Iwi leaders force AFFCO's hand

The Iwi Leaders Group, in what I think is a welcome and significant power play, have brokered a provisional agreement between AFFCO and the Meatworkers Union:

A resolution in the long running Affco dispute is close at hand, following talks over the weekend.

After a three-month lockout, more than 1000 workers at all eight North Island freezing works will return to the job.

An agreement has also been reached to withdraw or suspend all legal action until the final details are agreed.

In a joint statement the parties say they have reached a provisional agreement on a core document and are working through site-specific details.

An Employment Court hearing began last week after the union challenged the validity of the lockout and that has since been adjourned.

The involvement of the Iwi Leaders Group (ILG) appears to have broken the deadlock. Earlier this month Nga Puhi leader Sonny Tau urged Maori farmers to stop supplying AFFCO. The suggestion was endorsed by other Maori leaders, most significantly Pita Sharples. However, what seems to have forced the company’s back down was a threat - apparently from Waikato-Tainui - that Maori would open a rival meat processing plant. The Talley family, eager to protect their market share, appear to have caved at the threat.

This illustrates the growing importance of iwi, in particular the ILG, in the New Zealand economy. The move also reinforces the group’s political power. With assets well in excess of $1b, iwi are in a position to leverage business with economic threats. This is certainly true in the case of AFFCO, a medium sized business, as Maori control between 10 and 15 percent of the country’s sheep and beef stock. It’s unclear, however, whether iwi could leverage larger companies like Fletcher Building.

Full credit to the ILG for falling behind the Maori whanau affected. Estimates suggest Maori make up more than 60% of AFFCO’s workforce. Aside from lobbying AFFCO for resolution, Tainui and Ngati Kahungungu also provided food parcels for the families of locked out workers. Tom Roa has, from what I’ve seen, played an integral part and kudos to him. Roa succeeded Tuku Morgan as the head of Te Arataura (Tainui’s executive committee).

Maybe this signals an ideological shift in the ILG. I’ve been critical in the past and maybe it’s time to revisit my conclusions, but that’s a post for another day. For now, kudos to the ILG and hopefully the workers are back on the job soon.

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.

Kawerau, Tuhoe, the relativity clause and Te Arataura

I’m back to semi-regular blogging this week. I’ve had a few things on my plate that have pushed blogging back. Anyway, here are my thoughts on a few things I’ve missed.

----------

Ths Sunday Star Times (SST) has crowned Kawerau the beneficiary capital of New Zealand. Of the 6940 residents, 1324 are on a benefit. In other words, an unhealthy 19% of the town receive a benefit. In 2010 Simon Collins christened Kawerau the DPB capital of New Zealand.

Unfortunately, the SST quoted Mayor Malcolm Campbell. Any decent Mayor would acknowledge the problems the town faces and formulate solutions, but not Mayor Malcolm Campbell. Instead, Campbell offered an excuse and then a falsehood. Firstly, he claimed that beneficiaries are “staying put” which seems to imply he thinks that numbers are artificially high. The problem has nothing to do with the inflow and outflow of beneficiaries, the problem is intergenerational unemployment and, who would think, a lack of jobs.

The Mayor continued claiming that there is “huge employment here”. This is, at best, a half-truth. The main employer is the Kawerau Mill, and the Mayor is right in saying most mill employees live outside of Kawerau. However, the number of jobs at the mill continues to fall (a trend that begun in the 80’s) and the jobs that do exist are skilled. There are few job openings as most mill workers tend to stay put, sometimes for decades. Put simply, there aren’t any jobs due. The forestry industry, probably the second largest employer in the town, is in decline as well.

The Mayor’s solution is to create an “exclusion zone”. In other words, the Mayor would like MSD to prevent beneficiaries from moving to Kawerau. I oppose this idea in principle. However, brushing aside principle, for public policy reasons it’s a sensible idea. I understand that the Mayor probably doesn’t want to increase the rate of ghettoisation of the town. Nevertheless, rather than invent ways to keep beneficiaries out, the Mayor should focus on inventing ways to get beneficiaries into jobs.

----------

Tuhoe is Te Urewera, Te Urewera is Tuhoe: Tamiti Kruger, the tribes lead negotiator, is confident Tuhoe and the Crown can finalise a settlement package that includes the ownership, or worst case scenario management, over the Ureweras. Inclusion of the Ureweras is the only acceptable outcome for the tribe.

The point I want to make, however, is that the Urewera issue is, for want of a better term, a secondary one. Some form of self-governance, kawangatanga if you will, is the issue with the most significant consequences.

I’m in favour of transferring local government functions and powers to the iwi. Think the Urewera District Council. The Council would come under the Local Government Act. The iwi could also run their own charter schools. Over time more functions and power could be devolved.

The chances of the Crown creating an Urewera District Council, or a similar body, are moderate. Political push back from the National Party’s supporters would, I imagine, be significant (“first step on the slippery slope to separatism blah blah blah”). However, it makes sense to separate the Urewera region from the Whakatane District Council (WDC).

The Urewera region is a separate and disparate community of interest. Whakatane and the Urewera region share very little in common – not even tribal links (Whakatane is Ngati Awa and the Ureweras is Tuhoe). Whakatane and Ohope, the major centres in the district, are largely Pakeha and urban. The Ureweras are largely Maori and rural. Whakatane and Ohope are concentrated whereas the Urewera region is dispersed. Given this difference in character, most notably the fact that Whakatane is Pakeha and the Ureweras is Maori, the Council ignores the Urewera region. For example, roads and sewerage systems are not adequately maintained, there is no rubbish collection and library services and other social services are non-existent.

The case for creating a Council is, I think, strong. After all, the Urewera region is wholly disconnected in terms of location, character and need to the Whakatane region. For those of you that know the area, you only need to compare Ohope and Taneatua to get the picture.

