SLEEPING WITH THE ENEMY

Dr Jane Kelsey is a professor of law at the University of Auckland, a prominent critic of globalisation and an informed commentator on international trade agreements and treaties.  During the Waitangi Tribunal’s recent hearing of the water claim, I found her evidence compelling because it gave a clearer picture of the risks in these treaties to national sovereignty.  This is all part of the broader Washington Consensus; more on that in a later column.

International trade treaties and agreements give investors very broad rights to challenge many rules in countries where they have invested; especially those that could affect their cash flow.  International law firms have joined the gravy train and, predictably, there’s been a massive jump in the numbers and types of such disputes brought by investors against governments.  In the past decade alone there have been 48 of them at a cost of $100 million each. 

In particular, large investors and their legal teams are aggressively targeting government regulations and policies which are supposed to protect things like public health and environmental conservation.  How that works is simple and cynical. 

If a government with strong regulations is in a trade agreement that includes a government with weak regulations, then investors can sue the strong-rule government for making them meet (and pay for) a higher standard than the weak-rule government; because it disadvantages them in trading terms. 

New Zealand’s government has bi-lateral agreements with those of China, India, Korea, Australia and Malaysia.  It’s also in multilateral agreements like TPPA and the WTO/Doha Round.  As well as being able to play this government off against its trade agreement partners in a dispute, investors will also be able to pick which of a number of international tribunals they take their dispute to.  These tribunals all differ widely and are unpredictable in their outcomes. Some are held in secret without proper due process, none of them follow logical precedents set by previous tribunals, and it’s impossible to know what view a particular tribunal might take.  Finally, there is no appeal process against any of them.

Often as not investors aren’t so much interested in actually pursuing their dispute as they are in using it to influence government policies, and, in a number of cases, governments have chosen to settle rather than go through what could be a long and very expensive dispute resolution process.  In essence they have surrendered their people’s sovereignty to international corporates, law firms and tribunals whose interests, backed up by the military might of the United States, now supersede those of the citizens of their countries. 

One definition of war is a condition of active antagonism or contention: a concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious.  What Dr Kelsey described in the Waitangi Tribunal last week amply matches that definition.   

We are engaged in international trade warfare.  But, instead of protecting its citizens from the enemy, New Zealand’s government is sleeping with it.

WORTH THE PRICE

Unless we have something like a congenital defect, most of us are perfectly balanced and self-aware beings at birth.  We laugh, cry, eat and sleep as we need.  Like the fowls of the air we neither sow nor reap, and like the lilies of the field we neither toil nor spin; we simply experience life from the I am, or the true self. 

Not so long ago that happy state was known as childhood, and it lasted for a good decade.  But today many of our children are metaphorically sowing, reaping, spinning and toiling before age five.  They’re also experiencing life through the Ego, or the false self, earlier than preceding generations. 

Regardless of when ego may replace true self, the cause is always the same.  It involves being taught that our happiness and worth is predicated on things like what we do or own, how we look or sound, where we live or work, who we’re with and why. 

This lesson is false but believable because, although these things can’t produce happiness, they can measure it. In fact they are used to do exactly that in Bhutan, a small Kingdom located in the Himalayas where the terms Gross National Happiness [GNH] and Happiness Quotient [HQ] were coined in 1972.

The cornerstones of GNH as defined by the Bhutanese are; the promotion of sustainable development, preservation and promotion of cultural values, conservation of the natural environment, and establishment of good governance. 

In collaboration with an international group of scholars and researchers, the Centre for Bhutan Studies then further defined eight general contributors to happiness: physical, mental and spiritual health; time-balance; social and community vitality; cultural vitality; education; living standards; good governance; and ecological vitality. In Bhutan all proposed development policies and plans must first pass a GNH review based on a GNH impact statement that’s similar in nature to the Environmental Impact Assessment required for development in New Zealand.

The Bhutanese grounding in Buddhism means they believe that the whole earth benefits when material and spiritual growth happen side by side.  Here in New Zealand, tikanga-based Māori and a number of others have a similar philosophy and practice.  But Bhutan scores consistently higher than many richer nations in worldwide surveys of satisfaction with life; including New Zealand. 

