Part 6: Assurance, transparency, and accountability
6.1
We wanted to understand how well public sector arrangements provide assurance, transparency, and accountability to Parliament, Ministers, Crown entity governors, councillors, post-settlement governance entities, iwi and hapū, and the public.
6.2
We expected that there would be enough information for these entities and groups to:
- understand and have assurance about public organisations' progress in fulfilling settlements;
- understand any risks posed by public organisations failing to provide redress as intended; and
- hold public organisations accountable for their actions or omissions in fulfilling settlements.
6.3
We found that public sector arrangements are not providing adequate assurance, transparency, or accountability for settlement commitments. Inadequate monitoring and reporting mean that many public organisations do not have the right information to demonstrate accountability to Parliament, Ministers, Crown entity governors, councillors, post-settlement governance entities, iwi and hapū, or the public.
6.4
There has been little accountability for public organisations' performance in meeting individual settlement commitments, and even less about achieving the intent of settlements.
6.5
Te Haeata is starting to provide some transparency about the status of core Crown agencies' individual responsibilities. However, it does not monitor the status of all commitments. It excludes most relational commitments, and although it lists the 20% of all commitments that Crown entities, local authorities, and other non-core Crown agencies are responsible for, those agencies are not required to provide status updates.
6.6
New annual reporting requirements for core Crown agencies from 2023/24 onwards have improved transparency. However, in our view, they will not be sufficient for effective accountability.
6.7
As a result, Parliament, Ministers, Crown entity governors, councillors, post-settlement governance entities, iwi and hapū, and the public cannot be confident that public organisations are identifying, managing, mitigating, and/or escalating risks to meeting commitments where appropriate. This means that the overall risk to the durability of individual settlements is unknown.
There has been little effective accountability
6.8
Although it is clear who is responsible for settlement commitments, the information needed to understand how well public organisations are meeting them is not available.
6.9
Of the many issues with meeting the commitments in the settlements we looked at, we could identify only one issue that a core Crown agency proactively identified and raised directly with the relevant post-settlement governance entity. Post-settlement governance entities told us that they often got traction with a settlement issue only after they threatened litigation.
6.10
This means that post-settlement governance entities are devoting time and resources to pursuing accountability. They cannot use this time and these resources to address their other priorities or to realise the opportunities that should have been available if public organisations had met commitments effectively.
6.11
One council we spoke with acknowledged that post-settlement governance entities should not have to "draw on their settlement which was intended to settle historical grievances to participate in kāwanatanga [government] systems to deliver on the settlement".
6.12
Post-settlement governance entities told us that Te Arawhiti had helped resolve some issues with commitments. However, they said that they would prefer public organisations to proactively identify and resolve issues themselves.
6.13
Reputational damage from failing to meet commitments as intended can make it harder for the public sector to achieve a settlement's overall purpose and intent. It also affects the Crown's relationship with iwi and hapū.
6.14
When responding to questions from the Primary Production Committee in March 2024 about the delayed transfers of some Crown forestry licensed land, the Minister for Land Information acknowledged the broader implications of failing to meet commitments as intended:
I mean, in a principled level, justice delayed is justice denied. And even, if we were to extend it further, we could say, "Well, if there's been a breach of the Treaty such that's given rise to this transaction needing to take place in the 21st century, then ongoing delays would represent an exacerbation of that breach."54
6.15
In our view, to fulfil settlements as intended, public organisations need to more proactively identify and escalate issues. This would also mitigate the risk of lengthy and expensive processes for resolving those issues.
There is inadequate transparency for post-settlement governance entities
6.16
Post-settlement governance entities also need enough information to understand public organisations' progress in fulfilling their settlements and have assurance that they will provide redress. One aspect of realising settlements' holistic intention is providing post-settlement governance entities with transparency about the status of commitments.
6.17
We saw evidence of public organisations informing post-settlement governance entities about the progress of individual commitments (such as property transfers). This included when there had been historical issues with redress.
