Citizen Tuheitia...

Should Kingi Tuheitia stand down? It’s a valid question, surely. In an attempt to apply further pressure on Tom Roa and the remaining members of Te Arataura, Tuheitia has released a second open letter claiming that “Waikato -Tainui is once more at the edge of an abyss.” Well, yes, but is Tuheitia the right person to pull the tribe back?

It’s worth remembering that the Kingitanga is not an expression of power or sovereignty. The movement is an expression of and tool for unity. Tuheitia, however, appears to treat his office as if it's a cheap imitation of the worst aspects European Royal Protocol. In 2011 the Herald reported that:

Guests are encouraged to lead conversation, although it should be kept to only two subjects, and people should ask only polite questions, keeping the whole encounter to one or two minutes maximum.

Guests are also encouraged to refer to Tuheitia as “your majesty”. Odd. I find it strange that royal protocols exist at all – Te Atairangikaahu did not keep a protocol guide. Hell, when she travelled the country she would stay at the homes of her friends and whanau. No hotels and chauffeurs, thank you very much. After all, the Kingitanga isn't about reverance and mana does not extend to those people with less having to act towards you with veneration.

Add to that a verbal incident that the Waikato Times reported in 2010. Apparently, in a meeting about Tania Martin and Te Kauhanganui, Tuheitia let rip against a kaumatua and Tame Iti’s sister. The King is reported to have asked the kaumatua whether he can “fucking read” and, when called on it, he told Iti if she doesn’t like it she can “fuck off”. Not the qualities you would expect of any leader, let alone the Maori King.

Waikato-Tainui members are also asking whether this is part of a continuing campaign for more power and money. In January this year Tuheitia first voiced his desire to “take control of the tribe’s parliament” and Chris Webster reports that the Office of the King has received millions in tribal funding from 2009. Earlier this year Tuheitia penned a plea in the tribal magazine for further funding. You have to ask whether the King's latest reach for power, read the first and the most recent open letters, are part of a pattern.

Another cause for worry is the King’s cartel of advisors. The King maintains a large office, in comparison to his mother at least, including Rangi Wallace who admitted to beating his step-daughter and her mother, Helen Kotua. Further to that, Wallace also owed $250,000 to IRD in 2011 and Kotua owed Baycorp over $3000. Kotua is the author of the protocols above. 

Tuheitia has also come under fire for appointing Greg Miller, a “Pakeha”, as his representative on Te Arataura. In a similar vein Tuheitia nominated Susan Cullen to the Board of Te Wananga o Aotearoa. Cullen, whose father was the CEO at the time, is reported to have earnt more than $74m in 5 years from contracts with the Wananga and shamelessly touts her worth at over $30m. The Auditor-General later released a damning report into the Wananga criticising them for extensive conflicts of interest, poor quality courses and more.

Tuku Morgan was instrumental in the nomination and when the Wananga refused to accept her, and rightly so, he threatened legal action. This brings us neatly to Tuku Morgan – the source of and/or contributor to so, so much hurt in the tribe. Arguably there is a direct correlation between Tuku Morgan and tribal infighting. Many thought tribal battles had reached their climax while Tuku was the head of Te Arataura. Remember Tuku met Tania Martin, the former tribal leader, in Court on numerous occasions and appeared on television to launch a public attack while he was heading the executive. Negotiation and compromise is not a concept Tuku understands, apparently.  

It’s sad and I’m not going to pretend I have the answers. Structural change, like I discussed in a previous post, is a start but no cure. The personalities are toxic too. If the King succeeds in cleaning out Te Arataura and much of Te Kauhanganui (I support that idea in principle)... should he follow suit? Discuss.

Post-script: It's worth noting that I'm not speaking from personal experience here - I'm drawing from what is in the public domain. Rumours are relayed to me, but I'm hesitant to publish them. Also, I don't necessarily think Tuheitia needs to go. He should have the chance to improve tribal politics, but if he fails or makes matters considerably worse... Well, then we need to ask whether he displays the qualities we expect of an Arikinui.  

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. 

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.

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.

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.   

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?   

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.  

The Maori Economic Summit

The Maori Economic Summit has walked into a storm of criticism from Phil Goff, Meteria Turei and Syd Keepa. Keepa claims the Maori Economic Taskforce, established by the Maori Party, focussed only on how “Maori corporates can break into international markets rather than what is happening in the community”. This is good point I think. It reminds me of Tuku Morgan’s fixation with international financial markets. I remember an episode of Native Affairs where Tuku took a Maori Television team to New York to cover a glorified visit to the New York stock exchange. Tuku barked on about how Maori need to become global players and the way to do that is break into international financial markets. That is all well and good, but Maori should not jump ahead of themselves. We need to sort our own house out first – then we can worry about becoming “global players”.

As I said Phil Goff and Meteria Turei have come out hard against the taskforce and the summit. Turei called on the summit to address the needs of small rural Maori communities rather than “think big projects”. Goff ran a similar line; however he slammed the summit even before the first karakia was uttered.

Keepa, Turei and Goff made valid criticisms and suggested valid areas of concern, but I tend to think they were a bit quick in writing it all off.

Now, you might think the summit was all negative. It wasn’t. Bill English addressed the summit and he had this to say:

Maori businesses stand to benefit from the rebalancing of the economy his government is attempting, especially if they focus on exporting.

