“As the 2023–2024 financial year drew to a close,
unallocated funds across the Māori Outcomes and Te Kārearea cost centres was
identified. To ensure this funding was not lost, and in acknowledgement of the
longstanding calls from hapū for this work, Māori Outcomes initiated the
audit.” (Page 26.)
In response to an Official Information request, the WDC has advised $77,293 has been spent on the audit to date, and confirmed the spending was done without obtaining the approval of councillors.
The report states the purpose of the Treaty of Waitangi “health
check” was to help councillors better understand its “obligations under Te
Tiriti o Waitangi and He Whakaputanga; to report on the state of relations
between the council and Maori; and provide recommendations for improvement.”
It is puzzling that councillors would need help with
something they did not request! Perhaps a Treaty audit is of more importance to
some council staff than it is to councillors.
It is also an indictment of council spending. There is no
such thing as “spare” ratepayer money. If money is not needed for its intended
purpose, then it should be returned to ratepayers in the form of rate
reductions.
This shows why there should be a comprehensive review of all council
spending.
Ironically, while WDC staff were undertaking a Treaty audit,
the Kaipara District councillors received a report clarifying their legal
obligations to Maori. The key points from the Franks Ogilvie opinion are:
“Local authorities are not the Crown and therefore do not
have duties as a signatory to the Treaty of Waitangi…
“As stated recently by the High Court,
there are few concrete privileges of Māori with respect to local government.
Where there are obligations owed, these are generally considered to be
limited to those expressly stated in applicable legislation (as identified
above).
“Most of these obligations can be characterised as
process requirements. Local authorities are statutorily obligated to establish
and maintain processes for Māori to contribute to decision-making processes. They
are not guaranteed a right of consultation, an outcome, nor can they veto a
decision...”