The consequences for Maori will, I think, be minor. Tuhoe is in a unique position. There is a precedent for self-governing arrangements and, arguably, Tuhoe have enjoyed unbroken rangatiratanga over their lands.

Self-governance arrangements could not be extended to, for example, Nga Puhi without significant push-back from non-Maori New Zealanders. New Zealanders really do fear “separatism” and many naively want for us all to be “one people”.

Tuhoe and the Crown have given themselves until the end of the year to flesh out an agreement.

----------

The Herald has caught up with the relativity clause story with Yvonne Tahana running two pieces.

In a sense, the relativity clause plays against New Zealander’s sense of fairness, our famed egalitarianism in other words. The relativity clause looks like double dipping, no doubt about that, but it’s merely a mechanism to ensure Tainui and Ngai Tahu maintain their position relative to other iwi. The two tribes took a gamble when they settled early and the relativity clause was a means of inducing early settlement and ensuring that, should future settlements prove more fruitful, that Tainui and Ngai Tahu are kept on equal footing.

Of the parties in Parliament, Act and New Zealand First are the only parties in a position to make hay out of the issue. National cannot attack the deal, after all the clause will be triggered under their watch and it was the previous National government that negotiated the clause. For credibility’s sake, their hands are tied. Some in Labour will be tempted to attack the clause, but the party’s Maori caucus wouldn’t stand for it. The Greens know better and would not want to be seen to be opposed to treaty settlements.

----------

Tuku Morgan has decided against seeking re-election to Te Arataura. Although Tuku secured a co-management deal over the Waikato river and presided over Tainui's rise to the position of 'richest' iwi, he also presided over a period of internal instability, profligacy and a decrease in the distribution of benefits to tribal members. Tom Roa, former chair of Te Kauhanganui, and Hemi Rau, who Tuku fired in 2010, are the chair and deputy chair respectively. Both, I believe, bring valuable experience in tribal politics and management.

----------

Joshua Hitchcock has floated the idea of an independent Maori Policy Unit. A sort of Maori law commission. I’m in favour and would love to contribute. Over the next week I’ll be giving the idea some thought, you can do so too. Here’s the link to Joshua’s post on the topic where he invites public discussion.

Relativity clause to trigger

Hamish McNeilly reports:

After years of speculation, the Government and Ngai Tahu have confirmed a Treaty of Waitangi top-up clause is set to trigger, potentially pumping millions into the beleaguered South Island economy.

Both Ngai Tahu and Waikato-Tainui negotiated "insurance clauses" as part of their original settlements, entitling each iwi to a percentage of all future Treaty settlements once they exceeded $1 billion in 1994 dollar terms.

For the first time, the Government has acknowledged that amount could be reached this year, which would entitle Ngai Tahu to 16.1% and Waikato-Tainui 17% of all future Treaty settlements.

If one or more of the larger iwi settle this year, think Tuhoe and Ngati Tuwharetoa, the relativity clause will almost certainly be triggered. The relativity clause ensures Ngai Tahu and Tainui maintain their position relative to other iwi. It’s, as termed above, an insurance clause.

Under the principles of the Treaty, the Crown is obligated to preserve tribal relations. In practice this means the Crown should not give an unfair advantage to one or more iwi, hence the relativity clause. The clause ensures Ngai Tahu and Tainui remain at the top of the pecking order – at least until Tuhoe and Nga Puhi settle.

I’m surprised this story’s failed to gain more traction. When the clause is invoked, the consequences will be considerable. Many New Zealanders will resent the fact that some iwi can double dip, some tribes may resent this as well and the National government won’t want to this to stick to them. After all, it was the previous National government that negotiated the clause.

Ngai Tahu and Tainui will welcome the money – as anyone would. This is especially so given Ngai Tahu’s investment in the Christchurch rebuild and Tainui’s increased play for strategic assets.

Tuku Morgan digs in

Tuku Morgan is refusing to back down. From RNZ:

Tukoroirangi Morgan is insisting he's still the head of Waikato-Tainui's executive, Te Arataura - and is planning to call a meeting of the executive this week.

However the tribal Parliament, Te Kauhanganui - which oversees the committee - is adamant Mr Morgan is no longer part of the executive.

It says he failed to gain enough votes in recent unfinished tribal elections.

Tukoroirangi Morgan says the tribe's rules state the executive board stays in place until the elections are completed.

Mr Morgan plans to continue doing the job of chairperson of the executive, which oversees the tribe's commercial arm, the Waikato River Authority, and its education divisions.

He says he's leading the board and he's still the chair of Te Arataura until 25 March, when the election process will be complete.

This will be a test of Tuku’s personal authority. If he calls a meeting and no one shows, that is a defeat. If Tainui staffers refuse to follow Tuku’s orders, that is a defeat. Personally, I doubt Tuku has the mana to neither retain the loyalty of Tainui staffers nor win the loyalty of the new board.

Tom Roa, apparently, has been elected interim Chairperson. Roa is the former Chairman of Te Kauhanganui (TK).

TK, and by extension the people of Tainui, have dealt Tuku a death blow. He failed to win the required 33 votes. However, one position remains. In the final run off between Tuku and Huhana Marshall both candidates received 30 votes each. This result repeated itself in successive voting rounds so TK decided to leave the position unfilled. The position is set to be voted on at the end of March. With that in mind, there remains a chance, albeit a slim one, that TK will lose its mind and vote Tuku back in.

For the record, Tuku does not have the option of lobbying the King for a position on Te Arataura (TA). The King has selected Greg Miller to as the Kahui Ariki appointee (the King’s representative on TA). Assuming Tuku is not returned, he leaves behind a legacy of toxic tribal relations, overspending, obstruction and general unpleasantness. However, under Tuku Morgan Tainui surpassed Ngai Tahu as the richest iwi. Tuku also managed to facilitate the Waikato River co-management deal. Yet despite these achievements, Tainui would probably be better off if Tuku never entered the picture.

