What post-settlement iwi should look like

Via the Herald:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

· Kaitiakitanga – in other words sustainable investment.

· Manaakitanga – meaning ethical investment.

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

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

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

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

Happy Waitangi Day!

What are you doing? It's Waitangi Day - don't read this. Relax and enjoy the day.

However, for those of you who can't - maybe the talkback racism and calls for New Zealand day are getting to you - you can distract yourself with Tu Mai Te Toki. TMTT is a new blog from Karla Akuhata. It focuses on Ngati Awa affairs, but the blog speaks to deeper issues about wider iwi politics and the challenges Maori face in a post-settlement world. Issues like iwi investment and communication between the hierarchies and the people. Enjoy.

Shame on the Maori Party

Question: why would the Maori Party say that they “don’t see the point” in attending the Kingitanga’s national hui? Answer: incompetence.

It’s a familiar pattern. The Maori Party repeat the government position, they come under attack for doing so, 24 to 48 hours later they switch sides, possibly remembering that they are the ‘Maori Party’. If this was an innocuous issue, there would be little to no consequence in endorsing the government’s position. The thing is, it’s not. This leads me to the second question, how will the Maori Party’s position effect Maori opposition. Answer: immensely.

A fragmented opposition is easier to neutralise than a united opposition. The Kingitanga and the Maori Party are power structures in Maori society. Together, they represent a threat to the government’s objective to divide and rule, split, and they represent no threat at all.

In rejecting the Kingitanga’s national hui and assuming this is “a thing iwi/hapu have to work out themselves”, the Maori Party have endorsed divide and rule. Their stupidity amazes me. An iwi by iwi approach will give the government the opportunity to exploit differences and jealousies between iwi. The result, aside from the results I outlined in the previous post, will be a reduction in the price of any bargain, especially in the case of pre-settlement iwi. A useful analogy is with trade unionism. As a collective, workers have more power and the chance to drive a better bargain. As individuals, the bargaining power is weighted towards the employer and as a general rule a lesser bargain is struck. It blows my mind that the Maori Party allow the divide and rule approach to stand.

Moving away from the Maori Party, the third question is will the Kingitanga pressure Waikato-Tainui negotiators to refuse a deal that excludes a national solution? The answer: yes.

Tom Roa, the chair of Te Arataura (Waikato-Tainui’s executive committee), has expressed his approval of the government’s iwi by iwi approach. Presumably Roa will play a key role in negotiations. However, the Kingitanga have access to Roa and their word will be persuasive.

Tumu Te Heu Heu, the paramount chief of Ngati Tuwharetoa and member of the Iwi Leaders Group, presumably agrees with Roa too. However, Ngati Tuwharetoa follow the Kingitanga too, therefore the King has the mana to lobby Tuwharetoa to switch positions.

Of the other major iwi affected, Te Arawa and Ngati Maniapoto, Ngati Maniapoto support the Kingitanga. Te Arawa don’t per se, but Ngati Pikiao host the poukai (the only iwi in Te Arawa to do so). In any event this will not stop the Kingitanga from lobbying.

With this in mind, the last question is: will the negotiators for Waikato-Tainui, Ngati Tuwharetoa and the other affected iwi take heed and refuse a deal that excludes a national solution? The answer: on the balance of probabilities, they’ll take the deal.

The rhetoric from key figures in Waikato-Tainui seems to indicate they will take the iwi by iwi deal. The Herald reported that figures in Waikato-Tainui have pressured pre-settlement iwi to take a deal on ‘credit’. That, ladies and gentlemen, is an example of divide and rule in action. The larger iwi who stand to make a commercial windfall will pressure other iwi to take a deal as well, regardless of whether those iwi have the structures in place to negotiate, accept and manage the results of a deal. There is nothing in the public domain that supports a different conclusion.

Maori, what we need is unity, unity and more unity. Having some iwi take a deal while excluding a national solution will cause more harm than good in the long run. Having the Maori Party endorse the government’s divide and rule approach will do more harm than good. Whatever way you look at it, we’re getting let down by some of our leaders. Good on the Kingitanga, the Maori Council, the Mana Party and most iwi for supporting a national solution. Shame on the Maori Party for supporting the government’s solution and shame on some in Waikato-Tainui for putting their own interests ahead of what’s good for our people.

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