Does that mean Maori business stand to gain from asset sales, privatisation of social services and so on? Theoretically, Maori business will benefit, but do we want that benefit to come at the expense of all New Zealanders?

Economist Ganesh Nana also addressed the summit and said:

Investment in science and innovation in the Maori economy could create up to 150,000 new jobs by 2061 - while doing nothing will lead to a reduction in jobs.

This deserves serious consideration. I have always thought the Maori economy needs to refocus. The Maori economy is still based, for the most part, on primary production. I would like to see a shift towards investment in growth industries, like science and technology, rather than expanding the primary sector of the Maori economy. Essentially, structural change is required.

The central message coming out of the summit was Maori cannot afford to do nothing. According to the taskforce if the recommendations were to be followed 150,000 jobs could be created and the Maori economy could be lifted by $12 billion over 50 years. By contrast, doing nothing would cost 185,000 jobs and leave Maori lagging behind economically. It’s a clear choice.

The iwi elite

As I predicted iwi leaders, namely Tuku Morgan, have come out in support of the Maori Party leadership. Readers will know I am no fan of the self proclaimed ‘Iwi Leadership Group’ (for good reason I assure you).

In my opinion self preservation motivates the group’s stance. Members of The Iwi Leadership Group (ILG) have, through The Maori Party, formed personal networks with members of the current government. Herein lays the problem. The ILG has only formed networks and built relationships with one side of the political divide. Therefore, the ILG has access to only one team – The National Party. Ultimately, a second term National government will ensure the ILG have continued access to the top. The group has correctly identified Hone Harawira as an impediment to a second term National government and an impediment to a long term Maori Party/National Party strategic alliance. Therefore, the ILG want him gone.

If Labour occupies the Treasury benches post-election the ILG may lose their ability to access government and subsequently influence policy. Labour can easily ignore the ILG - their support is not critical to the legitimacy of government policy nor is the group well established or economically powerful enough to the point where they cannot be ignored. Some ignorant commentators paint the ILG as some sort of economic powerhouse but the reality is quite the opposite. The ILG cannot leverage government with economic threats. The groups leverage is purely political in nature.

The ILG probably entertain the idea that they are ‘big players’ and this is why they enjoy a cosy relationship with the current government. The ILG is in such a cosy position because it suits the Nat’s agenda. The ILG serves an important function – they legitimise and promote National Party policy. It is in the best interests of The National Party to have an ideological ally in Maoridom. Without such an ally the Nats Maori policy would probably encounter a fair degree of opposition and, as one commentator put it, cultural blackmail. The support of the ILG lends the Nat’s Maori policy a degree of legitimacy and ensures some political stability. A brown rubber stamp if you will.

Ultimately the ILG is a creation of The National Party. The Nats have elevated the ILG to their current position as the dominant Maori voice in New Zealand politics. This fucks me off. The ILG is limiting Maori political participation. As the go to brown guys in New Zealand the ILG are shutting out ordinary Maori. The ILG is not subject to scrutiny, their direction is not debated among Maori and access is granted only to the elite. The ILG is also entrenching political inequality in New Zealand. The group is strengthening the voice of the wealthy and elite in Maori society – not the flaxroot. Lastly, the ILG, in my opinion, lacks any legitimacy. I did not vote for any of those clowns. I don’t know of anyone who did. They are not publicly accountable to me either. The ILG is a self appointed and anointed clique. Nothing more nothing less. Just a bunch of chiefs with no cloaks.

"It will benefit Maori"

So Tariana Turia supports asset sales – it’s hard to see why. To rationalise her stance Turia claims asset sales could, key word here is could, benefit Maori. Iwi, particularly Mark Solomon, Tuku Morgan and FOMA, are also salivating over the possibility of getting their corporate hands all over our, key word here is our, national assets.

Turia operates under the notion that what is good for iwi is by definition good for Maori. This is not strictly true - especially in this case. The government is essentially selling future profit for short term gain.  We are told the immediate windfall from asset sales will be used to pay down debt. With this in mind it is safe to assume we will see a decrease in government services in the long run. Now the big question is will iwi step in and negate the decrease? Probably not. I doubt iwi have any desire to do so, and fair enough, but surely there is an obligation to do so. This is all about the people right? Surely if iwi were to engage in a rational cost/benefit analysis it would show Maori receive more value with the assets in government hands rather than iwi hands.   

Realistically, iwi will have a minority stake only. Even iwi katoa lack the capital to become major shareholders. So why bother when you will have no control over the direction of the company – especially decisions regarding price rises etc? In a previous post I wrote;

Iwi are now seeking neo liberal ends such as the right to exploit natural resources and the commodification of land and taonga. They also want to play a part in the privatisation agenda of the current government (e.g.private prisons, PPP etc...). It appears to me that iwi authorities have rationalised such goals by adopting the ‘trickle down’ philosophy. They seem to reason that Maori participation in the neo liberal experiment will result in indirect ‘trickle down’ benefits for ordinary Maori despite the trickle down theory been rather discredited.

This is all about iwi’s new found corporate agenda.

Turia is a great example of an indigenous corporatist so no surprises that she supports assets sales (along with private prisons). I’m not holding my breath but I do hope that she justifies her position. I’m sick of the Maori Party, and iwi for that matter, supporting something which is clearly fucking stupid without any reason besides “it will benefit Maori”. How? Why? When? Get your act together.

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.