Interestingly, Tania Martin, Tuku’s principal opponent, was re-elected Chair of TK. Good on her.

The next meeting of TK will be on March 25 and the 11th member of TA will be elected. Tuku’s a wily character, so don’t be surprised if he wriggles he way back in, but for the good of Tainui I’m hoping he doesn’t.

Tania Martin takes aim at Te Arataura

Tania Martin, the Chair of Tainui’s Te Kauhanganui, has released the latest Chairperson’s report. The report deals with a number of issues, including comments on the performance of Te Arataura at 9.9 as well as comments on the distribution of Tainui funds at 10.1. Ms Martin notes that:

“we’re (Tainui) spending more and more and distributing less and less”.

The report states that the distribution in the 2009 financial year was 48% of tribal income, but in the 2011 financial year that figure dropped to 22%. Ms Martin juxtaposes the total distribution figure against expense figures. In the 2011 financial year Tainui, or more accurately Te Arataura, spent 65% of tribal income on expenses. Expenses include operational costs like admin and contracting costs.

Ms Matin states “we’re spending more and more” and holds that this is unacceptable. Fair enough. Tribal funds should, in the main, be distributed to tribal beneficiaries rather than towards incredibly high running costs.

The report also comments on the ongoing litigation in Tainui at 11 and cites five cases that have come before the Courts. The report concludes saying that the troubles in Tainui don’t have anything to do with the structure of the tribe, rather the “people in that structure”. I agree, but I also stand by my criticisms of the ridiculous complexity of post-settlement iwi structures. Tainui is the most prominent example. Complexity breeds uncertainty and affords bad characters the ability to muddy the waters with legal obstruction.

Hat tip Eraka's blog

Eraka's blog

I forgot to mention that a few days ago I added a new blog to the Maori blog list. Eraka's blog is an anonymous blog focussing on Tainui politics. It's a fascinating read. The author provides a valuable, albeit frenzied, perspective and sheds some light on the rotten goings on in Te Arataura and Te Kauhanganui. You can check it out here.

More trouble in Tainui

Trouble in Tainui continues with the King signalling his intentions to take over Te Kauhanganui (Tainui Parliament) and Te Arataura (Tainui Executive). From the Waikato Times:

Discussions to replace the Maori King have ramped up after he announced he wanted to take over Tainui's tribal parliament.

King Tuheitia, also the paramount chief of Waikato-Tainui, told a meeting at Horahora marae, near Rangiriri, on New Year's Day he wanted to take control of the tribe's parliament, Te Kauhanganui (TK), and its executive, Te Arataura (TA). He warned Tainui marae not to attend the next meeting of the tribal parliament, scheduled for February 26.

King Tuheitia also said he wanted to see the back of the Tainui executive's controversial leader Tukoroirangi Morgan, and demanded a new TA.

The Kingitanga sits above TK, but in a ceremonial sense rather than a legal sense. TK is, I believe, an incorporated society with its own rules that prevent the King from removing trustees and, for lack of a better term, commandeering the society. Case in point, when the King removed Tania Martin as Chair of TK the Court found that the King had no legal power to do so. Consequently, Martin was reinstated. TK’s rules state that the Chair can only be removed or instated via a tribal vote. The same rules apply to TA. Therefore, the King cannot remove Tuku Morgan.

I think it’s funny that the King wants to use his ceremonial power to remove Tuku. Last year when the King removed, or tried to remove, Tania Martin, he did so at the request of Tuku Morgan. Tuku obviously believed the King had the legal power, or more probably the mana, to remove her. Now, the shoe is on the other foot and the King is looking to use his authority as Arikinui of Tainui to remove Tuku. I wonder if Tuku will cry foul, even though he tried to have the same thing done almost a year ago.

I don’t think the King is going to be removed, nor do I think the King will do any removing. The tribe is too dysfunctional. TA is delaying the election of a new board and there are accusations of financial cover ups and crony appointments. Last year Tainui stumbled from controversy to controversy. Trouble in Tainui erupted when Tania Martin released a damning report criticising TA. In response, Tuku Morgan lobbied Kingi Tuheitia to remove Tania Martin as Chair of TK. The King subsequently sacked Ms Martin only for the Court to reinstate her. Martin then publicly released an affidavit which was a damning indictment against TA. TA responded in kind with Tuku publicly slagging Tania Martin on Native Affairs. The tit for tat battle continued with the main events been the repeated attempts by TA to block meetings of TK, a police complaint against Tania Martin and, finally, a failed vote to remove Tuku Morgan.

I’m not sure how to the tribe will fix their problems, hell, a clean out of TK and TA might be the right approach. However, this will never happen with the cunning fox Tuku Morgan on one side and the blundering bear Kingi Tuheitia on the other.

Having said that, if anyone has the mana to redirect Tainui it’s Kingi Tuheitia. However, the likes of Morgan and the rest of TA think that they’re above everyone, even the King and TK. TA won’t go down without a fight, and if they do go down they’ll bring the whole house crashing down too. I’m not seeing a clean solution to this. Last year I simplified Tainui's problems down to: 

Rotten personalities and toxic tribal politics. Tainui has experienced more than its share of internal political dramas, then again most Iwi have, but Tainui’s problems seem to play out on the national stage. For me this saga speaks to the unnecessary complexity of Iwi post-settlement entities and the self-interest many of the Iwi elite operate with. The Tainui Brown Table is a putrid one, one that needs to be destroyed and remade. Remade with the interests of the people at its core. The problem Te Arataura has is that they operate like a business. They treat their operations like they are a massive corporation and the people like they are expendable and marginal shareholders. In my opinion, the sooner Tuku and his mates are removed the sooner Te Arataura can go back to serving the people.

