk.

What are Treaty settlement commitments and why do they matter?

Since 1989, the Crown has been settling historic treaty breaches through legally binding deeds and legislation. These settlements include financial redress, cultural recognition, and mechanisms like co-governance or rights of first refusal on surplus Crown land. At the time of reporting, the Crown had paid $2.7 billion in financial and commercial redress, amounting to less than 3% of the estimated value of what was taken from Māori.

However, perhaps the most important part of each settlement is the promise of a new relationship between the Crown and Māori. One based not on grievance, but on partnership.

Public organisations like government departments, Crown entities, local authorities and state-owned enterprises are responsible for upholding these commitments. Unfortunately, says today’s report, they’re failing to do so consistently.

Treaty settlements impose a wide range of legally binding obligations on public organisations – from transferring Crown land and offering iwi rights of first refusal, to restoring traditional place names, making financial redress, and establishing relationship agreements or co-governance arrangements over rivers, mountains and conservation land. Agencies are also often required to consult iwi on planning or regulatory matters and to maintain ongoing engagement through formal protocols. While these obligations are clearly set out in settlement documents, the report found many public organisations either misunderstand them, fail to prioritise them, or lack the systems to track and fulfil them consistently.

Promises within treaty settlements are failing to be met by the Crown. (Design: The Spinoff).

Why was the report launched and what did it look at?

In response to concerns raised in 2022 that public agencies were struggling to meet Treaty settlement commitments – potentially undermining the settlements themselves – Cabinet approved the He Korowai Whakamana framework to improve oversight and accountability. Initially led by Te Arawhiti, the framework’s implementation and related responsibilities were transferred to Te Puni Kōkiri in February 2025. The auditor-general’s report, based on evidence gathered throughout 2024, aimed to assess whether current public sector arrangements are fit for purpose and whether agencies understand the legal, contractual and reputational risks involved.

What did the report find?

The team assessed how well the public sector is honouring settlement obligations. It reviewed both core Crown agencies (like ministries) and non-core agencies (like councils and Crown entities), as well as the wider system for monitoring progress.

The findings were scathing – widespread confusion, weak accountability, and a lack of systems to monitor or escalate risks. Despite nearly four decades of settlements, many agencies still treat them as one-off tasks, not as the beginning of long-term relationships with iwi and hapū.

Key problems the report identified include:

  • A transactional mindset

Many agencies view settlements as checklists to be completed, not living commitments. Some didn’t even know what obligations they held or had conflicting records.

  • No holistic framework

There’s no overarching strategy guiding agencies to coordinate with each other or manage overlapping responsibilities. This leads to duplication, delays and confusion.

‘He mea tautoko nā ngā mema atawhai. Supported by our generous members.’
Liam Rātana
— Ātea editor
  • Inconsistent delivery

Some commitments are delayed by years, while others aren’t implemented at all. Gaps and breakdowns erode trust – and in some cases, have already triggered legal action.

  • Lack of monitoring and reporting

Most agencies don’t track progress on their settlement obligations in a meaningful way. That means ministers, parliament and the public have little visibility over what’s working and what’s not.

  • Inadequate support and guidance

Non-core agencies, which hold about 20% of all obligations, are especially under-supported. While core agencies have access to guidance under He Korowai Whakamana – a framework to improve how core Crown agencies monitor, report on, and uphold their Treaty settlement commitments – others are left to figure it out on their own.

  • Te Haeata isn’t cutting it

The central online portal meant to track progress has major limitations. It doesn’t capture the full picture, and treats all updates as equal, regardless of scale or impact.

  • Significant risks

The government has already paid tens of millions in compensation for failing to meet its obligations. However, the real cost is harder to quantify as it includes lost opportunities, damaged relationships and the threat of new grievances.

What’s changing and who’s responsible now?

Until recently, the agency responsible for overseeing post-settlement implementation was Te Arawhiti, the Office for Māori Crown Relations. But that’s now shifting. Earlier this year, those responsibilities were handed to Te Puni Kōkiri, the Ministry of Māori Development – which is fast becoming the “aunty with all the jobs”.

Already responsible for areas as wide-ranging as housing, whānau ora, te reo Māori, employment and Māori enterprise, Te Puni Kōkiri is now tasked with overseeing how public agencies fulfil their settlement commitments, managing post-settlement relationships, advising the Crown on Māori rights and interests, and leading on Takutai Moana matters.

