East Coast iwi Te Whānau a Apanui is willing to play the long game to finalise its treaty settlement after the Government’s “unprecedented” U-turn on a major settlement at the final hurdle.
The tribe negotiated a unique, agree-to-disagree “sovereignty clause” with the previous government and initialled the deal before the last election, but Treaty Negotiations Minister Paul Goldsmith is now refusing to take the final step.
Te Pāti Māori co-leader and Te Whānau a Apanui spokesperson Rawiri Waititi said the issue has been over two decades in the making, but they remain committed.
“We are patient. Goldsmith is only the minister for today. Who said he will be the minister for tomorrow or in a government in 2026?”
Waititi added: “We’re pretty steadfast in regards to what we’re trying to achieve here and that’s to ensure the Crown understands that Te Whānau a Apanui didn’t cede sovereignty, and that the sovereignty clause in the Whānau a Apanui’s treaty settlement is probably one of the most important parts of that particular settlement and we will not be moving from that.”
The $30 million deal was initialled by the former Labour government and voted on by members of the iwi with nearly 97% in support.
The remaining step is for the current Government to sign the deed. But the contentious sovereignty clause where both the Crown’s view that Māori ceded sovereignty, and Te Whānau a Apanui’s view that they did not, are recorded is a step too far for the Treaty Negotiations Minister.
Goldsmith said: “As I made the point before, I don’t think treaty settlements are a place to have constitutional experimentation. I think it’s important those basic questions around sovereignty are dealt with in a different context.”
Waititi rejects the notion the clause is out of place. He said four of their tipuna signed the treaty understanding that it was the constitutional space to do so.
“So this is the absolute space to be able to discuss and to negotiate constitutional matters as we understand that Te Tiriti o Waitangi is the constitutional founding document of Aotearoa.”
In a letter released to 1News under the Official Information Act, Te Whānau a Apanui has told the minister that position makes it “very difficult if not impossible” to proceed to settlement.
The letter outlined the tribe’s disappointment with the minister in choosing to talk publicly about the dispute at a recent select committee, something the iwi says breached the terms of negotiation.
The minister defended this saying it was “an obvious thing” given Te Whānau a Apanui’s settlement was part of a relatively small set of settlements they were actively working on, and its progress had come to a standstill which required an explanation.
It’s the first time a clause like it has been included in a settlement.
“It would be a new approach taken about two thirds of the way through treaty settlements which, fundamentally, I don’t think is a helpful thing,” said Goldsmith.
When pushed on whether it changed anything, he said it was a “matter of debate”.
Former Treaty Negotiations Minister Andrew Little disagrees.
“It doesn’t do anything other than record two different views by two different parties, it doesn’t create any legal obligation, it doesn’t create anything other than what we already know.”
As the minister who initialled the deed under the Labour Government, he said it wasn’t difficult for him to agree on the clause.
“It’s pretty clear a lot of Māori take the view that Māori never ceded sovereignty, the Crown has always taken the view that Māori did cede sovereignty, those views are well known to everybody, but Te Whānau a Apanui wanted those two positions to be recorded in their deed.
“No one loses anything by doing that, so I was happy to reach agreement on that basis.”
He believed the iwi originally wanted an acknowledgement that they did not cede sovereignty from the Crown, which the Crown was “never going to agree” to, so the agree-to-disagree clause was the “next best option”.
“Everybody just records their differing views you just record the different views and life goes on,” he said.
