Māmari Stephens examines Mana Motuhake redress in the Tūhoe-Crown settlement as expressed through a Service Management Plan to improve the social circumstances of the Tūhoe people.

Discussion

A momentous year, 2014 saw the passage of the Tūhoe Claims Settlement Act 2014 and Te Urewera Act 2014 as two very important components of the Treaty settlement between the Crown and Tūhoe.

Neither Act, however, includes one very important element set out in the deed of settlement: ‘Mana Motuhake redress’. Most Treaty of Waitangi deeds of settlement include components of financial and commercial redress, and cultural redress, along with agreed historical accounts of injustices and Crown apologies and other elements.[ref]Mana Motuhake redress: see  http://nz01.terabyte.co.nz/ots/DocumentLibrary/TuhoeDOS.pdf pp 153ff. For other 2014 deeds of settlement see for example Ngāruahine (http://nz01.terabyte.co.nz/ots/DocumentLibrary/Ngaruahine-DeedofSettlement.pdf) and Ngāti Kurī (http://nz01.terabyte.co.nz/ots/DocumentLibrary/NgatiKuriDeedofSettlement.pdf) and Te Ati Awa (http://nz01.terabyte.co.nz/ots/DocumentLibrary/TeAtiawa-DeedofSettlement(Final).pdf)[/ref] The inclusion of Mana Motuhake redress is unique to the Tūhoe settlement, and is aimed at healing relationships (http://settlement.ngaituhoe.iwi.nz/deed-of-settlement/pou-tokomanawa-our-present-day/):

Establishing principles which aim to transform a Tūhoe Crown Relationship to provide future earned benefits to Tūhoe and Te Urewera and provide a future of hope and potential for coming generations.

One of the most important parts of the Mana Motuhake redress is the innocuous, even boring-sounding Service Management Plan (“SMP”). The SMP warrants closer inspection not least because it may well prove to be a kind of watershed moment in New Zealand social history, and indeed, in welfare in particular. The SMP may be cause for both optimism and caution for other Māori collectives seeking better social outcomes from their relationship with the Crown.

What is the Service Management Plan?

As Te Rangimārie Williams identified, in a previous issue of the Māori Law Review, the Social Services Management Plan (SMP) is an agreement that has been developed between Ngai Tūhoe and a high-level task force of the Ministry of Social Development (see (2012) October Māori LR).  A non-legally binding document, this agreement is a ‘relationship instrument from the Crown’. It is available at http://nz01.terabyte.co.nz/ots/DocumentLibrary%5CTuhoeiDOSDocuments.pdf. It embodies a commitment by the Ministries of Education, Social Development, and Business, Innovation and Employment (“Parties”) to work alongside Ngāi Tūhoe to improve the social circumstances of the Tūhoe people.  It is important to note that the Parties to the SMP comprise only these ministry units; Ngāi Tūhoe is not a party or signatory to the agreement, but was involved in creating it (Social Service Taskforce Ngāi Tūhoe Service Management Plan (2012) 1).

The SMP was actually signed in 2012, based on the high level political compact signed between Tūhoe Rangatira and the Crown, ‘Nā Kōrero Ranatira’ signed in 2011, in which the Crown and Ngāi Tūhoe resolved to recognise both the mana of the Crown and the mana motuhake of Ngāi Tūhoe (reproduced in Social Service Taskforce Ngāi Tūhoe Service Management Plan (2012) 10). This agreement is included in the Mana Motuhake redress component of the deed of settlement, and paved the way for the negotiations and work done leading to the creation of the SMP (see Professor Rawinia Higgins (2014) October Māori LR).

One sentence from the opening pages of the SMP is particularly striking (Social Service Taskforce Ngāi Tūhoe Service Management Plan (2012) 2):

This SMP has been entered into for the purpose of developing, implementing, expanding and renewing from time to time, a plan for the transformation of the social circumstances of the people of Ngāi Tūhoe. [Emphasis added]

Transformation of social circumstances is a powerful notion, which requires an extraordinary vehicle to guide its achievement. Indeed the SMP is very wide ranging, and envisages a plan for the next 40 years; affirming a number of high level relationships between Ngāi Tūhoe and the Parties. The SMP also affirms that the Parties will adhere to a set of principles. These principles include:

The Crown acknowledges the Mana Motuhake of Ngāi Tūhoe.