Announced by minister for Māori affairs Tama Potaka in August last year, the changes are part of a broader government strategy to double the Māori economy by 2035. But they’ve also drawn criticism.

Labour leader Chris Hipkins warned the restructure could repeat the Crown’s past mistakes, while the Public Service Association – which represents 200 staff at Te Arawhiti – called the changes demoralising and poorly communicated. “It sends a signal that the agency will be left doing the bare minimum,” said PSA Kaihautū Māori Janice Panaho.

Others, like Leith Comer (former Te Puni Kōkiri chief executive), cautiously welcomed the move, saying the real test would be in how it’s implemented. That implementation now falls to Te Puni Kōkiri, under chief executive Dave Samuels – whose ministry is already under pressure, with mixed results across key indicators like Māori housing and economic development.

What does the report recommend?

To restore credibility and ensure settlements are honoured, the report calls for a major system reset:

  • Develop a holistic framework

Te Puni Kōkiri should lead a cross-agency approach to settlement delivery that reflects the full, long-term intent of these agreements.

  • Improve planning and risk management

All public agencies should review how they plan for and monitor settlement responsibilities – including how they identify risks and escalate them.

The courts have declared the Crown has breached the Sealord deal. (Design: Tina Tiller)
  • Strengthen expectations on leadership

Ministers, boards and the Public Service Commission need to ensure Treaty obligations are built into performance expectations for chief executives and governance bodies.

  • Fix the right of first refusal process

Land Information New Zealand must urgently improve how it handles the right of first refusal process for land titles and give better support to agencies. These rights grant a long-term option for iwi to purchase or lease Crown-owned land and are essential tools for iwi to build their economic base.

  • Upgrade Te Haeata and annual reporting

Agencies need to report more clearly and publicly on their progress. Transparency matters, especially to iwi waiting for answers.

  • Extend He Korowai Whakamana

This oversight framework should apply to all agencies with settlement duties – not just those in the core public service.

  • Regularly assess the system

Te Puni Kōkiri should report annually to the Māori Affairs Select Committee on how well the public sector is honouring its promises.

More Reading

What’s the bottom line?

The auditor general’s report reads as a clear warning that if public organisations continue to treat settlements as paperwork, they risk undoing decades of progress.

This is Public Interest Journalism funded by NZ On Air.

Keep going!
Fish swimming in opposite directions against a textured blue background, appearing to move quickly with transparent motion blur effects.
Design: Liam Rātana

ĀteaApril 9, 2025

The Crown has been siphoning off Māori fisheries quota for decades

Ātea editor
Fish swimming in opposite directions against a textured blue background, appearing to move quickly with transparent motion blur effects.
Design: Liam Rātana

A recent High Court ruling has raised alarm bells about the long-term integrity of Treaty settlements – and concern over how a little-known clause in the Fisheries Act could cost iwi millions.

In 1992, the Crown and Māori reached what was meant to be a “full and final” settlement over commercial fishing rights. In exchange for a 50% stake in seafood company Sealord and a 20% share of all quota species in New Zealand waters, Māori agreed to forgo further claims to commercial fishing rights under te Tiriti o Waitangi. This is known as the Māori fisheries settlement or Sealord deal.

However, more than 30 years on, that historic agreement has become the subject of a major legal dispute between Te Ohu Kaimoana, the entity established to manage those fisheries assets, and the Crown. At the centre of the dispute is an obscure clause in the Fisheries Act 1996 – Section 23 – which Te Ohu Kaimoana argues has been quietly undermining the fisheries settlement for more than two decades.

In March 2025, the High Court found that the Crown had breached the Fisheries Settlement by enabling the erosion of Māori settlement quota through the operation of what are known as “28N rights”. The full implications of the case are still yet to be known, but already, it has raised serious concerns about how the Crown honours the integrity of Treaty settlements over time and whether property transferred to Māori can ever truly be considered permanent.

What are 28N rights?

To understand the issue, it helps to go back to the 1980s. In response to collapsing fish stocks, the Crown introduced the Quota Management System (QMS) in 1986 to limit commercial catch and create a more sustainable fishing industry. To make the changes palatable to affected commercial fishers, the Crown offered a form of deferred compensation: “28N rights”. Effectively, these promised that if catch limits ever increased, affected fishers would be first in line to receive new quota – and they’d get it for free.

