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.

Hands off the whales, Te Ohu Kaimoana

Take heed, Maori corporates:

At the end of the day, Maori and other indigenous people need to be vigilant to ensure that we are never used as stalking horses by those seeking a resumption of commercial whaling interests. We also must never ourselves be guilty of cultural double-standards by being selective in espousing our cultural relationship with these amazing ancient mammals of the deep.

For my own people, at least, we must balance our customary use of the material from stranded whales against our other relationship with them. Some iwi regard the whale as an ancestor. My own iwi holds to the tradition that we were guided here by one. Perhaps the best message that iwi can contribute is that the whale has sustained indigenous people all the world over in times past, when the animals were not massively hunted, and now we indigenous people have a duty to sustain these amazing creatures for their own sake.

That’s a quote from one of my role models, Sandra Lee, in her address to the World Council of Whalers. It’s a quote that, in light of recent noises from Te Ohu Kaimoana, is still relevant today.

Te Ohu Kaimonana (TOKM), the Maori fisheries body, has reaffirmed support for indigenous whaling. While I have no problem with whaling for basic sustenance, I object to whaling for profit. Reading between and beyond the lines, TOKM support for indigenous whaling appears to be an attempt to test the waters (excuse the pun). Peter Douglas, the CEO TOKM, told the Otago Daily Times that his organisation would be interested in taking meat from stranded whales unable to be saved. TOKM is not, apparently, interested in other whaling activities. Well, this contradicts previous actions. Metiria Turei points out that TOKM have hosted commercial whaling organisations and prepared and presented papers on the economics and trade of whaling.

Maori were participants on European whaling ships and would often harvest stranded whales (given they were dead and the appropriate rituals were performed). However, in many areas of the country whales are considered sacred. In my own iwi, Ngati Awa, there is a legend about a whale called Tutarakauika. Many iwi have tales of whales, tohunga and so on. The tales usually serve to denote the status of whales in the particular area. With that in mind, I’d find it culturally offensive for other Maori to engage in whale hunting, hell even harvesting dead whales is offensive not only to my cultural beliefs, but my conservation values.

In any event, Maori whaling in 2012 would not be done along cultural lines. It would be done, I can assure you, for profit. That is repugnant. As I said, whaling for sustenance is acceptable, but whaling for profit is not. There are other ways to make money and create jobs without having to hunt such a precious and in many cases threatened species.

There is something not quite right in TOKM. The organisation’s lax and inadequate response to slave fishing in our waters left much to be desired. Why, I ask, was TOKM more concerned with their profit margins than with the abuses that were occurring on the vessels they contracted? Why, I ask, is TOKM making noises around whaling? Why, I ask, has TOKM forgotten good corporate values and sound cultural values? Why, I ask, is TOKM just driven by profit?

Should the government guarantee settlements?

It’s a sad day for Ngati Tama, with the news going public that the tribe has lost almost everything:

One of Taranaki's largest private investment projects has gone horribly wrong, losing close to $20 million in a series of high-risk financial ventures.

The loss means Taranaki's most northern iwi, Ngati Tama, has shed all of a $14.5m Treaty of Waitangi payout it received in 2003.

Shocked iwi members learned of the financial disaster at a hui at Pukearuhe Marae this weekend.

Where, one should ask in the wake of this stuff-up, does the government’s obligations end. Treaty settlements are full and final. However, I don’t think - and I’m open to correction on this point - that the Waitangi Tribunal, Crown Law or Cabinet have ever interpreted full and final to mean that the government’s obligations end once settlement legislation is passed. Indeed, if the government knew a tribe’s settlement was close to collapsing, and did nothing, then the government would be liable for a contemporary breach of the Treaty under the partnership and active protection principles. So, despite the full and final aspect of settlements, the government retains on-going obligations under the principles of the Treaty. The full and final notion relates to, I believe, the redress component. It does not nullify other obligations the government has towards Maori.