6.18
We were also told that regular engagements through relationship agreements can be effective ways for public organisations to be transparent about their progress with commitments.
6.19
For example, Bay of Plenty Regional Council told us that it often reports significant matters to relevant co-governance bodies. Te Uru Taumatua staff told us that they value the relationship that they have with the Ministry of Social Development, which leads a relationship agreement set up through Tūhoe's settlement.
6.20
However, post-settlement governance entities mostly get piecemeal information about the progress that public organisations are making with their settlement commitments. Public organisations usually provide information on a commitment-by-commitment basis.
6.21
In addition, post-settlement governance entities mostly receive information from individual public organisations rather than co-ordinated or combined information from multiple public organisations about their settlements.
6.22
This means that post-settlement governance entities do not have assurance that the settlement system is working well overall. They told us they do not have confidence that public organisations are meeting individual commitments or honouring their settlement's overall intent.
6.23
Staff of one post-settlement governance entity told us that, because of multiple issues with commercial redress, they were concerned that there might be issues with other commitments in their settlement that they do not know about.
6.24
In June 2024, post-settlement governance entities gained access to the status information that core Crown agencies report in Te Haeata. This is a positive step that could improve transparency to post-settlement governance entities about some settlements.
6.25
Post-settlement governance entities' engagement with Te Haeata will also likely improve the monitoring of settlement commitments by Te Puni Kōkiri and its awareness of issues. However, as we discuss in paragraphs 6.43-6.53, Te Haeata does not provide an adequate picture of all commitments.
Risks to the durability of settlements cannot be quantified
6.26
Significant settlement issues (see paragraph 2.33) have sometimes led to compensation. We understand that tens of millions of dollars have already been paid as financial compensation for significant settlement issues.
6.27
However, there is currently no way to quantify the potential financial impact of public organisations not providing redress as intended. This is partly because there is no comprehensive view of the status of all commitments, including how many might have issues with providing redress or might have litigation risk.
6.28
Te Arawhiti told us that it was concerned that financial compensation to some post-settlement governance entities to address significant settlement issues could outstrip the value of financial and commercial redress contained in their settlements.
6.29
As more issues are escalated over time, further resources will be needed to resolve them. In its 2023/24 annual report, Te Arawhiti said that the number of settlement issues has increased since 2019 "and is trending to continue to increase".55
6.30
Failing to meet settlement commitments also carries significant reputational risk for public organisations, which can remain even after an issue has been resolved or settled. This reputational risk does not just affect the individual public organisation involved. It also affects the credibility of all public organisations with settlement commitments.
6.31
Post-settlement governance entities told us that they do not distinguish between local government, Crown entities, and core Crown agencies – they view all public organisations as the Crown. Therefore, they see the failure of one public organisation as a failure of the Crown.
6.32
In other words, the Crown needs assurance that all public organisations are performing well not just because this is relevant to settlements' holistic intention but also because the Crown ultimately carries the overall risk to the Crown's relationship with iwi and hapū. This includes risks arising from non-core Crown agencies' actions or omissions.
6.33
Te Arawhiti advised its Minister and Cabinet that significant issues with providing settlement redress put the Government's reputation at risk. It warned of wider reputational damage if a significant settlement issue were to go before the courts or Waitangi Tribunal. It also warned that significant settlement issues affect existing settlements' durability and the Government's credibility when negotiating future settlements.
6.34
For example, in a briefing to its Minister, Te Arawhiti said that:
When settlement commitments are not upheld, any trust and confidence in the Crown built through the settlement process is jeopardised, and relationships between partners are undermined. In short, if the Crown does not honour its commitments, settlements risk not being full and final.
Monitoring information is improving but is still not adequate
6.35
As mentioned in paragraph 2.37, He Korowai Whakamana now requires core Crown agencies to provide quarterly updates on the status of each commitment that they are responsible for through Te Haeata.
6.36
Te Haeata sets out four possible categories that core Crown agencies can use to provide updates about their progress in meeting individual settlement commitments. Figure 3 describes these categories.