Does that mean it’s necessary to either be a child or a Buddhist to be happy?  No, it’s much simpler than that.  The only prerequisite for happiness is to experience life in all its gore and glory through the true self rather than through the ego.

As adults, when we hold onto or reclaim that truth, we find that we can again eat, sleep, cry and laugh as we need.  But even better than that, we consciously experience the only happiness there truly is; that which resides within each of us. 

In my opinion, that alone makes life worth the price of admission.

A DONE DEAL

Two weeks ago the Mixed Ownership Model Bill passed into law and yesterday, the Waitangi Tribunal opened an urgent hearing into two claims brought on behalf of the New Zealand Māori Council and others. 

While John Key has conceded that these claims have the potential to slow down the timetable for the partial sales of Mighty River and Genesis, he is confident they will still go ahead. 

We have been here before and history says that Key is probably right. 

The NZMC has a record of taking the Crown to Court supposedly to stop the sale of resources whose ownership is claimed by Māori. But instead of stopping the sales, negotiations between the two have always been followed by a settlement of sorts that allowed the sales to happen. 

In 1987 NZMC negotiated the clawback provisions inserted into the SoE Act, and the Crown got to sell large chunks of claim land into SoEs.  In 1988, in exchange for the Crown Forestry Rental Trust and further legislatives changes, the Crown got to sell the trees and cutting rights on more claim lands.   

In view of that history, and to borrow a phrase from Gordon Campbell, these latest two claims “look less like threats than like invitations to negotiate.”

Today the NZMC’s call is for the Tribunal to recommend a halt on the partial sale of state-owned power companies until Māori claims over the water they run on are settled.  In the past, this would have been the signal for the NZMC and Crown to swing into negotiations.  But there are a bunch of new kids on the floor now, and the Crown is already talking with them over the ownership of water. 

Unlike NZMC, the National Iwi Leaders Forum [ILF] is a non-legislated group of rangatira who are answerable to and instructed by their sovereign hapū and iwi.  If an issue impacts their sovereignty, they establish a working group on it.  The freshwater working group is chaired by Sir Tumu Te Heuheu.

Some ILF members support the NZMC claims for various reasons; for some it’s about ensuring they’re at the table in any negotiations, others just want the sales stopped, and some are mixed in their motives.  But others who know the history aren’t convinced. 

Key also knows the history and he doesn’t care who he may have to negotiate with, as long as they can deliver the Māori constituency.  In the New Zealand Herald yesterday he said, "The Waitangi Tribunal's rulings are not binding on the Government, so we could choose to ignore what findings they might have – I'm not saying we would, but we could."  I read that as his opening negotiation statement.

Where does all this manoeuvring leave those who genuinely want the sales stopped? I am afraid that, unless they’re prepared to do more than tap Mom and Pop on the shoulder, it leaves them on the sidelines watching like wallflowers while the deal is done.

BORROWER BEWARE

Last month I went to a one day Māori women’s leadership hui organised by FOMA, and co-sponsored by Westpac.  The focus was, initially, the Māori economy.  The keynote speaker Nanaia Mahuta was great.  Then Jenny Shipley strolled in.

Ms Shipley said our cultural parameters needed to be reformed, because it was critical we not talk to ourselves.  She reckoned that our future lay not in the Māori economy but in the global economy.  And she advised that in the “post-settlement” era, Māori needed to open ourselves up to partner with international financiers, including the Chinese.

Neither Shipley nor her kōrero float my boat, but this is someone who is part of the military industrial complex [MIC] in which the world’s politicians, their armed forces, and the defense industrial base that supports them both, all scratch each other’s itches.  So what she had to say was probably the most important korero of the day.

In order to operate globally, the MIC controls the banking system.  Regardless of whether a lender is based in Shanghai, Wall Street or Kaitāia, there is only one banking system.  It is centred in the city of London and its sole focus is (and always has been) the destruction of national sovereignty in favour of MIC sovereignty .