At the time, quota was issued in tonnes. But in the 1990s, the QMS shifted to a share-based system, with each stock divided into 100 million quota shares. Māori settlement quota was converted accordingly, making up 10 million shares per stock. It’s under this system that the problems began.

Under Section 23 of the Fisheries Act 1996, when catch limits increase in fisheries with unredeemed 28N rights, the government does not issue new shares to honour those rights. Instead, it permanently reallocates shares from existing quota holders – including iwi – to the 28N rights holders. No compensation is offered.

In some fisheries, especially where catch levels have fluctuated or temporarily dropped to zero, that can result in iwi losing their entire allocation.

Why does this matter for the Māori fisheries settlement?

Te Ohu Kaimoana says the reallocation of shares through Section 23 amounts to the Crown confiscating quota that was promised to Māori in perpetuity. It argues this undermines the entire premise of the fisheries settlement – that iwi would receive permanent quota holdings as part of the redress for Treaty breaches.

“The effect of the 28N rights anomaly is thus, by operation of legislation, to re-take from Māori the quota shares allocated to them by the Crown,” the group said in its amended court filings. In practical terms, the financial loss is significant. In one fishery alone – snapper in the upper North Island (SNA8) – the value of quota at risk has been estimated at $10m.

This erosion of quota has happened slowly and mostly unnoticed over time. However, for Te Ohu Kaimoana and the iwi it represents, it raises broader questions: What does “full and final” mean when parliament can later pass laws that change the value of what was agreed? And if the Crown can use legislation to reallocate assets granted under a settlement, what protection does any Treaty settlement really have?

(Photo: Getty)

What did the court say?

In a significant ruling issued late last month, Justice Boldt found that the Crown’s continued use of Section 23 had breached the fisheries settlement. The judgment is a major win for Te Ohu Kaimoana, though questions remain about what practical changes will follow.

In earlier proceedings, the court declined Te Ohu Kaimoana’s request for an interim order to stop the minister of fisheries from making catch decisions in affected fisheries, citing the potential economic impact on the fishing industry. But even then, Justice Boldt said Te Ohu Kaimoana had demonstrated a “serious question to be tried”. That question has now been answered – and it doesn’t reflect well on the Crown.

The court’s ruling draws attention to historic records of hui held during the Sealord settlement negotiations, where Māori repeatedly emphasised the need for “akeake” (forever) quota rights. At the time, the Crown gave repeated assurances that settlement quota would not be subject to future erosion. However, that’s exactly what Section 23 has allowed.

‘He mea tautoko nā ngā mema atawhai. Supported by our generous members.’
Liam Rātana
— Ātea editor

How has the Crown responded?

In its defence, the Crown argued that the potential impact of 28N rights was always built into the QMS – and that settlement quota was never immune to the laws governing all quota holders. The Crown maintains that the Māori fisheries settlement remains valid and that no promises were made to shield Māori from the effects of proportional quota adjustments.

It also pointed to the complexity of balancing the interests of all rights holders – including commercial fishers who have waited nearly 40 years to redeem their 28N rights. Redeeming those rights through reallocation, the Crown argued, was an efficient way to meet longstanding obligations without requiring additional public funds or new quota to be issued.

However, Justice Boldt’s ruling suggests that the method chosen – taking from Māori to repay Crown debts – was both inappropriate and inconsistent with the terms of the settlement.

What happens next?

The ruling does not automatically restore any lost quota or invalidate Section 23. However, it does confirm that the Crown has breached its obligations. What form any remedy might take is still unclear and will likely require further legal, political or legislative resolution.

For iwi and Māori fishing interests, the decision has wider implications beyond the fisheries sector. If the Crown can legislate away elements of a Treaty settlement – or pass laws that allow for its slow erosion – then it raises the question of how enduring any settlement really is.

The case also highlights the challenges of reconciling Treaty redress with complex regulatory systems like fisheries management. In seeking to settle past injustices, the Crown may have unintentionally established procedures that create new ones.

More Reading

Why it matters

Beyond the courtroom, the fight over Section 23 is about more than fish. It’s about the durability of Treaty promises and whether the redress agreed to by the Crown can be quietly chipped away through legislative change.

When Māori agreed to the Sealord deal, it was on the understanding that what was given would not be taken back. That those rights, like the fish themselves, would endure.

Now, more than 30 years on, that understanding has been tested. For Māori, it’s a reminder that vigilance is still required, even over settlements supposedly meant to last forever.

This is Public Interest Journalism supported by NZ On Air.

Ātea