Figure 3
Status update categories in Te Haeata
Te Haeata describes progress in the following ways:
|
Source: Te Arawhiti (May 2023), Guidance for Crown: Updating status of commitments on Te Haeata – the Settlement Portal, page 8, at tpk.govt.nz.
6.37
Te Arawhiti told us that, before it set up the monitoring system, it relied on the institutional knowledge of staff with long experience of working on settlements to manage and resolve settlement issues.
6.38
After Te Arawhiti staff identified settlement issues, they developed an "Issue Overview" to monitor it. These overviews recorded useful information about the issue, including a history of decisions and actions about it, its status, and key contact people.
6.39
These overviews also supported staff in managing a settlement issue while it was unresolved. After an issue had been resolved, the overviews recorded historical information about the issue and how it had been worked through.
6.40
Developing Te Haeata and associated monitoring requirements was a significant step. Information gathered through Te Haeata improved Te Arawhiti's understanding of the progress of core Crown agencies' individual commitments and their ability to proactively identify settlement issues, as well as progress on commitments across a whole settlement by multiple core Crown agencies.
6.41
For example, having a list of commitments allowed Te Arawhiti to carry out its 2022 review of whether the "key [or] distinctive" commitments that make up the Te Kawerau ā Maki settlement had been met.
6.42
Te Haeata also means that potential or active significant settlement issues are better able to be monitored and core Crown agencies' progress in resolving them tracked.
The information in Te Haeata has limitations
6.43
Although Te Haeata has improved understanding about core Crown agencies' performance, there are limitations to the information that Te Haeata collects. These include the following:
- Te Haeata records status updates as a list of equivalent entries, regardless of each commitment's importance or complexity. For example, individual process steps for transferring commercial redress – such as appointing a valuer – are treated as equivalent to entering into a relationship agreement.
- Te Haeata is unable to tag a commitment that involves multiple post-settlement governance entities to each of those entities. This means that it cannot provide insights on the progress of commitments or settlements that apply to more than one post-settlement governance entity (such as the Central North Island collective settlement).
6.44
The information that Te Haeata collects is reported by core Crown agencies, and there is no process to verify the accuracy of all information provided. Te Arawhiti told us that, because it did not have the capacity to check all commitments, it prioritised verifying the status update entries from the largest core Crown agencies with settlement commitments.
6.45
When we carried out our audit, Te Arawhiti was aware of limitations to the data collected and presented through Te Haeata. It had made some changes to Te Haeata (such as adding functionality to retain historical information) that improved its usefulness.
Te Haeata does not include information about all commitments
6.46
Te Haeata now provides better information about the status of core Crown agencies' commitments. However, Te Haeata does not provide a comprehensive view of settlements because it does not collect information about all commitments.
6.47
Specifically, Te Haeata:
- does not collect status information about the 20% of responsibilities that Crown entities, local authorities, or other non-core Crown agencies hold;
- collects limited information about the status of some relationship agreements, protocols, and Accords – for example, in some instances, it records only whether relationship redress has been entered into, not its status or progress against its agreed objectives; and
- includes only statements from deeds of settlement that explicitly require a public organisation with a settlement commitment to do something (generally where it "must", "will", or "shall" carry out a task). In practice, this means that Te Haeata does not list some parts of deeds of settlement.56
6.48
Te Arawhiti told us that, in its view, it needed to limit He Korowai Whakamana's initial scope to core Crown agencies because it was not resourced to carry out wider monitoring of all organisations with commitments.
6.49
The current scope of monitoring through Te Haeata is a significant weakness. In our view, Te Puni Kōkiri will need more comprehensive monitoring information to improve its understanding of the risks associated with public organisations not meeting their commitments.
6.50
We acknowledge that some commitments will be more difficult to monitor than others – in particular, ongoing commitments such as relationship agreements. However, Te Puni Kōkiri still needs to know whether there are issues with these commitments.
