That was interesting to me because in February of this year I questioned why that government department gave the $2.738-billion figure in response to an OIA request.
Is the treaty settlement total dollar spend sensitive, I asked - see: https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2025/02/mike-butler-treaty-settlement-total.html
So, I went through most of the Auditor General’s 67-page report.
Ryan, who is departing from his current role as Auditor General, tracks where the money goes and, in this case, tracks contractual obligations.
All well and good, but I wondered why he wrote that total financial redress to last November was $2.738-billion when I knew it was $4.6-billion.
Why did I know the full amount in detail? I have been keeping track of it since 2010 for NZCPR based on settlement summaries from the government department named Te Arawhiti which was previously named the Office of Treaty Settlements.
Where did Ryan get his figure from? The $2.738-billion figure also came from Te Arawhiti aka the Office of Crown Maori Relations.
Has this government department made the same mistake twice, or is the understatement intentional?
If so, do we have a government department releasing misinformation, instead of information, in response to an OIA request, or do we have this government department misleading the Auditor General?
If it is intentional, why has an amount of a little under $2-billion become sensitive to a government that currently spends $160-billion every year.
Of course, that $2-billion figure is the difference between the total number added up from treaty settlement summaries on the Te Arawhiti website and the figure that Te Arawhiti gives out when asked under the Official Information Act or by the Auditor General.
The language of the Auditor General’s report adds a strong Maori grievance bias to the nuts and bolts of keeping track of money and contractual obligations.
Why would a career accountant display bias in his treaty settlements audit.
A closer look at his report shows that the phrasing used introduces a grievance narrative, and the narrative comes from his sources.
A check of the numbered references shows that the source of that narrative was none other than Te Arawhiti, and that those sources were created recently.
For instance, Section 2.19 of the report elaborates on the nature and purpose on redress which is “a contractual and legal obligation that responsible public organisations must fulfil”,17 and that “settlements commit parties to a "renewed relationship"18 and provide a foundation for an enduring "Treaty partnership"19.
The references show that Te Arawhiti made this up just last year.
And that was under the current government which promised to end co-governance and racism in the civil service.
So much for election promises.
The Auditor General presents a clear definition of what "the Crown" is, which is “the executive branch of government" which is “made up of the Governor-General, Ministers in Parliament, and their government departments”.
From this we may deduce that the "treaty partnership" version of New Zealand constitutional arrangements would have “the Crown” partnering with a disunited collection of more than 100 post-settlement governance entities.
Such is the spectre of co-governance with an elected government on one side of the ledger and squabbling tribes on the other.
We would be where Te Pati Maori is now - alive in 2025 but with 1840 behaviour.
I don't recall anything about "enduring treaty partnerships" in the debates of the 1990s, more than 30 years ago, when the first big settlements were made. .
At that time, the main assertion I recall Prime Minister Jim Bolger making is that the settlements would create a “financial base for Maoridom”.
Even Bolger’s former Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Minister, Sir Douglas Graham, said, in 2022, that the principle of partnership under the Treaty has gone a lot further than was meant in the 1987 Lands decision in the Court of Appeal.
For those who happily expect that we, as a nation, may turn the page when the final treaty settlement has been done, get ready to be disappointed.
The Auditor General’s recommendations would set up processes and procedures that embed in perpetuity what past politicians foolishly wrote into treaty settlements.
Here is the list that totals $4.6-billion extracted from summaries posted on the Te Arawiti website.
Ryan, who is departing from his current role as Auditor General, tracks where the money goes and, in this case, tracks contractual obligations.
All well and good, but I wondered why he wrote that total financial redress to last November was $2.738-billion when I knew it was $4.6-billion.
Why did I know the full amount in detail? I have been keeping track of it since 2010 for NZCPR based on settlement summaries from the government department named Te Arawhiti which was previously named the Office of Treaty Settlements.
Where did Ryan get his figure from? The $2.738-billion figure also came from Te Arawhiti aka the Office of Crown Maori Relations.
Has this government department made the same mistake twice, or is the understatement intentional?
If so, do we have a government department releasing misinformation, instead of information, in response to an OIA request, or do we have this government department misleading the Auditor General?
If it is intentional, why has an amount of a little under $2-billion become sensitive to a government that currently spends $160-billion every year.
