The price of the King's support

So, Tuku Morgan has revealed the price of the Kingitanga’s support*:

A former head of the Waikato-Tainui executive who plans to stand for the role of the tribe's parliament chair says he wants to change the way the tribe is governed so the Maori King has the final say over tribal decisions…

Mr Morgan says if he's elected he'll work towards making changes to the tribe's constitution.

He says members must never be able to go to court with tribal issues, and Kingi Tuheitia should be given the right to veto or dissolve a tribal parliament.

Gifting the King the power to dissolve tribal parliaments will not solve the political and structural problems in Tainui. At most, inserting the Kingitanga as the ultimate decision maker will only change the way tribal politics is played. So, rather than engage in legal plays**, ambitious tribal politicians will jostle for standing in the Kingitanga. Lobbying, not law, will be du jour.

As for the structural issues, elevating the Kingitanga will further complicate what is already an unnecessarily complex iwi structure. At the moment the King sits at the top of the line as the ceremonial head, Te Kauhanganui (TK) stands below as the decision making body, Te Arataura (TA) is lower still as the day to day manager and groups like Tainui Group Holdings (TGH) make up the base. It’s a loose Westminster model where the Kingitanga is analogous to the monarchy, TK to Parliament, TA to the Cabinet and TGH and others are analogous to arms of the executive. Under Tuku’s proposal the structure would not change, other than to take ultimate power away from TK and transfer it to the Kingitanga.

Well, under either model, the structure doesn't fit with the “fundamental principles (that) have emerged over the years as being relevant for most iwi in their structures”. These principles are:

• the need to establish 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. 

Here are the problems: 1) Under Tuku’s model, the King could dissolve TK and override the will of the individual iwi members. Even then, it’s arguable that individual iwi members do not even have ultimate control over TK and Tainui decision making as it is. TK is not elected on an at large basis. Each Marae puts forward three members to sit on TK, yet those members are not elected on an at large basis either. Arguably, this is not a purely democratic model where “individual iwi members have ultimate control” 2) the legal powers of each body are not certain. A number of tribal politicians, including Tuku Morgan, have taken to the Courts to test the limits of their power and the power of their opponents. Given the hazy rules, a culture of litigation has developed in the tribe. From the beginning of the 2010 financial year through to 2012 Chapman Tripp collected over $1m in legal fees, Bell Gully collected almost $300,000 (including the 2009 financial year). Over four other firms cashed in as well 3) ownership (TK) and management (TA) are kept separate under both models. At least that’s one run out of three.

The troubles in Tainui are not tidy and while I don’t pretend to have all of the answers, I’m sure the answer is not to reduce democracy in favour of feudalism. Structural reform is the key, but that reform must be on democratic terms. Regardless of what you think of Tuku Morgan, Tania Martin or Kingi Tuheitia, I think everyone can agree on that.

*In a extraordinary letter to Tainui tribal members the King called on leaders in TK and TA to reaffirm their "mandate" and endorsed Tuku Morgan in his bid for the chairmanship of TK. 

**The Court has the final say over the interpretation and application of the rules that govern Tainui. As a result much of the political games that go on in Tainui are, essentially, legal games. Opposing parties merely attempt to strengthen their legal positions rather than cooperate, compromise and so on. 

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.

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

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.  

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.   

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.

Trouble in Tainui rumbles on

Some interesting news from Unattachednz:

Tuku Morgan’s false accusations of financial mismanagement against the chair of Waikato-Tainui Te Kauhanganui Mrs Tania Martin have been dismissed by Waikato Police corporate fraud detectives.

The Waikato corporate fraud office stated in a written response to Mrs Martin there was no basis for the intervention of the criminal law after reviewing the allegations made by Tuku Morgan and Robin Whanga.

Tuku Morgan (chair of the committee Te Arataura) made public his allegations of financial mismanagement in the Waikato Tainui tribal magazine ‘Te Hokioi’, which is distributed to over 60,000 tribal members; and he repeated those claims in two internal reports to Te Kauhanganui.

Trouble in Tainui erupted last year when Tania Martin released a damning report criticising the tribal executive, Te Arataura. In response, Tuku Morgan lobbied Kingi Tuheitia to remove Tania Martin as Chair of Te Kauhanganui, the tribal Parliament. The King subsequently sacked Ms Martin only for her to be reinstated by Te Kauhanganui at the behest of the High Court. Martin then publicly released an affidavit delivered to Te Kauhanganui which was, in my opinion at least, a damning indictment against Tuku Morgan and Te Arataura. Tuku Morgan and Te Arataura responded in kind with Tuku publicly slagging Tania Martin on Native Affairs. The tit for tat battle has continued over the last few months, the main event been the repeated attempts by Te Arataura to block meetings of Te Kauhanganui.