6.51
In our view, it is feasible for monitoring to capture, for example, whether the terms of the relationship have been amended or whether parties agree that the ongoing commitment is achieving its stated goals or that the relationship is productive.
6.52
Regardless of its limitations, Te Haeata provides some of the information that Ministers need to understand how well public organisations are fulfilling settlements. We think it is important, now that responsibility for Te Haeata has been transferred to Te Puni Kōkiri, that these monitoring arrangements continue to be improved.
6.53
We consider that Te Puni Kōkiri should seek feedback from public organisations about how it can continuously improve Te Haeata to collect the right information and improve its quality and accuracy.
| Recommendation 6 |
|---|
| We recommend that Te Puni Kōkiri consider improvements to the quality and accuracy of the information that Te Haeata collects and reports. |
Annual reporting does not yet provide adequate assurance or transparency
6.54
Historically, there has been little public reporting about settlement commitments. For example, we reviewed 30 annual reports from public organisations for 2022/23, including those that were the focus of this audit. Nearly half did not mention settlement commitments. Of the 16 that did, all but four acknowledged some responsibilities without providing information about their status.
6.55
Land Information New Zealand was the only core Crown agency that we looked at for this audit that included detailed information about the status of some of its individual commitments in its annual reports for 2021/22 and 2022/23.
6.56
For example, in its annual report for 2021/22, Land Information New Zealand reported on delays to Crown forestry licensed land transfers. It said that transfers are normally required within five years of the enactment of settlement legislation, and acknowledged that, for 11 settlements, "our processes were too slow to meet the required timeframes". It said that it was making "positive progress" with the relevant transfers.57 Unlike most of the other annual reports that we looked at, Land Information New Zealand provided contextual information to assist the reader to understand the performance issue and what it was doing about it.
6.57
However, although Land Information New Zealand's 2022/23 annual report referred to the transfer of three Crown forestry licences, it did not explain whether these transfers also included forest titles that previously been delayed.58 This makes it difficult to track progress over time, and illustrates why a consistent approach to reporting on progress in meeting commitments is valuable.
New requirements are positive, but improvements are needed to enable effective scrutiny
6.58
Under He Korowai Whakamana, Cabinet directed core Crown agencies to start reporting in their 2023/24 annual reports on their progress in meeting their individual commitments (see paragraph 2.37 and Figure 2). The Treasury advised agencies to provide:
- an explanation of settlement commitments, the number of commitments the agency has, and the different commitment types that the agency has;
- a graph showing the status of the agency's commitments, derived from information in Te Haeata;
- an explanation of what each status means; and
- an explanation of the information shown in the graph.59
6.59
We reviewed all core Crown agencies' 2023/24 annual reports. Most followed the Treasury's guidance about reporting on the status of their commitments. This included the core Crown agencies we looked at that have commitments listed in Te Haeata: Te Arawhiti, Land Information New Zealand, and the Department of Conservation.
6.60
This reporting has improved transparency, but we do not consider that it provides adequate information for the purposes of scrutiny by Parliament or the public. In particular, the performance reporting did not adequately explain the importance of individual commitment or settlement issues.
6.61
For example, although Land Information New Zealand's issues with transferring Crown forestry licensed land titles amounted to just 2% of all its commitments, Crown forestry licensed land can be the largest piece of financial and commercial redress in a settlement.
6.62
As discussed in paragraph 4.22, post-settlement governance entities receive the forestry license, along with accumulated rentals and ongoing rental payments, soon after settlement. However, they do not receive the asset's full value until the titles are transferred.60
6.63
The performance reporting we looked at did not give a sense of the relative importance of different agencies' settlement issues in the context of the overall settlement system. For example, our analysis showed that four core Crown agencies' delivery issues collectively make up about 70% of all core Crown agencies' delivery issues.
6.64
The new reporting requirements also apply only to core Crown agencies. This means that other public organisations can choose whether to report on their commitments in their annual reports (or other suitable reports). The annual reports of councils and Crown entities that we looked at included little to no information about the status of the work they were doing to fulfil their commitments.