I think that still stands. 

Mark Solomon on asset sales

Ngai Tahu’s Mark Solomon joined Kathryn Ryan today in discussing asset sales. Here’s the link. Solomon outlined Ngai Tahu’s thinking on asset sales (as well as the broader Iwi leaders position). I found the following quite interesting: Solomon informed us that at the beginning of National’s first term he and other iwi leaders, by other iwi leaders I assume he means Tuku Morgan, met John Key, Bill English and other senior members of Cabinet. Presumably they met to talk about treaty settlements (relativity clause maybe?) and broader Maori issues. It should be noted the iwi leaders were accompanied by Pita Sharples which indicates that the Maori Party were working to open doors for iwi. Then again I think Ngai Tahu have used Saunders Unsworth in the past so it could be their work. Anyway, in the discussions Key said the government was cash strapped. In response Solomon put forward the idea of asset sales. Apparently he was rebutted with Key informing him that asset sales are off limits in the first term, however Key (or whoever) indicated their willingness to explore the sales in the second term. So it appears that iwi were interested in asset sales before the idea was floated publicly, or at least confirmed publicly. I think this is interesting.

Rino Tirikatene pointed out last night on Native Affairs that iwi should be exercising some entrepreneurial thought rather than relying on the government floating safe assets for them. I agree.

Solomon also acknowledged during the interview that individually iwi cannot hope to become major players; however Solomon holds that iwi can become major players as a collective. He argues iwi could obtain between 10-15% of any assets. This is optimistic, especially given Ngai Tahu’s position as a major infrastructure investor in Christchurch. I don’t think they have the ability to dip into state assets as well as infrastructure in Christchurch. The only other iwi with the financial clout to participate is Tainui, but they’re sinking a lot of money in to other commercial ventures like shopping malls (Te Awa, the Hamilton CBD etc).

Solomon, who I should note seems to be leading the asset sales charge instead of Tuku, believes iwi are the perfect buyers. Long term investors with exclusive interests in New Zealand. This is hard to argue with I guess. However, the other arguments against iwi involvement in asset sales still stand. For example, asset sales will, in all likelihood, lead to a decrease in government services. Iwi, as “major” investors, surely have an obligation to negate the effects of decreased services on Maori. However, iwi don’t have the economies of scale (nor the experience for that matter) to provide what government once did.

Ngai Tahu, and to a lesser extent Tainui, are positioning themselves well. For example Tainui, apparently, own half of the Tainui CBD. Nagi Tahu are positioning themselves to take a similar position in Christchurch. In fact Ngai Tahu own large tracts of the South Island (including many rural stations). The next step is for iwi is a slice of New Zealand’s strategic resources. Power companies are the obvious, and cheapest, choice. The first step essentially. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Ngai Tahu make a move for a stake in Christchurch Airport. Tainui already own and operate the only hotel at Auckland Airport and the natural progression from there is a stake in the airport itself. Apparently Tainui’s biggest interest is in Air New Zealand at the moment.

Both Ngai Tahu and Tainui have a relativity clause. When they invoke the clause I think we could see them become huge players in the New Zealand economy.

Te Tai Tonga, Sharples and Brash, Tainui and asset sales

I don’t have much time to blog this week so I’ll quickly comment on a few things I’ve missed over the last few days:


Te Tai Tonga

The latest Te Karere Digipoll puts Rahui Katene ahead of Labour’s Rino Tirikatene. Katene is on 46% to Tirikatene’s 35%. The last Te Karere poll put Tirikatene on 41% to Katene’s 34%. Hurricane Clinton Dearlove registers 9% support while the Green’s Dora Langsbury comes in with 10% support. I think the following has happened: 1) Katene has, realising it’s do or die, reenergised her campaign and reclaimed the momentum 2) Dearlove and Langsbury have siphoned more votes from Tirikatene than they have from Katene 3) Tirikatene is suffering from a swing against Labour. The seat is now 50/50. Whereas everyone was picking a win for Tirikatene, this isn’t so sure anymore. 

A Tirikatene win is certainly still possible. As Digipoll points out, Tirikatene’s older support base is far more likely to vote and younger voters, who strongly support Katene, usually change sides at the last minute. Jobs and asset sales also rank as important issues. This is where Tirikatene will be strong. No one can forget Katene going against the wishes of iwi in Te Tai Tonga, notably Ngai Tahu, and voting for the MCA Act as well. Meanwhile Katene is calling for better resourcing for Maori electorates. The Maori electorates are huge and there is a need for access to more staffers and more expense funding. Apparently Katene could do with three staffers. I say try six. Maori electorate MPs are allowed three staffers and an EA so I don’t know why Katene is saying she could do with three when she’s allowed three.


Pita Sharples vs Brash

The Maori Party continue the line that they need to be at the Cabinet table to oppose Don Brash. Firstly, the Maori Party sit outside of Cabinet – so they’re not really at the Cabinet table. If Act enter a formal coalition with National, rather than a confidence and supply agreement, then Brash will sit at the table (in a figurative and literal sense) to the exclusion of the Maori Party (because what are the chances they will enter a formal coalition). This makes the whole at the table rhetoric a little hollow.


Tainui support the Maori Party on asset sales

In an about turn Tuku Morgan has come out in support of the Maori Party’s stance on asset sales. Previously Tuku actively supported the sale of assets and iwi acquisition of those assets. However, Tuku now opposes asset sales, but should assets come on the market Tuku will look to invest. Tuku reckons that the Maori Party is looking out for the needs of Maori. If this isn’t an endorsement, then I don’t know what is. 

This is a blow for John Key. The Iwi Leadership Group were, at one point, one of the strongest advocates for asset sales. John Key is quickly losing his allies on this issue. Without Iwi support and the active opposition of Mana and the Maori Party the Nats won't be able to sell the idea to Maori. Not that they need Maori support.