With this in mind, does the government owe Ngati Tama compensation? Personally, I don’t think so, but I know other Maori think compensation is appropriate. From what information is in the public domain, the government had no idea of the situation and no hand in it. Ngati Tama’s loss came as a result of poor management. However, if the government can guarantee risky finance companies and, when they go bust, pay out sums well in excess of all treaty settlements combined, why can’t the government guarantee treaty settlements? A valid question and one I can’t find a compelling answer against.

It is negligent, on the government’s part, to absolve itself of responsibilities once treaty settlements are passed. After all, the government is in a sense making an investment. Therefore, the government should ensure appropriate mechanisms are in place to manage the settlement. Before a settlement can be transferred, a tribal organisation must be in place, but it is not a requirement that an adequate corporate arm is in place. This is inadequate.

Once settlement legislation is passed, it is on iwi to make what they will of the settlement. However, many of the smaller iwi, have no experience, expertise or knowledge in and of commercial matters. The larger iwi tend to do okay, for example Ngai Tahu and Ngati Awa, but the smaller iwi often do not have expert tribe members to draw on. This isn’t universally true, I should add, Tainui came close to bankruptcy a few years ago.

I agree with Richard Jones who says that “an extra layer of due diligence is necessary when planned investments are outside the traditional areas such as the primary sector and property”. Maori tend to do very well in primary industries and property, yet no so well in the sort of investments Ngati Tama made. In fact, I think it is almost unprecedented for an iwi to invest heavily in an overseas company, and a software company too.

Ultimately, Ngati Tama had too much exposure to what were a handful of very, very risky investments. I can understand the desire to make something of a miserly settlement, but I don’t think Ngati Tama’s leaders kept in mind that management of treaty settlements should be conservative. The settlements are meant to be sustainable and intergenerational; it’s not for current generations to milk it for all it’s worth with risky investments. Having said that, I shouldn’t speculate on what was motivating Ngati Tama leaders and what, I suppose, really happened.

I think the CEO of Ngati Tama, Greg White, and the Board owe the people of Ngati Tama an apology.

Iwi and Social Housing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ngati Awa move in the right direction

It is good to see an iwi come out in support of a socially beneficial enterprise. From the NZ Herald:

Te Runanga o Ngati Awa in Whakatane has become one of the first iwi to put its hand up publicly to buy state houses, which the Government wants to sell

But iwi chief executive Jeremy Gardiner… told a Community Housing Association conference in Henderson he would buy them only if he could pay a price based on their current rental income, not their book value.

"If we go to the Government and say we want to buy them, they will say they are worth $80 million. No one is going to pay that because they don't generate a return to justify that.

"They are worth $19 million based on the current rentals. That is a reasonable purchase price. That gives us some flexibility."

Although, in principle, I disagree with the sale of state homes, it is a welcome change to see iwi swing behind a government initiative other than private prisons and mining. This is ultimately the privatisation of an essential government service, a remission of responsibility on the government’s part. Selling sate homes will reduce government bureaucracy, eliminate on-going costs and provide a one off cash injection. It is a short term exercise aimed at cost cutting.

In any society housing is an essential utility and when housing is, for one reason or another, unattainable, the government should provide a safety net. The private sector is not bound or influenced by any social imperative, unless you consider profit motive a social imperative, and must consider profit above all else. This conflict between social imperative and profit suggests that the private sector is unsuited to providing housing for those who cannot pay market price.

I think Jeremy Gardiner’s comments are reasonable. Given that Ngati Awa is not seeking a return, or at least it appears that way, it would be irrational to demand payment reflecting book value. Furthermore, Ngati Awa already lack the capital required to renovate derelict state homes. Certainly an allowance should be made to accommodate the fact that some houses will need significant attention to bring them up to standard.

So it is reassuring to see at least one iwi move in a positive direction, commercially speaking. I hope a few more follow suit.