6.65
Te Arawhiti used annual reporting by core Crown agencies in 2023/24 to produce its first report to its Minister collating status information about settlement commitments, which it released in December 2024.
6.66
Te Arawhiti considered that this report provided a baseline to assess core Crown agencies' future performance against. The report collated status updates from 26 core Crown agencies with status updates from 74 settlements (see Figure 4).
Figure 4
Status update information for responsibilities that core Crown agencies hold, 2023/24
| Progress status | Core Crown agencies' responsibilities | Percentage of responsibilities |
|---|---|---|
| Complete | 6411 | 44 |
| Delivery issues | 715 | 5 |
| On track | 4819 | 33 |
| Yet to be triggered | 2649 | 18 |
| Total | 14,594 | 100 |
Source: Te Arawhiti (2024), Whole of System (Core Crown) Report on Treaty Settlement Delivery, page 9, at beehive.govt.nz.
6.67
This collated reporting is a positive step. However, its usefulness is limited by the lack of comprehensiveness, status updates being largely self-reported, and the inadequate explanations of performance that core Crown agencies provided. The report makes several recommendations about how to improve future reporting (see Figure 5). These are consistent with the recommendations we make in this report.
Figure 5
Recommendations from Whole of System (Core Crown) Report on Treaty Settlement Delivery
Te Arawhiti recommend that:
|
Source: Te Arawhiti (2024), Whole of System (Core Crown) Report on Treaty Settlement Delivery, page 12, at beehive.govt.nz.
6.68
In our view, all public organisations with settlement responsibilities should report on them – including Crown entities, local authorities, and other non-core Crown agencies.
6.69
Annual reporting on settlement responsibilities should include:
- an explanation of the types of commitments that public organisations are responsible for (for example, what proportion are land redress or relational redress);
- an explanation of what different status updates mean and, in particular, information about any significant settlement issues – for example, the magnitude of the issues and any risks to commitments that are "on track" or "yet to be triggered"; and
- achievements and any significant settlement issues (which we suggest that public organisations agree with post-settlement governance entities).
| Recommendation 7 |
|---|
|
We recommend that all public organisations with settlement commitments improve the information that their annual reports provide about their progress in meeting their commitments, including by clearly explaining:
|
6.70
Public organisations should also look for ways to make public reporting easier for the public to find and understand. It is important that their public communications clearly and concisely convey an accurate picture of how well they have used resources.
System-level oversight must be strengthened
6.71
The durability of settlements relies on public organisations with settlement commitments meeting their contractual and legal obligations and fulfilling the settlement's intent – including a renewed and developing relationship with iwi and hapū.
6.72
Public organisations with settlement commitments need to demonstrate that they take settlements seriously and are proactive about honouring them in good faith. When this does not happen, iwi and hapū who have settled (and those who have not yet settled but who intend to participate in the settlement system) need assurance that public organisations are held to account, and that corrective action is taken.
6.73
Overall, a strong theme of our interviews with public organisations and post-settlement governance entities was the lack of active strategic oversight or stewardship to proactively guide and support the public sector's fulfilment of settlement commitments.
6.74
In our view, this is especially relevant to non-core Crown agencies, which are currently excluded from He Korowai Whakamana's oversight, monitoring, and support arrangements.
6.75
Te Arawhiti told us that, as a Cabinet-endorsed framework, He Korowai Whakamana "establishes a starting point for increased Crown transparency and visibility around core Crown progress in implementing settlement commitments".
6.76
Te Arawhiti also told us that, because non-core Crown agencies and local authorities are at arm's length to central government, a different path would be needed to apply He Korowai Whakamana to them.
6.77
The Cabinet paper establishing He Korowai Whakamana acknowledges that extending it beyond core Crown agencies could be possible:
Following implementation of He Korowai Whakamana by the core Crown, there is an opportunity to consider whether He Korowai Whakamana could be extended to local government and other Crown entities.61
6.78
We acknowledge that applying He Korowai Whakamana to non-core Crown agencies might not be straightforward. For example, local authorities have their own democratic mandate, and Ministers cannot direct them or hold them to account except in certain circumstances.