Martin Cooper controversy

By all accounts Martin Cooper is a good guy and has done a lot for the community. Fair enough. He still abused his position and should suffer the consequences though. The Herald on Sunday followed up on their story from the week before this time revealing Cooper wanted to give some guy the bash or something.


Tamaki Makaurau debate

Four strong candidates. I like picking winners, unlike Joshua Hitchcock who has blogged a brilliant summary here, but I genuinely can’t pick one. Each candidate was strong in certain areas. No candidate did them or their parties a disservice let’s put it that way.

Invoking the relativity clause

The Treaty settlement process is moving along nicely under Chris Finlayson (and was moving well under Michael Cullen too). The total value of all Treaty settlements to date exceeds $1 billion – or by my estimation at least. This is hardly a revelation, but consider this:

As part of their settlement agreements Ngai Tahu and Tainui have a relativity clause. A relativity clause is a “special top up mechanism” designed to ensure Ngai Tahu and Tainui maintain their high position relative to other Iwi. The relativity clause comes into effect when the sum total of treaty settlements exceeds $1 billion in 1994 dollars (the clause has effect from 1994 to 2044).

Unfortunately, I can’t find the text for the full Ngai Tahu and Tainui settlement agreements, but it is my understanding that Ngai Tahu and Tainui can invoke the relativity clause and that gives them the right to return to the negotiating table. I believe they can only negotiate a top up cash payment as opposed to the return of more land, management agreements or anything else.

An extra payout will have interesting political consequences. Many New Zealanders will be baffled that the already rich, and that is a subjective term, Ngai Tahu and Tainui can double dip. Non-Maori New Zealanders will ask aren’t settlements meant to be full and final. What I’m getting at is that a redneck backlash will occur. Maoris this Maoris that sort of stuff. The sort of stuff that will give the Tories, and the Labour Party too, the shivers.

No government wants to be perceived to be pandering to Maori. As a result the government has engaged in some creative accounting in an effort to avoid exceeding $1 billion and, consequently, avoid reopening a political can of worms. However, the government, no matter how they twist it, cannot avoid exceeding the very low threshold that is $1 billion – especially with the looming and large Nga Puhi and Tuhoe settlements.

I hope the Ngai Tahu and Tainui return to the negotiating table soon. Both Iwi accepted paltry sums ($170m), then again they couldn’t be expected to squeeze out much more in the circumstances. Hopefully a top up payment gives the two Iwi the financial power they need to form the buying consortium that Tuku Morgan is pushing. Tuku is looking to form a sort of Maori conglomerate in response to assets sales. The plan is that Iwi will combine their purchasing power in an effort to acquire sizable chunks of New Zealand’s strategic resources. I must admit, this is one of Tuku’s better ideas (not saying I agree with asset sales because I don’t). Ngai Tahu will also need a cash injection if they want to play a lead role as a private investor in the Christchurch rebuild.

The rise and rise of Iwi is inevitable. Tainui and Ngai Tahu are already the economic powerhouses of their regions (Waikato and the South Island respectively) it is only a matter of time before Iwi like Nga Puhi, Tuhoe and Ngati Porou become the driving forces behind their regional economies. Makes you wonder when all Maori will benefit from the strength of Iwi. 

Tuku survives another day

Tuku Morgan remains at the helm. From RNZ:

The High Court has ruled that Tukoroirangi Morgan remains the chair of the Waikato-Tainui executive. The head of the parliament, Tania Martin, and Mr Morgan have been at loggerheads - publicly disagreeing about a parliament vote to expel him last month. Mr Morgan has maintained he has not been dropped because the vote was invalid, but Mrs Martin said previously that a sufficient majority of votes had disqualified him.

A few months ago I viewed an opinion from Tuku’s solicitors. The opinion held that an insufficient number of votes were cast to disqualify Tuku. A majority of the 65 Marae had to affirm the motion to disqualify Tuku (meaning the threshold is 33 votes or more), however only 30 Marae affirmed the motion, therefore the motion was not carried.

I have yet to read the judgement, but I assume Tuku’s submissions revolved around this point. I doubt this is the last act in what is becoming an increasingly messy saga. Readers know I think Tuku should step down – or be removed - but I also think his opponents are playing a strange game. In the wake of the vote Tania Martin was going around claiming that Tuku was disqualified. This was, it seems, untrue, and I suspect Ms Martin knew this to be so.

Tainui appears, from the outside, to be in good health. The tribe is beginning to overtake Ngai Tahu as, financially speaking, the largest Iwi and projects like Te Awa and achievements like the Waikato River co-management deal are adding Mana to the tribe. However, if you scratch beneath the surface it doesn’t take long to discover significant discord and disunity. Te Kauhanganui and Te Arataura (TA) are at loggerheads, Tania Martin and Tuku Morgan are engaging in what seems like a personal battle and many of the people are dissatisfied with TA’s management style and the distance between the tribe’s financial success and flaxroot benefits.

For a fascinating read re Tainui affairs I recommend readers take a look at Eraka’s blog.

UPDATE: I notice the problem with words running together on the RSS feed isn't fixed. Sorry. I'm on Closeup tonight at 7 on TV One too. Watch it.  

Iwi and Social Housing

When the government looks to shrink the state they always pass the ball to Iwi. From RNZ:

Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia says iwi organisations would do a better job than Housing New Zealand, when it comes to social housing.

Housing New Zealand is now limiting the work staff have done in the past to help tenants with other needs, saying its role is purely that of landlord.

Mrs Turia says the Government is looking at divesting itself of social housing, or much of it, and iwi should step in.