The parties and Tūhoe:

• Are committed to establishing and maintain and strengthening positive, co-operative and enduring relationships;
• Will actively work together and use their shared knowledge and expertise to improve social outcomes for Tūhoe;
• Will co-operate in partnership with a spirit of good faith, integrity, honesty, transparency and accountability putting the disengagement of the past behind them.

The parties support the Ngāi Tūhoe vision of Tūhoetanga and mission for Mana Motuhake.

The language of the principles set out above is relatively clear because it is familiar; reminiscent of language that has developed over the past thirty years to articulate the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. The Parties effectively accept an obligation of active co-operation and partnership based on the familiar notions such as good faith, honesty and integrity. The goals are also ambitious (Social Service Taskforce Ngāi Tūhoe Service Management Plan (2012) 6):

All parties to this SMP support and undertake to contribute to the best of their ability to the following goals:

• The aspiration of Tūhoe to manage their own affairs to the maximum autonomy possible in the circumstances;
• That over the first five year phase of this SMP and all agreed subsequent phases, the housing, health, education training employment and family unity safety of Tūhoe will substantially increase according to the standard measures in place from time to time to validate such matters or such specific standards as the parties may agree;
• That all parties recognise the importance of iwi, hapū and whānau in assisting in the achievement of these goals and undertake and agree to work with them and any appropriate facilitating and supporting programmes. The parties specifically acknowledge that at any time Tūhoe may seek to join Whānau Ora or any programme replacing or supplementing it.
• That all parties to this SMP recognise that they represent to Tūhoe the united voice of the Crown and will where possible and necessary work in partnership both among themselves, and with Tūhoe, to achieve the aspirations and goals of Tūhoe.[emphasis added]

There are a couple of things to note about these stated goals. One is that the language is that of progressive realisation. For example, the Parties will ‘contribute’ to the stated goals ‘to the best of their ability’ including Tūhoe’s aspiration to manage their own affairs to the maximum autonomy possible in the circumstances. The Parties are not bound to contribute to achieving such a goal, the abilities of the Parties have to be considered. Nor must the Parties contribute to a fixed notion of Tūhoe autonomy, but only to the maximum autonomy for Tūhoe that is possible in the circumstances. Of course the flexibility incorporated into these statements was a pragmatic necessity to facilitate the Parties’ commitment. The following statement at the end of the primary document affirms that progressive realisation, rather than immediate and absolute realisation, of goals is paramount (Social Service Taskforce Ngāi Tūhoe Service Management Plan (2012) 8):

All parties and Tūhoe recognise that in order to achieve the shared outcomes, deliberate steps will be required from each party, including the allocation of appropriate resources. Each party and Tūhoe are committed to taking such steps on an ongoing basis, and will not adopt measures which would prejudice the achievement of the shared outcomes or progress already made without prior consultation.

In line with this progressive approach is the definition of ‘Mana Motuhake’ employed within the SMP (Social Service Taskforce Ngāi Tūhoe Service Management Plan (2012) 40 (Appendix 5)):

Mana Mouhake is defined within the terms of this agreement as: “Progressively enhancing Tūhoe’s autonomy in decision making matched by its growth in infrastructure, capability and leadership in social service provision. This is balanced by the Crown’s governance role under Te Tiriti O Waitangi. Through the Treaty Settlement practical steps will be taken for Tūhoe to manage their affairs within their core area of interest with the maximum autonomy possible in the circumstances.

The term ‘Mana Motuhake’ is also illuminated in the deed of settlement, and there are obvious correlations in progressive language between both explanations of Mana Motuhake (http://nz01.terabyte.co.nz/ots/DocumentLibrary/TuhoeDOS.pdf at p 153):

4.291 For the purposes of this deed, "mana motuhake":

connotes the distinctiveness of autonomy, self sufficiency, self respect, self discipline, independence of judgement and decision making. It also connotes responsibility for wise and beneficial leadership, protecting the environment and therefore the resources of the community. Its life force is integrity.