Of course, that $2-billion figure is the difference between the total number added up from treaty settlement summaries on the Te Arawhiti website and the figure that Te Arawhiti gives out when asked under the Official Information Act or by the Auditor General.
The language of the Auditor General’s report adds a strong Maori grievance bias to the nuts and bolts of keeping track of money and contractual obligations.
Why would a career accountant display bias in his treaty settlements audit.
A closer look at his report shows that the phrasing used introduces a grievance narrative, and the narrative comes from his sources.
A check of the numbered references shows that the source of that narrative was none other than Te Arawhiti, and that those sources were created recently.
For instance, Section 2.19 of the report elaborates on the nature and purpose on redress which is “a contractual and legal obligation that responsible public organisations must fulfil”,17 and that “settlements commit parties to a "renewed relationship"18 and provide a foundation for an enduring "Treaty partnership"19.
The references show that Te Arawhiti made this up just last year.
And that was under the current government which promised to end co-governance and racism in the civil service.
So much for election promises.
The Auditor General presents a clear definition of what "the Crown" is, which is “the executive branch of government" which is “made up of the Governor-General, Ministers in Parliament, and their government departments”.
From this we may deduce that the "treaty partnership" version of New Zealand constitutional arrangements would have “the Crown” partnering with a disunited collection of more than 100 post-settlement governance entities.
Such is the spectre of co-governance with an elected government on one side of the ledger and squabbling tribes on the other.
We would be where Te Pati Maori is now - alive in 2025 but with 1840 behaviour.
I don't recall anything about "enduring treaty partnerships" in the debates of the 1990s, more than 30 years ago, when the first big settlements were made. .
At that time, the main assertion I recall Prime Minister Jim Bolger making is that the settlements would create a “financial base for Maoridom”.
Even Bolger’s former Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Minister, Sir Douglas Graham, said, in 2022, that the principle of partnership under the Treaty has gone a lot further than was meant in the 1987 Lands decision in the Court of Appeal.
For those who happily expect that we, as a nation, may turn the page when the final treaty settlement has been done, get ready to be disappointed.
The Auditor General’s recommendations would set up processes and procedures that embed in perpetuity what past politicians foolishly wrote into treaty settlements.
Here is the list that totals $4.6-billion extracted from summaries posted on the Te Arawiti website.
6 comments:
Good research. I was looking for the settlement figures on the net. It was touted as 2.3 billion -2.7 billion. I thought that was bad enough. Appalling state of affairs in a so-called democratic country. I sill maintain it is pretty difficult to change the collective New Zealand mindset. Consider, only a small percentage of us voted for ACT and NZF, the only parties who could possibly change the countries direction.
Has this (apartheid) government department made the same mistake twice, or is the understatement intentional? (Intentional)
If so, do we have an (apartheid) government department releasing misinformation, instead of information, in response to an OIA request, or do we have this (apartheid) government department misleading the Auditor General? (Both)
If it is intentional, why has an amount of a little under $2-billion become sensitive to a government that currently spends $160-billion every year. (Because there is growing public anger and pushback on apartheid payouts masquerading as “principles, partnership and co-governance” all legislated into existence because our governments insist on referring to false treaty documents that do not agree with the original.)
Developments in NZ get more depressing each day. The $2.7 billion figure felt suspiciously low. The original aim was $1 billion but the scope and extent of settlements has soared since then. Especially with back compensation indexed off others. When the govt paid out $2 billion capital (plus generous interest) to Hubbard's depositors maori realised they could demand anything, and have. Am curious to know if the outgoing Auditor is genuinely pro maori or whether he fears cancellation. And attempted to preserve a CV attractive to the new monied employers. Doing the Auditor General job diligently would be very contradicting for anyone pro maori. It never ceases to amaze me where NZ ranks in the international non corruption ratings.
When I read through this list, l kept thinking, man those early god fairing settlers trying to eak out a living and establish an equal, democratic, safe sovereign country, must have been mean Bastards.
The Auditor General should have probity or honesty and integrity front and centre . These are not small housekeeping mistakes but it is huge fiscal malpractice. The question has to be asked by the public through the Police and Ombudsman for, dear I say " an Audit "
The AG's bias has been signalled for some time. Take a look at the following and tell me different?
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/517424/freshwater-management-auditor-general-stresses-value-of-close-ties-between-regional-councils-maori from RNZ.
Post a Comment