One of its main tools is arbitrage (the practice of shifting cash between two or more markets in order to take advantage of price differences between them).  Lending is one way of shifting money, so banks work hard to make debt look attractive to the borrower.

Those of us in our middle age have already seen more debt bubbles blown and burst in our lifetimes than in all other eras combined.  Housing, cars, credit cards, student loans; you name it and banks will blow it for you.  But now the bubbles have all burst, currencies around the world have been inflated into worthlessness, and MIC members are looking to cash out and shift into hard assets that generate or control food, water, health care and other necessities of life.  Think land and asset sales.

This is where Shipley and her international financiers come in, and where Iwi had better watch out.  Here in the Far North they are courting pre-settlement iwi with attractive rates.  But, unless the iwi business model is one which fully anticipates and is able to pay loans back, these lenders should be seen for what they are; aneurysms looking for new homes, having blown their former ones. 

Chinese lenders are a special worry, not because of their race but because of America’s racism which has forced them into being the only ones buying America’s foreign debt.  Now they’re looking to lend their devalued American dollars into anything, so they can get it off their books. 

E ngā iwi, kia tūpato.  There is no sentimentality involved here, only one banking system.  Non-payment will trigger, at best, a renegotiated loan on higher terms; at worst, foreclosure.  Let the borrower beware.

MESSAGE TO THE CROWN

Te Rūnanga-a-Iwi o Ngāti Kahu holds the mandate and responsibility to represent the iwi of Ngāti Kahu on resource management, land claim and other issues as instructed by the fifteen hapū marae and sole taurahere of Ngāti Kahu. 

The hapū make the decisions and give instructions over their whenua and moana me ngā mana Tiriti, etc – NOT Te Rūnanga, and certainly not you.   In general, hapū represent themselves as they see fit and according to their tikanga.  But should they want or need the tautoko of other hapū, they bring their tāke to the other hapū at their monthly rūnanga.  After that, each hapū decides for itself if or how they will give their tautoko.  When hapū choose to act jointly as the iwi of Ngāti Kahu, they do so by instructing Te Rūnanga at their monthly rūnanga.

The hapū are and hold mana whenua and rangatiratanga.  These are principles and practices which are much deeper, higher and stronger than the governance role you hold.  Hapū mana whenua and rangatiratanga are based first and foremost on taking care of Papātūānuku and all her children.  You are expected to ensure those who have agreed to let you rule over them act in a way that supports that role.

When hapū act, either in their own right or together as iwi, they do not engage as submittors to or consultees with any of your agents, be it a sub-committee of a District Council like the MRG, an advisory committee to one of your agents like the Fisheries Fora, or one of your subsidiaries like the EPU or the EPA. Nor do hapū consult with your agents – they instruct you, and you instruct those agents. As such hapū are not compelled to attend any hui with any of your agents, especially when they have already conveyed their combined instructions to you as to what your agents can and cannot do in their rohe.

Regarding Te Rūnanga’s experience and expertise in the field; the literature on Māori land claims as well as case law on resource management can provide you with a starting point.  Documents ranging across the years from the Taipā Sewage Report (1988) to the High Court decision CIV 2010-488-348 (29 September 2011) are available to you.

Regarding Te Rūnanga’s representations and presence at fora across the motu me te ao on Te Whakaputanga, Te Tiriti, mana whenua and rangatiratanga, and all other aspects of tikanga, the extensive reports and pānui available on its official website http://ngatikahu.iwi.nz/ will provide you with another ready starting point. 

Te Rūnanga have not only consistently, unashamedly and effectively defended Ngāti Kahu against “a corporate takeover tsunami," it has done so against all-comers, including you. 

Te Rūnanga exists with or without legislation, and holds its mandate with or without your and your agents’ support.

Engari, kia mahi tonu tātou ki runga i te tika, te pono me te aroha.  Kei a koe.

