Ever been told to pay someone to argue with you about something you already agreed? That’s the Crown’s Treaty settlement process in a nutshell — an infinity loop of dispute, funded by taxpayers. Settlements signed and sealed sit in limbo, while ministers pay iwi to argue with themselves. Justice promised becomes justice delayed, and the “too hard basket” becomes Parliament’s favourite filing cabinet.
💰 Money in Limbo
When iwi and the Crown reach agreement, the financial redress is already set aside. The cheque is written, the assets earmarked. Yet without legislation, nothing moves. Settlements sit in limbo while ministers shuffle them behind easier bills. Justice promised becomes justice delayed, and iwi ready to settle are punished by bureaucracy.
It’s like baking the cake, setting it on the table, and refusing to serve it until Parliament stamps the menu. The money sits there, technically reserved, while communities wait.
⚖️ Punished by Delay
The cruel irony is that iwi ready to settle are punished by others’ disputes. Overlapping boundaries stall progress, and the Crown keeps paying for iwi to argue with themselves. Taxpayers bankroll a never‑ending debate club, while agreed settlements languish.
This is not good enough. Settlements should be enacted once agreed. Boundary disputes belong in the courts, not in the Crown’s “too hard basket.”
🏛️ Crown First, Courts Later
Here’s the recalibration:
• Step 1: Crown legislates agreed settlements within six months, using urgency if necessary.
• Step 2: Boundary disputes shift to iwi and the courts, funded by iwi themselves.
• Step 3: Ministers document reasons for any delay, so they can’t hide behind excuses.
This ensures iwi ready to settle aren’t dragged into financial crisis while others prolong disputes. Justice moves forward, disputes move sideways.
📜 Proof the Courts Work
The Nelson Bays (Nelson Tenths Trust) case proves courts can deliver justice outside Treaty settlements. In the 1840s, one‑tenth of land sold to settlers was meant to be reserved for Māori. The Crown never set it aside. After decades of litigation, the Supreme Court and High Court ruled the land had always belonged to Māori descendants. In 2025, Judith Collins announced the Crown would return 3,068 hectares and pay $420 million.
Collins stressed: “This is not a Treaty settlement — it is the Crown returning land to its rightful legal owners.”
That distinction matters. Treaty settlements are compromises turned into law. Court cases enforce obligations that already existed. Both deliver land and money, but one is political compromise, the other is legal enforcement.
If courts can cut through 180 years of delay, they can certainly resolve iwi‑to‑iwi boundary disputes without holding Crown settlements hostage.
⏱️ Justice Cannot Wait
Delaying agreed settlements leaves the country divided and pushes iwi into unnecessary financial crisis. Ministers must be accountable. Reasons for delays must be documented and addressed so they don’t reoccur. Settlements are not optional extras — they are justice commitments. Filing them under “too hard” is Parliament’s lost‑and‑found for promises.
📜 End Double Accountability: A New Law
Right now, the Crown is accountable twice — first for negotiating settlements, then again for refereeing overlapping disputes. That double burden keeps iwi waiting and taxpayers paying for arguments.
The fix requires new legislation. A recalibrated law would make it explicit that:
• Agreed settlements must be legislated within six months of signing.
• Agreed settlements are Priority One in the next sitting of Parliament.
• Boundary disputes cannot delay legislation.
• Boundary disputes are iwi‑to‑iwi matters, resolved through the courts at their own expense.
• The Crown has no further obligation once a settlement is legislated.
This law would end the cycle of double accountability. The Crown delivers justice once, and iwi who choose to fight over boundaries carry the cost themselves.
📌 Priority One: Agreed Settlements First
The first priority in every Parliamentary sitting must be those settlements that have already been agreed. These are not “pending discussions” or “future negotiations” — they are promises signed, sealed, and waiting only for legislation.
Agreed settlements should be first on the table in the next sitting, ahead of bills that haven’t even been started. Justice commitments must outrank convenience. If urgency is required, then urgency should be used.
Every delay leaves iwi divided and pushes them into financial crisis they don’t need to be in. Priority one is simple: deliver what has already been promised.
🖊️ Who Holds the Pen, Who Holds the Calendar
• Who holds the pen?
The Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. They are responsible for negotiating settlements, drafting the bills, and getting Cabinet approval.
• Who holds the calendar?
The Leader of the House. They control the order paper — deciding which bills are scheduled in each sitting.
• Who is delaying this?
Both. The portfolio minister can stall by failing to push Cabinet or draft legislation. The Leader of the House can stall by refusing to schedule it. Each has a gatekeeping role, and together they decide whether iwi settlements move forward or languish.
Accountability means naming both. Otherwise, they blame each other while iwi wait.
📍 Boundaries Are Drawn at Settlement
When the Crown and iwi reach agreement, the boundaries are set in that first instance. At that point, the Crown’s role is complete: the settlement is legislated, the redress delivered, and the Crown is no longer “settling” that area.
Any further disputes about overlaps or boundaries are iwi‑to‑iwi matters. They should be resolved directly between those iwi, through the courts if necessary. The Crown must be excluded from those disputes — no more taxpayer subsidies for arguments.
Some may be difficult for the sake of being difficult, but when they carry the cost themselves, the calculus changes. If iwi are left to sort disputes out of their own financial pocket, they will feel differently about prolonging them.
🥊 Paying to Argue Is Absurd
The current system effectively pays iwi to argue with themselves. Taxpayers bankroll disputes that stall agreed settlements, while communities wait for justice.
It’s like being told to pay your ex‑partner’s lawyer bill to fight over a divorce you’ve already agreed — financially “in your favour,” perhaps, but fundamentally ridiculous. Why pay someone to argue about something already settled? Why reward delay when agreement has already been reached?
Settlements should move forward once agreed. Disputes should be resolved iwi‑to‑iwi, through the courts, at their own expense. That way, those who choose to prolong arguments carry the cost themselves — and the incentive to drag things out evaporates.
🪶 Every Excuse has a Fix
🧩 Structural Complexity
• Excuse: Overlapping iwi claims → tossed in the too hard basket
• Fix: Resolve in iwi‑funded courts, with clear authority to manage overlaps
📅 Political Calculations
• Excuse: Low prioritisation in Parliament → buried under easier bills
• Fix: Create Priority One bills for agreed settlements, guaranteed top of the order paper
⚙️ Administrative Weakness
• Excuse: Agency underperformance → slow reports, missed deadlines
• Fix: Strengthen oversight, set measurable performance standards, and enforce accountability
⚖️ Political Convenience
• Excuse: Ministers stall for optics → delay until after elections
• Fix: Impose a six‑month deadline for signing cheques already written, removing discretion
The loop breaks when excuses are matched with solutions. Justice moves when delay is no longer an option.
Settlements are promises already scoped —
the cheques are written for agreed claims, but they are not signed until Parliament passes them. Delivery is blocked by complexity that could be managed differently.
A new law must come first:
removing the double‑dipping possibility and allowing iwi to settle some matters themselves, instead of the Crown stuck as the jam in a bureaucratic sandwich.
Once the path is cleared,
agreed settlements should be delivered immediately. Boundary disputes are details — iwi and courts can sort them later. Priority One is clear: honor what’s already agreed, then draw boundaries based on those agreements. Justice cannot wait, and ministers must be held to account when they try to bury it in the “too hard basket.”
Cheques written but unsigned, delivery blocked by complexity.
Every excuse has a fix — if you put in the effort and remove the barriers.
These are the voyages of Random Circuits, boldly entering the arena of ideas that disrupt, challenge, and transform.