By cleaving to that ethos Tūhoe will pursue and enhance the autonomy of its people and its homeland, deciding how they will develop, including in respect of health, education, infrastructure, employment, capability and leadership.

Whilst acknowledging the Crown's role in governance, Tūhoe also see and expect that by this settlement, practical steps will be taken to enable Tūhoe to manage their future with reasonably maximum autonomy, that precept being their natural condition and aspiration.

Appended to the primary instrument of the SMP is a series of sector chapters. These chapters contain the detailed ‘work plans’ for meeting the commitments made by the Parties, the District Health Boards and the Ministry of Health have made to Tūhoe (Social Service Taskforce Ngāi Tūhoe Service Management Plan (2012) 40 (Appendix 5)). They are set out in the following order:

1. Business, Innovation and Employment;
2. Health;
3. Education; and
4. Social Development

Each chapter sets out:

• shared purposes; (improved outcomes in housing, health, education and welfare)
• agreed main priorities;
• a five year action plan with express priorities for action; and
• guidelines for managing and upholding the relationship between Tūhoe and the Parties.

The Health half-way house

Interestingly, while the Ministry of Health is not a party to the SMP, Chapter Two adheres to the format above and is signed by the Chief Executives of the three District Health Boards (DHBs) who bear some responsibility within the tribal rohe of Tūhoe. These DHBs are also not parties to the SMP. They are also expressly excluded from being considered to be part of ‘the Crown’ within the primary SMP document (Social Service Taskforce Ngāi Tūhoe Service Management Plan (2012) 2 fn 2). The ‘Health Chapter’ is, we are told, to be considered a stand-alone document unaffected by either the rest of the SMP or the other chapters. The fact the Chief Executives of the DHBs have signed this chapter is to be read as ‘an endorsement their commitment to their statutory obligations’ and as recognition of the DHBs’ understanding that ‘transformation of the social circumsances of the people of Ngāi Tūhoe will be efective only in partnership with improved housing, education, and social support.’ (Social Service Taskforce Ngāi Tūhoe Service Management Plan (2012) 4.) It remains a little unclear then, what the status is of the health chapter under this ‘instrument of relationship.’

A closer look: the Social Development chapter

Lacking the space to address all chapters here, I will just spend some brief time noting some important points in the Social Development chapter, as the direction of the chapter holds some important implications for the development of social policy in New Zealand.

The social development chapter is aimed at Tūhoe and the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) developing an initial five-year plan for:

[D]riving forth an inclusive New Zealand where all Tūhoe people and Tūhoe communities are able to participate in the social and economic life of their communities to lead social development to achieve better futures for all New Zealanders.

The main tools by which the MSD’s agencies (Work and Income, Child, Youth and Family, Family and Community Services) will seek to work alongside Tūhoe to achieve the goals of the Action Plan are:

• developing a welfare needs analysis to discover ‘what welfare is for Tūhoe,’ with a view to shifting attitudes from benefit ‘dependence’ to community interdependence. Ultimately, the plan aims at the development of a Tūhoe Welfare System founded upon whānau and hapū responsibility.
• labour market team and industry partnership advisors to work alongside Tūhoe to build up employment capacity, wealth generation and employment opportunity within the Tūhoe rohe.
• Devise and create dialogue and agreement in order to ensure the appropriate care of Tūhoe at-risk youth so such taiohi are safe from harm.

Observations

Poverty alleviation, current entitlements and Whānau Ora

There are two notable absences in the MSD chapter of the SMP. There is no mention whatsoever of the alleviation of poverty, ensuring for example, the sufficiency of state assistance where Tūhoe applicants are eligible for it. Much, surely, could be done to improve Tūhoe welfare merely by ensuring that Tūhoe beneficiaries are getting what they are currently entitled to by way of Work and Income assistance. Neither does this chapter make any mention of Whānau Ora, although the SMP itself does acknowledge that Tūhoe may seek to join Whānau Ora, or any programme ‘replacing or supplementing it.’ (Social Service Taskforce Ngāi Tūhoe Service Management Plan (2012) 6.) The presumption that Whānau Ora as at the time of signing the SMP plays no part in what the Parties understand to be Tūhoe’s drive towards interdependent community welfare reveals that the Whānau Ora approach may not yet permeate social service planning by the Crown and by iwi within the context of the post-settlement era.