SETTLE OR SUE

Under the Crown’s Treaty settlement programme, Iwi can choose to either settle with or sue the Crown.  In Te Hiku o Te Ika, apart from Ngāti Kahu, all Iwi have chosen the settlement option.  As a result, last month Ngāti Kahu filed three applications with the Waitangi Tribunal for an urgent hearing objecting to the Crown’s deeds of settlement with Te Aupōuri, Te Rarawa and Ngāi Takoto. in so far as they cause prejudice to Ngāti Kahu 

Amongst other things, Ngāti Kahu objected to the inclusion in the Crown’s deeds with those other iwi of lands in which Ngāti Kahu holds mana whenua.  These include the forest, Hukatere, Te Oneroa-a-Tōhē, Te Make (Sweetwater farm), Kaimaumau and Rangiāniwaniwa.  Ngāti Kahu also objected to the Crown’s attempt to impose on them the agreement with other Iwi over lands administered by the Department of Conservation.

These three urgency applications are quite distinct from the remedies application that Ngāti Kahu had already filed for relief via both binding and ordinary recommendations against the Crown.  As reported last week, the success of that application is looking good.  However, at the most recent judicial conference, the positions of the other Iwi were very interesting. 

In spite of (or perhaps because of) the fact that the Crown has promised to settle his client with large chunks of other Iwi’s lands, the Te Aupōuri lawyer complained bitterly that Ngāti Kahu were delaying their settlement.  Even though the Crown confirmed it is nowhere near ready to introduce legislation on any of the settlements, in his eyes the delay is all Ngāti Kahu’s fault.  In any event, it is not a matter for the Tribunal.

Meanwhile, Te Rarawa’s lawyer tried to argue that her client would not only take the lands settled on them in the Crown’s deed, but they should also be given a share in any lands that Ngāti Kahu are awarded as relief where they share mana whenua. Essentially Te Rarawa want to double-dip by first benefitting through settlement with the Crown, and then benefitting again via the relief Ngāti Kahu get from binding recommendations against the Crown. However, the Tribunal judge told their lawyer very clearly they could not do that because they had chosen to settle their claims with the Crown, not file an application against it with the Tribunal.  So that was the end of that.

As for Ngāti Kuri, their lawyer advised the Tribunal that his client had withdrawn their objection to Te Aupōuri’s deed of settlement because the Crown had agreed to re-open negotiations in respect of key areas that the Crown was vesting in Te Aupōuri.  Exactly what those re-opened negotiations will garner for Ngāti Kuri is not yet known.

Ngāi Takoto are not a party to the remedies application.

The Tribunal has yet to decide whether it will hear Ngāti Kahu‘s three applications for urgency.  To that end it will hold a judicial conference, probably in the week of 16 July and probably in Auckland.

TRIBUNAL SETS A DATE

Following the Waitangi Tribunal’s decision to hold hearings for both binding recommendations and ordinary recommendations over Ngāti Kahu’s claims, a judicial conference was held on 5 June in Wellington to establish the principles the Tribunal will use when determining what relief it will order and recommend.

Opposing Ngāti Kahu at the conference were several Crown servants, as well as Te Aupōuri. But only Te Rarawa’s lawyer turned up and, once again, asked the Crown to talk for them. As for the whānau from Ngāti Tara who oppose the return of Rangiputa to all Ngāti Kahu, instead claiming that they are the main mana whenua over it and it should therefore be returned only to them and one other hapū, they did not turn up.  However the Tribunal noted that they were piggy-backing on Ngāti Kahu’s claim and asked for the minutes of the meeting that recorded agreement that Rangiputa would be shared with all Ngāti Kahu.

During the conference the Crown kept trying to cut back the lands that could be ordered to be returned, and spent some time trying to persuade the Tribunal to look at its “good, generous, fair and pragmatic [settlement] offer to Ngāti Kahu” rather than considering binding recommendations.  It said it had “acted genuinely and fairly” and it was Ngāti Kahu’s fault that negotiations had failed because they had been “stubborn and intransigent”.

When the Tribunal was clearly not impressed with that rhetoric, the Crown then tried to say it could not be ordered to return “private land” with 27B memorials on the title to Ngāti Kahu.  A 27B memorial warns the buyer that the Crown could be ordered to buy back the lands if the Tribunal upholds a claim over them. However the Tribunal was clear that all buyers knew what they were getting into when they speculated on the land and were duly warned.

