What post-settlement iwi should look like

Via the Herald:

Tuku Morgan says a plan to scrap Waikato-Tainui's tribal parliament and its executive board has to pass through the institutions that he wants put to bed.

The tribe's 198-member parliament represents 66 marae. Every three years the parliament elects 10 members to its executive board, Te Arataura, with one appointed by King Tuheitia. Mr Morgan was appointed as the king's representative in December.

"Change has to happen and change is inevitable," Mr Morgan said.

This is one of the most significant post-settlement issues – what does an ideal iwi structure look like? Bell Gully lists three fundamental criteria:

• a structure where the individual iwi members have ultimate control; 
• the legal capacity and powers of the structure are certain; and 
• ownership and management functions are kept separate, as are commercial and non-commercial objectives. 

In Tainui, iwi members exercise indirect control. Iwi members don’t enjoy an individual vote, but their vote is part of a collective vote – the Marae vote. It isn’t a purely democratic model rather it awards iwi members that are intimately connected with their Marae. Iwi members that are disconnected from their Marae are, in practice, disenfranchised and disconnected from tribal politics. As a result, representatives in Te Kauhanganui (TK) and appointees to Te Arataura are not accountable to iwi members at large. Instead representatives and appointees owe their patronage to individual Marae or the Kingitanga. The consequence: gridlock. The better system would involve a postal ballot of all iwi members under an at-large system. That way, representatives are accountable to and represent iwi interests – not the interests of a single Marae, the Kingitanga or a political faction. Iwi members could punish political gridlock. At the moment, political gridlock can be awarded if it serves the interests of the sponsoring entity (e.g. the Kingitanga).

On the second count, Tainui structures fail miserably. The rules regulating tribal affairs are unnecessarily complex. Opposing factions have tested the rules in High Court on several occasions in the past two years. From the beginning of the 2010 financial year through to 2012 Chapman Tripp collected over $1m in legal fees and Bell Gully collected almost $300,000. Over four other firms cashed in as well. Yeah, less than ideal. The government could and should step in here. Better legislation is required for post-settlement structures. It is unsuitable, in my opinion, for TK to operate under the Incorporated Societies Act 1908. Legislation grounded in tikanga Maori would seem more appropriate - including a provision providing for Maori dispute resolution.

The third point is satisfied. However, a fourth point is missing. Iwi structures should be run according to Maori values. Wealth creation and distribution should be at the centre of iwi structures, but that should be subject to:

· Kaitiakitanga – in other words sustainable investment.

· Manaakitanga – meaning ethical investment.

· Whakapapa – investment should, where possible, be made within the iwi and the benefits distributed within the iwi. This could mean that a primary focus of iwi is job creation within their rohe.

· Mauri – efforts are made to preserve iwi anchors – for example their respective reo, tikanga, kawa and so on.

This is a rough outline, of course, but I think it is a useful guide to how iwi structures should operate. Debates around representation, legal certainty and management practice are occurring across the motu (the country). Waikato-Tainui are having their debate in the most public fashion, but that doesn’t mean the issue is confined. Karla Akuhata is highlighting similar issues in Ngati Awa. This is a debate that must be had. After all, if we aren't seeing any benefits post-settlement, then what was the point?

PostScript: Last November I analysed the proposal to award Kingi Tuheitia the power to dissolve TK. This might be of interest to those interested in this issue. The Te Kauhanganui tag also has a number of similar posts.  

The trouble with a tribal parliament

Interesting news from RNZ:

Some members of the Te Arawa tribe are looking at the possibility of creating a "tribal parliament", says the chairperson of the Rotorua-based Te Arawa Lakes Trust, Toby Curtis.

Initially floated a few years ago, the concept gained momentum at the trust's annual meeting in March, and Mr Curtis says an organisation has been set up to investigate the details of setting up a single tribal body.

And:

Tainui iwi would be willing to help the Te Arawa iwi set up a tribal parliament in the Bay of Plenty, says spokesperson, Rahui Papa.

(Mr Curtis) says the Kauhanganui or the Waikato-Tainui Parliament model appeals to him, because both tribes have similarities.

That’s a worry. Te Kauhanganui (TK) has proved ineffective as a governing body. Te Arataura, the executive committee, has acted (often against the wishes of the majority of the tribe) without restraint from TK. It would be stupid to model a Te Arawa parliament on TK.

The complexity of many iwi structures breeds internal instability. Often there is no clear hierarchy, powers and responsibilities overlap and tribal members are excluded from the day to day running of the tribe’s assets and, quite often, denied the benefits of those assets.

I cautiously, very cautiously, support the idea of tribal parliaments. However, the autonomy of the hapu must be retained. Under the Tainui model Marae and hapu are largely irrelevant in the face of the Tainui superstructure. Te Kauhanganui, Te Arataura, Tainui Group Holdings, the Kingitanga and so on overshadow and diminish the role of the Marae and hapu. Power is centralised and then dispersed among subsidiaries, for example Tainui Group Holdings.

One element of the problem is that specialist legislation is not in place to create suitable iwi structures. Many iwi structures work within the framework of, for example, the Incorporated Societies Act, rather than an act relevant to Maori needs. This is one area where the Maori and Mana parties are very quiet. Labour has made some noises around evaluating post-settlement iwi structures, but has not released any detail.