Iwi are not social services agencies, having said that Iwi do have social obligations to their people. The question is how far do those obligations extend and, in the absence of money and know how, do those obligations still stand? In my opinion, Iwi are obligated to provide the basics. Things like social housing, food banks and traditional education (think tikanga courses etc). Iwi are not, in my opinion, obligated to provide what is traditionally thought of as state support (think the unemployment benefit, DPB etc). I always get annoyed when the government seeks to devolve their responsibilities - it's a remission and, to be honest, a bloody cop out.

Iwi should not be providing services at their own expense – the government should fund Iwi services – rather Iwi should deliver services. However, this is problematic. Firstly, Iwi lack the economies of scale to provide what, for example, the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) can. Iwi also lack experience in social service delivery, some Iwi lack proven policy models and Iwi lack access to external agencies (for example MSD can coalesce with the Ministry of Education if need be – it is far more difficult for Iwi to do this). Some Iwi also seem reluctant to launch into social service delivery with many Iwi, most notably Tainui, focussing on growing their asset base. Although there are some exceptions, most notably Ngati Awa.

Privatisation is a great way to shrink the state, but a shit way to achieve positive outcomes. Profit motive should never be allowed to permeate the delivery of social services. The focus shifts from achieving positive outcomes to achieving positive earnings. In any society housing is an essential utility and when housing is, for one reason or another, unattainable, the government should provide a safety net. The private sector is not bound or influenced by any social imperative, unless you consider profit motive a social imperative, and must consider profit above all else. This conflict between social imperative and profit suggests that the private sector is unsuited to providing housing for those who cannot pay market price. This is why I am suspicious of the devolution of government responsibility (i.e. privatisation). However, Iwi are not exactly private sector companies, they are tribal organisations with concrete cultural obligations to their people. This is why I think Iwi will make a good go of it, or at least I hope they will. 

Trouble in Tainui continues

The public spat between Tania Martin and Tuku Morgan continues with Tania Martin issuing a press release affirming her position that Tuku was disqualified from Te Kauhanganui (TK). Last month TK voted on a resolution to disqualify Tuku Morgan from TK and Te Arataura. 30 Marae voted in favour of the resolution, 27 against, two abstained and six votes were deemed invalid.

Both parties have obtained separate legal opinions and both opinions put forward a different interpretation of the rules. Tuku Morgan’s opinion (which I have viewed) claims that in order to disqualify Tuku more than 50% of the 65 Marae must affirm the motion, therefore Tuku remains as the threshold is 33 while only 30 affirmed the motion. I gather that Tania Martin’s opinion, from leading firm Chen and Palmer, holds that the threshold is 50% of the valid votes cast, therefore 30 votes is enough carry the resolution.

Given the debate’s descent in to the legalistic you imagine the issue is headed for the Courts.   

Iwi and investment

Closeup ran an interesting story on Wednesday night around the use of treaty settlement money. The show invited John Tamihere, as CEO of the Waipareira Trust, and Tuku Morgan, as Chair of Te Arataura, to discuss whether or not Iwi are using their settlement funds appropriately. The gist of John Tamihere’s argument was that more money should be directed towards the people and, as a consequence, preventing Maori entering the health system, the prison system and so on. Tamihere would rather see money directed towards social services as opposed to “buying assets”. Tuku Morgan, on the other hand, thinks Iwi do not have the economies of scale to make a major difference. Tuku also pointed to the fact that Iwi investment in, for example, the Te Awa mall in Hamilton is creating employment for Maori.

I agree with both men here. It is not the role of Iwi to stand in place of government. The provision of social services is, first and foremost, the role of government. Having said that, there are cultural obligations on the part of Iwi to help their people, think whanaungatanga. Rather than have Iwi use their own capital to invest in the provision of social services, I would like to see more Iwi pursue government contracts. This is a plausible avenue given the implementation of Whanau Ora.

The primary role of settlement money should be to level the playing field. Iwi should, and are, using settlement money to increase Maori economic power and, as a result, Maori political power. Iwi are attempting to move into a position where they cannot be ignored. Hence Tainui’s interest in strategic assets (e.g. Auckland Airport, electricity companies and Air New Zealand).

I think this is a debate that needs to occur. Are Iwi fixated with growth at the expense of ordinary Maori or is growth a means to an end?   

Controversy erupts in the Maori Council

Controversy has erupted in another Maori organisation. The New Zealand Maori Council is making waves with the news that senior Council member Maanu Paul has been expelled for speaking publicly on behalf of the organisation. After falling ill last year Chairman Sir Graham Latimer appointed Maanu Paul to act on his behalf. However, the Executive Committee held that Sir Graham was acting unilaterally and did not have the power to make such an appointment. The Executive Committee argues that in Sir Graham’s absence the elected Deputy Chair, Richard Orzecki, acts in the Chairpersons role.    

Maanu Paul has been acting under the title of executive chairman and commenting on a number issues including the Councils activities surrounding an impending treaty claim. The claim concerns Maori rights to fresh water. This clearly got up the nose of the Council members, but mainly the Deputy Chair, and they have resorted to the strongest response possible – expulsion. However, Maanu Paul maintains that he has not been sacked and will continue to comment publicly until Sir Graham directs him otherwise.

This internal strife speaks to the growing irrelevance of the Maori Council and is illustrative of the growing political conflict in the Maori world. The National Government has selected the Iwi Leaders Group (ILG) as their Maori vehicle of choice when it comes to consultation and access. The problem for the Maori Council is that they are a creature of Statute (The Maori Welfare Act 1962) and, consequently, relies on the acquiesce of the government of the day. On the other hand the ILG set their own mandate and enjoy access to their own capital, i.e. the government does not fund them and, therefore, cannot strangle them when they fall out of favour. The Maori Council is also, ideologically speaking, non-aligned with the current government whereas the ILG falls firmly in line with the Nat’s ideological position (e.g. privatisation). The Maori Council is creating issues for the government, for example by fuelling debate on Maori rights to fresh water, while the ILG is actively supporting the government’s asset sales campaign. It is easy to see why the government has turned to the ILG at the expense of the Maori Council. 