It is obvious Tania Martin enjoys the support of Te Kauhanganui. As such, she will not go away. It is also clear that Tuku Morgan and Te Arataura do not, as such their positions are in jeopardy. It is in their self interest to block, avoid, stymie and attack Te Kauhanganui. Te Arataura is the power behind the throne (the Kingitanga) and the regulator of tribal funds. Te Arataura holds the power, but Te Kauhanganui holds the Mana. In my opinion Te Arataura cannot continue their game. At some point Te Kauhanganui will assert its Mana.    

The troubles in Tainui are indicative of the troubles faced by post-settlement entities. The systems used by Tainui are too complex and, as is common across Maoridom, there are too many chiefs. The success of treaty settlements largely depends on the quality of the systems and institutions Iwi utilise and create. Maori cannot afford to get it wrong.  

Aue

The herald reports;

The Waikato-Tainui Parliament Te Kauhanganui voted to keep Tania Martin as its chairwoman.

Martin's leadership was reaffirmed in an extraordinary meeting where 32 marae delegates supported her. Twenty-one voted against her and seven were invalid.

This is an embarrassing outcome for both the King and Tuku Morgan and it reinforces the view that Tuheitia lacks the independence, intellect and leadership required. He has frustrated Te Kauhanganui, obstructed their Chairwoman and toed the Te Arataura line. He is weak and has not displayed the unifying skills required of a Maori monarch. 

This whole saga is a disgrace. Tuku Morgan has conducted himself in a most dishonourable manner and Tuheitia has shown he lacks the skills required of an Arikinui. The sooner they both leave the better.       

It's not looking good Tuku

I have quickly glanced over Tania Martin’s report to Te Kauhanganui regarding her dismissal and the accusations levelled against her. It appears;

1. Te Arataura initially threatened legal action against Ms Martin on two occasions yet failed to follow through knowing that their threats were of no consequence. Ms Martin initiated proceedings following her dismissal and her claims were heard by Hansen J, however no case existed because Te Arataura affirmed Ms Martin’s claims. She was in the right.  
2. In public Te Arataura has welcomed any review yet in private they have erected a number of obstructions including; triggering the disputes process, sacking Ms Martin (only for her to be reinstated) and illegitimately calling a general meeting of Te Kauhanganui.  
3. Members of Te Arataura were openly hostile and actively attempted to avoid meeting Ms Martin from the outset. Concerns raised by Ms Martin with respect to the actions of Te Arataura were taken out of context and subsequently misconstrued.
4. Charles Joe, a Te Arataura board member, attempted to gag Ms Martin by making a wild claim that she cannot communicate with members of Te Kauhanganui without the express permission of the executive chair (Tuku Morgan). He then went on to add that all correspondence must be factual and the executive chair has the power to restrict correspondence he does not agree with. Outrageous stuff that goes to show the sense of supremacy Tuku operates under.
5. Given Te Arataura lost in Court they have moved on to ‘suggesting’ to Ms Martin that she stand aside.
6. A review committee meeting involving members of Te Kauhanganui and Te Arataura concerning Ms Martin’s report was subject to an attempted hijack by the Te Arataura members present. The members attempted to stop the meeting on numerous occasions citing technicalities and culminating in a motion to declare the meeting invalid. The motion failed.
7. Tuku Morgan instructed a senior staff member not to process Ms Martin’s fee claims. Te Arataura refuses to supply the financial support it is obligated to provide.
8. Ms Martin’s removal by the King was at the insistence of Tuku Morgan.
9. Tuku Morgan also lobbied Ms Martin’s Marae.
10. Tuku Morgan made false claims on Native Affairs as to the time and reasons for Ms Martin missing a scheduled appointment with the King.
11. Te Arataura WILL NOT pay for an external review or ANY other costs related to the said review or the activities of Tania Martin. As a result her report cannot continue.  

Te Arataura is using their considerable power and resources against Te Kauhanganui. They have gone to great lengths to frustrate, castigate and alienate Ms Martin and Te Kauhanganui. They must have a lot to hide. Tuku Morgan has a great deal to answer – however knowing Tuku I do not think those answers will be forthcoming let alone truthful and accurate.  

Tania Martin - setting the record straight

A compelling report and rebuttal from Tania Martin (or indeed her legal team). It appears that Tuku and Te Arataura are in the wrong - big time. If what Tania Martin has claimed is accurate, and it appears so, then it can only be concluded that corruption, incompetence and sheer idiocy permeates Te Arataura.

Hat tip Whenua Fenua Enua Vanua

(If I have time I will try to extract the most relevant parts).  

Try again Tuku

The December issue of Te Hookioi, a monthly magazine covering Tainui affairs, carries a piece produced by Te Arataura, specifically Tuku Morgan, attacking Tania Martin. I intended to upload the piece but I cannot do so without permission. In general the piece is fairly spiteful and exaggerated. It is a good example of emotive writing but a poor attempt at establishing the facts. Some figures are provided yet they are without adequate context and other allegations contained in Tania Martins report are not addressed. Essentially, a pretty unsatisfactory rebuttal from Tuku. I guess the truth will become apparent in time.  