6.79
As mentioned in paragraph 6.32, the Crown needs assurance that all public organisations are performing well not just because this is relevant to settlements' holistic intention but also because the Crown ultimately carries the overall risk – including risks arising from non-core Crown agencies' actions or omissions.
6.80
In our view, changes are needed to require all public organisations to be transparent and accountable for meeting their settlement commitments and fulfilling settlements' overall intent and ensuring their durability.
6.81
Ensuring that Ministers and Parliament have access to more comprehensive information about settlement commitments is critical to improved accountability. This includes access to information about the status of commitments that Crown entities, local authorities, and other non-core Crown agencies are responsible for.
6.82
In our view, Te Puni Kōkiri and the Public Service Commission should work with relevant public organisations – in particular, Crown entities, local authorities, and other non-core Crown agencies – to consider how to extend He Korowai Whakamana.
6.83
As discussed in paragraphs 5.37-5.47, this should include providing Crown entities, local authorities, and other non-core Crown agencies with advice, guidance, and support.
| Recommendation 8 |
|---|
|
We recommend that Te Puni Kōkiri and the Public Service Commission work together, and with others as needed, to consider how to extend He Korowai Whakamana to relevant Crown entities, local authorities, and other non-core Crown agencies, to ensure that:
|
There needs to be reporting on progress to achieve each settlement's holistic intention
6.84
Given how crucial the intent of each settlement is to its fulfilment, we think that public organisations should monitor and report about the extent that they are achieving each settlement's overall purpose and intent.
6.85
They should share this information with Te Puni Kōkiri, with their governors (relevant Ministers, councillors, or boards), and directly with post-settlement governance entities as appropriate.
6.86
In our view, Te Puni Kōkiri should work with public organisations (and their governors, as necessary) and post-settlement governance entities on the form and content of these reports.
6.87
We consider that, to increase transparency and promote accountability, Te Puni Kōkiri should regularly assess public organisations' overall progress and whether they are achieving each settlement's holistic intention. Te Puni Kōkiri should regularly report that assessment to the Minister for Māori Crown Relations and other responsible Ministers. It should also report on those matters annually to the Māori Affairs Select Committee.
| Recommendation 9 |
|---|
|
We recommend that Te Puni Kōkiri regularly assess the public sector's progress with meeting settlement commitments, whether it is achieving each settlement's holistic intention, and any significant risks and achievements, and:
|
54: Primary Production Committee (2024), Hansard transcript: 2022-23 Annual review of Toitū Te Whenua Land Information New Zealand – Minister for Land Information, page 6, at parliament.nz.
55: Te Arawhiti (2024), Te Pūrongo ā-Tau o Te Arawhiti: Our Annual Report 2023/24, page 20, at whakatau.govt.nz.
56: For example, the deed of settlement with Te Kawerau ā Maki refers to an agreement that Housing New Zealand Corporation (now Kāinga Ora – Homes and Communities) and the iwi were developing about a culturally significant site. The deed states that the agreement would establish regular meetings, participation in governance, and a process for disposing of surplus land. However, Te Haeata does not include this as a commitment (see clause 6.17 of Te Kawerau ā Maki Deed of Settlement, at whakatau.govt.nz).
57: Toitū Te Whenua (2022), Pūrongo ā-Tau – Annual Report 2021/22, page 34, at linz.govt.nz.
58: Toitū Te Whenua (2023), Pūrongo ā-tau – Annual report 2022/23, page 51, at linz.govt.nz.
59: The Treasury (2024), Annual Reports and other End-of-Year Performance Reporting: Guidance for reporting under the Public Finance Act 1989, at treasury.govt.nz
60: As discussed in paragraphs 4.27-4.29, Land Information New Zealand has made progress with outstanding transfers. As at March 2025, nine outstanding Crown forestry licensed land title transfers, relating to 12 settlements, breach the five-year statutory time frame.