The battle within in the Maori Council is also indicative of the larger political conflict occurring within the Maori world. At its most obvious the conflict is typified by the conflict between the Mana Party (representing the working class) and the Maori Party (representing the Maori ruling class interests). There is also conflict in Tainui between Te Arataura (the Tainui elite) and Te Kauhanganui (the Tainui people at large). Also the Maori Women’s Welfare League between Hannah Tamaki and Destiny (the Maori elite) and the traditional members (the people at large). Of course it is more complex than just a battle between the poor and the elite, but at its most simplistic we are seeing a class conflict. 

I also wonder whether Maanu’s connections to the Maori Party have anything to do with his expulsion. Maanu is one the Party’s most prominent and vocal supporters. It will be interesting to know whether his connections and pro-Maori Party/National Party actions were getting up the nose of the increasingly left-wing Maori Council. 

I’ll be following this story very closely and update any further developments.       

Watch Marae

I’ll be appearing on Marae Investigates this Sunday at 10am on TV One. I’ll be speaking on the dramas in Tainui. I think I might be joined by former Te Kauhanganui Chairman Tom Roa.  

Tuku Morgan's last dance?

Could this be Tuku Morgan’s final act? From the NZ Herald:

A Tainui board has backed Tuku Morgan's leadership after a wider tribal parliamentary vote at the weekend threatened to end it.

On Saturday Mr Morgan faced a vote to remove him from chairing Te Arataura, the tribe's executive board, based on misconduct allegations.

To be successful it required 50 per cent of 65 marae attending the tribe's half-yearly Te Kauhanganui or parliamentary meeting on Saturday to vote to remove him.

Although the vote failed, the message is clear. Shape up or ship out, Tuku. 30 Marae affirmed the resolution to disqualify Tuku Morgan while 27 voted against, two abstained and six votes were deemed invalid. This may be the watershed moment in what has been a prolonged and filthy battle between Tuku Morgan and Te Arataura and Tania Martin and her supporters in Te Kauhanganui.

Having said that, some confusion remains. Initial reports suggested a plurality was enough to remove Tuku, however later claims from Te Arataura suggested that a majority was needed for a removal resolution to be successful. Consequently, Te Arataura has taken the issue to Court claiming that their interpretation of the Constitution holds that a majority is needed to remove Tuku. I cannot say who is in the right without reading the Constitution; suffice to say some interesting legal issues are raised. As an aside it is interesting to note that over the years Te Arataura have gradually altered the Constitution, even to the point of inserting some provisions of the Companies Act 1993, no doubt in an attempt to shift power from Te Kauhanganui to the Executive Board.

Trouble between Tania Martin and Tuku Morgan, and by extension Te Kauhanganui and Te Arataura, emerged late last year when Tania Martin released a report criticising Te Arataura, but in particular Tuku Morgan. Tuku then cried foul and lobbied Kingi Tuheitia to remove her. The King obliged and used his mana as Arikinui of Tainui to remove Tania Martin as Chairwoman of te Kauhanganui. Consequently, Tania Martin invoked the mana of the law and took the issue to Court seeking reinstatement. Justice Hansen obliged and held that Tania Martin’s removal was unlawful. A tit for tat public battle ensured with both sides smearing the other. Recently Tuku Morgan filed a complaint with the Police alleging financial mismanagement on Tania Martin’s part, however the Police refused to investigate the complaint claiming that there was insufficient evidence to justify an investigation.

This latest battle may be the defining moment of the war. It is clear that despite Tuku Morgan’s behind the scenes lobbying and public attacks that Tania Martin enjoys the support of Te Kauhanganui. Te Kauhanganui is the ultimate authority in Tainui and maintains the mana to speak on behalf of all of Tainui. Unless Tuku Morgan can pull Te Kauhanganui in his direction he will not win. Tuku’s favourite play is to erect procedural barriers. He engages his solicitors, Chapman Tripp for the record, and he assaults his victims with legalese and threats. For example, the meeting in question has been delayed by Tuku for months as he knew, full well may I add, that he would lose the vote.

Te Kauhanganui also voted on resolution seven: disqualification of the Executive Board. That vote failed meaning Tuku’s minions remain and appear, at least for now, safe. It appears that they have avoided been implicated in Tuku’s dodgy plays.

At its most basic this dirty episode comes down to rotten personalities and toxic tribal politics. Tainui has experienced more than its share of internal political dramas, then again most Iwi have, but Tainui’s problems seem to play out on the national stage. For me this saga speaks to the unnecessary complexity of Iwi post-settlement entities and the self-interest many of the Iwi elite operate with. The Tainui Brown Table is a putrid one, one that needs to be destroyed and remade. Remade with the interests of the people at its core. The problem Te Arataura has is that they operate like a business. They treat their operations like they are a massive corporation and the people like they are expendable and marginal shareholders. In my opinion, the sooner Tuku and his mates are removed the sooner Te Arataura can go back to serving the people. Finally, isn’t it funny how Tuku always seems to be at the centre of these dramas within Tainui. Take what you will from that.    

UPDATE: Waikato Labour MP Nanaia Mahuta has called for the issue to be resolved outside of the Court room. Mahuta is careful not to pick sides, but I tend to think she is leaning towards supporting the decisions of Te Kauhanganui. Good on her.

Stop the drilling

This is reassuring. From Waatea News:

Te Whanau a Apanui has put out the call for a water-borne protest against Brazilian oil giant Petrobras's plans to prospect in the Raukumara basin.

