In brief
- The Auditor-General’s 2025 report criticises every agency for failing to meet “holistic intent” Treaty obligations.
- But “holistic intent” has no legal definition, no operational framework, and was created under the previous government.
- The agency that promoted it – Te Arawhiti – was restructured by the new government in 2024–25.
- Its top recommendation is to embed the concept across the public sector, but isn’t holistic intent an outdated political standard?
Undefined, unelected, unenforceable
The Auditor-General’s 2025 report, How public organisations are fulfilling Treaty settlements, paints a bleak picture: every agency audited is failing, Treaty obligations are unmet, and the Crown risks litigation.
But the most striking feature of the report is what those findings are based on.
The report’s top recommendation is that government agencies must “co-ordinate and fulfil settlements’ holistic intention” (p. 18).
Yet further down, the report concedes that there’s no shared understanding of what that even means (p. 29).
Born under Labour, inherited by accident
The AG’s report notes that the phrase “holistic intent” first emerged in 2022 under the Labour-led government as part of the He Korowai Whakamana monitoring framework developed by Te Arawhiti – the office of Māori-Crown relations.
It reflected the Labour Government’s emphasis on partnership, co-governance, and relational redress.
The intent was to go beyond legal obligations and encourage public servants to embody the “spirit” of Treaty settlements.
Then, the government changed.
In late 2023, the National–ACT–NZ First coalition took office with a clear policy shift away from Labour’s co-governance model.
Like many bureaucratic transitions, policy documents in the pipeline kept moving. In March 2024, months into the new administration, Te Arawhiti released new guidance reinforcing “holistic intent” as a core Crown expectation. It’s referred to once in the document, stating:
“While your agency is responsible for individual commitments to iwi, it is important to be mindful of the holistic intention of the settlement rather than solely focusing on implementation of individual commitments. An example of this is how an individual commercial redress commitment sits within the wider context of supporting iwi economic development.”
There appears to be no further specific definition.
A government that moved on
By July 2024, the coalition government began restructuring Te Arawhiti. By October, its key functions were transferred to Te Puni Kōkiri. In December, nearly 50 roles were disestablished, and in early 2025 the transfer was complete.
The message was clear: the activist-style oversight model of Treaty settlements was being wound down. The government committed to honouring settlements, but not to expanding their interpretation into ideological mandates.
Yet none of this features in the Auditor-General’s report.
Judged by a ghost standard
The AG’s top recommendation is that public organisations should “co-ordinate and fulfil settlements’ holistic intention.” But the framework supporting that goal – He Korowai Whakamana – was already being dismantled when the report was released.
The concept of “holistic intent” has no legal status – it was introduced through Cabinet guidance under the previous government and never legislated. The current government has made no move to formally define it. Yet public agencies are now being audited against this vague, politically inherited benchmark that no longer reflects official policy.
It seems like the current government needs to be clearer with the bureaucracy or change their political statements, because something is out of step.
This might explain why every agency failed: the standard is abstract, and the guidance surrounding it was never grounded in law.
RNZ amplifies the confusion
Public media has largely echoed the report without context or close examination. RNZ’s coverage presents the findings as fact, without exploring the ideological baggage behind “holistic intent,” or the government’s clear policy shift.
There’s no mention of the disbanding of Te Arawhiti. No cost analysis. No discussion of what it means to hold agencies accountable for failing to deliver on a concept no one has defined.