Citizenship and Rangatiratanga: a broader question

A further and broader observation can be made about the Social Development chapter of the SMP. To the extent that it accurately represents Tūhoe aspirations, this chapter shows another facet of the long-lived ongoing tension that has existed between all Māori collectives and the Crown, whereby Māori have sought decision-making power over their own futures, while at the same time seeking to access the benefits of shared citizenship, whereas the Crown has largely sought to stymie Māori development towards achieving that decision-making power.

On one hand Māori have sought to be included in mainstream New Zealand society without differentiation on the basis of race or culture. On the other hand, Māori have consistently sought recognition of rights accruing to all Māori by virtue of the Treaty of Waitangi. Such rights have included the rights (and duties) of common citizenship under Article III and the guarantee of tino rangatiratanga under Article II.

In social policy the tension between ideas of common citizenship and long-lived notions of rangatiratanga is particularly starkly observed because social laws and mechanisms are supposed to be universally applied, tribal and community affiliation notwithstanding. Yet in line with the notion that Māori have the right to control their own destinies Māori have been consistent in calling for greater control of resources and decision making over Māori families and whānau development. This consistent thread can be seen throughout the 20th century, and continues today. The early drafts of the Māori Social and Economic Advancement Bill of 1945, for example, were drafted by a Māori working party convened by Eruera Tirikatene and included substantial measures for Māori decisionmaking and a reconfiguring of the Native Affairs Department that were mainly rejected. Such pressure for Māori control over social policy began to re-emerge strongly in the public view in the 1970s and 1980s (R Hill (2004) State Authority, Indigenous Autonomy: Crown-Maori Relations in New Zealand/Aotearoa 1900-1950 Wellington: Victoria University Press p 210ff).

Similarly the Pūaoteatatū report of 1986 reiterated the call for Māori to have Māori control over decision-making for Māori social wellbeing (Ministerial Advisory Committee on a Māori Perspective for the Department of Social Welfare (1986) Pūaoteatatū – Daybreak Department of Social Welfare, Wellington):

78 As we travelled around the country, the most consistent call we heard was for Maori people to be given the resources to control their own programmes. We have responded to this in ways that do not discriminate against people of any culture while enabling Maori people to share and to control where applicable the allocation of resources in communities.

Despite this ongoing call for Māori to have such control, the Hon. Pita Sharples used a speech in 2010 to underscore his concerns of an increasing prevalence for Treaty settlements between iwi and the Crown to contain agreements on social provision, which in his view, despite the call of rangatiratanga, must remain a Crown responsibility (http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/treaty-relationships-need-rebalancing-sharples (20 October 2010)):

So I am extremely concerned about the development of social accords as instruments for settlement redress. I do not doubt the need for these accords. However, in my view that need is symptomatic of a failure of successive governments to provide for the social needs of iwi and Māori.

The persistent disparities between Māori and non-Māori, and the failure of government to deliver services in ways that resonate with Māori communities are ongoing. And they seem, at least to me, to be requiring claimant groups to spend valuable negotiations capital, and claimant funding, on negotiating for assurances that government will do the basic job that taxpayers fund it to do.

This view encapsulates to an extent the conflict between the Māori drive to reclaim rangatiratanga while at the same time seeking to achieve social equality with other New Zealanders that can only be financed by the State. No other body exists other than the State with the resources to advance the equal participation of Māori in New Zealand society, or indeed the survival of large numbers of Māori throughout the country in times of need and crisis.

One might identify that the Crown Parties to this SMP have agreed here in a limited sense to support the freedom of Tūhoe to work towards their own positive social outcomes.

One live question remains however, that can only be answered by those who now work on achieving the outcomes set out in this SMP. To what extent might this SMP merely represent the beginning of a devolution of responsibility to Tūhoe for the achievement of social well-being and social and economic participation, in the absence of sufficient resources to undertake necessary capacity building?

That question is outside the scope of this review, but deserves an answer in time.

Author: Māmari Stephens

Biographical Information about Māmari

View all posts by Māmari Stephens