Spokesperson Dayle Takitimu says vessels with links to the Nuclear Free Flotilla, Greenpeace, Forest and Bird, and Coromandel Watchdog are expected to be part of a flotilla leaving Auckland for Cape Runaway on Sunday in the hope of encountering Petrobras survey boats.

She says unlike some other iwi, Te Whanau a Apanui isn't interested in deals with miners.

“It's not about the money or greater ability to invest or joint venture with these companies. Whanau a Apanui just don’t want this activity occurring on our back doorstep when there is so much risk involved,” Ms Takitimu says.

Unlike some other iwi, Te Whanau a Apanui appears to be in touch with what the people want. This, in my opinion, comes down to the fact that Te Whanau a Apanui does not operate under the imposed Runanga model. Te Whanau a Apanui’s governance model shares more in common with traditional approaches rather than the typical western approach that the contemporary Runanga framework emulates. Maori customary practice, I hesitate to call it law, tends to place greater value on absolute consensus. Whereas under the contemporary Runanga framework decisions can be given effect at the whim of the majority. In some cases, I’m thinking of you Tuku Morgan, decisions can be simply imposed. Of course this is not to say that the traditional Maori approach is superior, I actually feel that the opposite is true, it is more accurate to say that the Runanga framework is flawed and some corrupt and misguided individuals are, for want of a better term, working the system.   

Some iwi, Tainui and Ngai Tahu in particular, blindly adhere to notions of economic growth. Cultural considerations are paid lip service while consultation is, for the most part, nonexistent. It appears Te Whanau a Apanui is considering cultural imperatives, e.g. kaitiakitanga, as well as the broader consideration of risk. This is a sensible, and indeed very Maori, approach that I wish other iwi would follow. Sadly, the self proclaimed iwi leaders are captured by a corporate agenda and see nothing beyond power and return.

I am very familiar with the East Coast and I feel personally connected to this issue. I feel that it is entirely understandable that the locals do not want to shoulder the considerable risk. Yes, returns will probably be substantial. But in the case of a disaster, the loss will be significantly greater than any alleged returns. Consider this from Gordon Campbell:

New Zealand has almost no capacity to cope with the impact of a major oil spill, or any adequate and enforceable means of compensation. Given the degree of uncertainty, do we have any way of telling whether the returns will justify the risk.

Putting aside local opposition, the government should be looking at implementing mechanisms to cope with a worst case scenario, as opposed to diving in head first.  

As far as I am aware the government has not consulted local iwi with regard to the exact nature and extent of activities occurring off their coast, the possible returns they may receive and the risks oil exploration, and consequently extraction of course, would pose. This isn’t good enough, but what we have come to expect from National.  

As usual the Maori Party is nowhere to be seen on this issue. Why? Because there is a clash between the flaxroot and the good little indigenous corporates. The Maori Party cannot be seen to be taking sides. Hone is siding with the flaxroot. If the Maori Party were to follow suit then that is an acknowledgment that Hone is right. Furthermore, the self proclaimed iwi leaders, as I have pointed out numerous times, exercise an enormous amount of control over the policy development and the day to day direction the party takes.

I will try and keep on top of this issue and I will blog if there are any developments. This is a big issue and as such it requires a big discussion. Pity we didn’t get one though.  

Hat tip mars 2 earth

Nanaia joins the revolt

Nanaia Mahuta has come out against Goff. From Waatea News:

Another of Labour's Maori MPs has broken ranks with leader Phil Goff over working with former Maori Party MP Hone Harawira.

Waikato-Hauraki MP Nanaia Mahuta says Mr Harawira has taken similar positions to Labour on issues such as the 90-day bill, raising the minimum wage, and greater protection for employee rights.

“But the real proof is what happens after election 2011 and I’ve been in politics long enough to know that the wind blows both ways and you can’t rule anyone in and out before that day. That’s the day that matters,” she says.

Ms Mahuta has confirmed she will stand again this year, despite stepping back in Labour's rankings for health and family reasons.

Goff needs to get on top of this – there is clearly a huge amount of dissatisfaction among the Maori caucus. As I blogged a few days, Parekura has already come out against Goff. This means Labour’s most senior Maori MP’s have openly defied the leadership and reneged on the accepted party position. This is nothing but sloppy political management on Goff’s part.

But perhaps the most interesting aspect of Nanaia’s statement was confirmation that she will stand again this year. This will disappoint the Maori Party. Although Nanaia’s grasp may be more tenuous than previously thought. Make no mistake, Nanaia is an extremely dedicated electorate MP and a well connected and respected member of Tainui, but nothing lasts forever. Fatigue may begin to settle in and a good candidate may, keyword may, clinch an upset. Nanaia can run on her record as an electorate MP (bar her record on the foreshore and seabed) and cruise to victory. So often though there is no correlation between performance and re-election. Success is often a combination of incumbency, personality, reach and circumstance. More often than not ones chances of re-election are situational. Is the public generally favourable towards my/my party’s brand? Does society currently value what I espouse etc… 

Ultimately, I am picking Nanaia will retain her seat based partly on name recognition and partly on the perception that she is a dedicated electorate MP. This time around her connections to the Kingitanga may prove to be a black mark against her given the trouble surrounding the Kingitanga. It is almost certain that Nanaia will not be re-elected on the basis of her involvement on the national scene. She is silent on most if not all issues affecting Maori. I haven’t seen anything from her since I started blogging some three or four months ago. To be fair her focus is her family and good on her for that. 

In any case she will probably win given the state the Maori Party is in. In 2008 the Maori Party brand was at its apex and the party ran incredibly aggressive campaigns in all of the Maori electorates. Even then they could not unseat Nanaia who was, following the seabed and foreshore controversy, exceedingly stained. If politics is indeed situational, and if Nanaia cannot be unseated in the most unsympathetic situation for Labour, then I am not sure she will be unseated this time around. The tide is turning against the Maori Party.