Evaluating The Kingitanga

King Tuheitia and John Key

With the Kingitanga in the news recently a number of people have been questioning the relevance of the contemporary King movement. Questions are beginning to arise as to the practical purpose and significance of the King movement. This is especially true from the time Kingi Tuheitia took office. It is disheartening to hear questions along these lines because I think they are misguided and miss the overall aim of the Kingitanga. In my opinion the Kingitanga is still an important and enduring expression of Maori unity with deep historical meaning. It should not be forgotten that the Kingitanga is not a cheap imitation of European models but an expression of the mana, determination and unity of Maori rather than an expression of power or sovereignty. At its core the Kingitanga represents the spirit of the Maori people and the enduring struggle for mana whenua. Maori are a fiercely parochial and sometimes fragmented people who on occasion view themselves as singular rather than one piece of a whole – the Kingitanga serves as a unifying symbol to counter parochialism.

The Kingitanga continues to foster unity by honouring historical connections with many hapu (but not all unfortunately) through the poukai and koroneihana system. This continued symbolic unity is the Kingitanga greatest strength. These hapu are the ones who empower the Kingitanga and give the movement mana. As long as these hapu continue to participate in the poukai and koroneihana and honour the Kingitanga then in my opinion it is still relevant.

There are questions surrounding whether or not the Kingitanga is representative of all Maori but again this misses the point. The King movement is no longer about practical representation but symbolism. The Kingitanga is not involved in political matters or matters that require a voice on behalf of all Maori. When the King does speak he speaks on behalf of Tainui only, and in exceptional cases, where those iwi who originally constituted the Kingitanga agree.

This brings me to the question should the Kingitanga become involved in politics? Certainly the Kingitanga has already forged relationships with overseas head of states in and beyond the Pacific so is it time to enter domestic political discourse? I do not think so. The Kingitanga has always been apolitical but there is now some desire within Maoridom for the Kingitanga to engage in greater public advocacy. I believe this would undermine the strength of the Kingitanga. The Kingitanga is, and should stay, a relationship builder. Te Ata was renowned for bringing people together - connecting people with diverse opinions and getting them to talk to one another. She provided leadership not in a political sense but a human sense. A political stance would undermine the ability of the Kingitanga to build relationships with different governments who may or may not approve of the stance the Kingitanga takes on political matters. An inability to forge relationships with the Crown would be an affront to the principle of partnership and result in diminished mana. It would also not be in the interest of such a symbolic movement to become stained by political decisions and damaged by political opponents. The conflict politics breeds would also weaken the symbolic role the Kingitanga has. For example Tuheitia’s unprecedented move to sack Tania Martin has drawn wide criticism from many in the tribe who disagree with his decision and others who wish the office of the King to remain apolitical. Some Kaumatua have suggested there is a danger in the King becoming a political figure in that the office is no longer tapu – it becomes common, ordinary, noa. 

The political opinions of individual Maori are diverse – there is no single Maori view on political issues so it would be unwise for the Kingitanga to attempt to speak on behalf of all Maori. Such a move would invite quarrels and weaken the unity the Kingitanga embodies - politics will only divide. Where the Kingitanga should take the lead is on cultural issues. Unlike politics this is an area that is not divisive – Maori all agree about the revival of the culture. Facilitating progress on a cultural front will ensure the Kingitanga remains relevant entering the post treaty settlement world.

Another question regarding the Kingitanga is the reign of Tuheitia. Te Arikinui Te Atairangikaahu’s reign signified the renaissance and recovery of the Kingitanga and the Maori people. I think Tuheitia’s reign will signal the emergence of Maori as equal partners. But is he up to the task? He is something of an “enigma”. Little is known of the man beyond generic facts surrounding his education and so on. We glean nothing from him from his public appearances which are usually characterised by silence on his part apart from welcome or thank you. Shyness perhaps? Humility? This is certainly the view of most. In my opinion his reign has been striking for a lack of leadership. He does not appear to have the unifying skills that are a necessity for any Maori monarch. He has frustrated Te Kauhanganui, the Tainui tribal Parliament, and according to Tuku Morgan the Parliament is “dysfunctional”. If he has failed to bring together his own people how will he fare with the rest of Maoridom?   

With that been said I think his maiden speech signalled good things may come from this man unfortunately he has not managed to follow through in any great way. Undoubtedly he has attempted to modernise the Kingitanga and Tainui. For example creating the Kings Charter (with the help of professional PR advisors), choosing a non-Tainui member to represent him on the executive board and attempting to lead discussions among iwi on future issues such as constitutional reform.

Therefore, the Kingitanga serves an important purpose today as a symbol of unity and I hope more people begin to see this. Whether Tuheitia is the right Arikinui to lead this important body is an interesting question. Whatever the answer to that question I just hope the body remains apolitical – for its own sake.