The Crown then talked about how upset current “owners” would be about being notified that they could be losing “their” private land without being allowed to be heard by the Tribunal.  On that point, Ngāti Kahu had no sympathy given that they were not notified or heard when most of their lands were stolen by the Crown, and they were certainly not paid, as these “owners” will be. 

The Tribunal has now directed that further evidence be provided to it on a number of issues including mana whenua evidence for shared lands, as well as evidence of the prejudice suffered by Ngāti Kahu, such as the exact amount of land loss suffered, the resultant socio-economic statistics, and the valuations of the lands to be resumed.

Finally, the Tribunal set down a date to hear the remedies application in the week commencing 3 September 2012 at a marae venue of Ngāti Kahu’s choice.

NAMING AND CLAIMING MYTHS

Central to the eurocentric Doctrine of Discovery was the practice of explorers arriving somewhere new to them, sticking a pole bearing their nation’s flag into the ground and announcing to themselves, “I claim this land in the name of ...” - without regard for the people already there.

After that came the colonisers whose task was to very deliberately displace and/or replace the original peoples using whatever means it took, from intermarriage to genocide.  Once that had been achieved, their descendants’ task was to mythologise and justify the illegality and brutality of the founding events upon which they now laid claim to sovereignty.

Nowhere have the practices of naming and claiming, displacing and replacing, and then mythologising been more clearly and eloquently recorded than in the United States of America. 

In 1823, Chief Justice John Marshall sat atop the fledgling US Supreme Court and penned a decision on a case between two white men.  At issue was a series of private European ‘purchases’ from the Illinois and Piankashaw nations in the years leading up to the American Revolution.  But what resulted was a great deal more than just the resolution of the matter at hand.  Basing his decision on the Doctrine of Discovery, Marshall used it to mythologise his forebears’ conquest of America, and to secure the rights of civilised Europeans to land then held by “fierce savages, whose occupation was war, and whose subsistence was drawn chiefly from the forest.”

With intonations of surprise, Marshall justified his new mythology by what he deemed the practical necessity of the matter: “To leave them in possession of their country was to leave the country a wilderness,” he wrote, and “to govern them as a distinct people was impossible, because they were as brave and high-spirited as they were fierce, and were ready to repel by arms every attempt on their independence,” – as if this were an unnatural and unreasonable reaction to invasion and dispossession.

Here in Aotearoa, the process was a lot sneakier, but just as damaging and damning. 

In 2008 I wrote, “everyone in this country has had a world view beamed into us from birth that’s predicated on key messages such as; “Native title is toast,” “the Crown holds the radical title for everything under the topsoil,” “the Government can issue fee simple title for everything above it.” 

I also noted then, and maintain now, that “the problem with those messages and world view is that they’re highly questionable, clash hugely with the dictates of good conscience and are totally at odds with the simple facts; Maori were never conquered, we never ceded sovereignty, and Native title is not extinguished.”

Those facts are the basis of tangata whenua rangatiratanga and mana whenua to this day.  And to this day, like tangata whenua, they stand in stark and stubborn denial of the Doctrine of Discovery fiction upon which New Zealand parliaments base their claim to sovereignty.

DOCTRINE OF DISCOVERY

Ngāti Kahu is a member of the United Nations Permanent Forum on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.  Although they do not attend every session of the Forum, they did so in 2004, 2009 and again this year. While there they contribute to what are known as ‘interventions’, which is a way to seek UN involvement in the internal affairs of a state by various means.

In 2004 the hot issue was the theft by the crown of Te Takutaimoana with the Foreshore and Seabed Act.  As a result the UN sent Special Rapporteur Rodolfo Stavenhagen in 2005 to report on the human rights and fundamental freedoms of Māori. His report was damning of the government. You can read it online at http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/srnzmarch06.pdf

In 2009 Ngāti Kahu again sent a representative to join with other Māori to  counter the Crown's spin regards the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) which New Zealand finally signed in June 2010. A month later the UN sent Special Rapporteur James Anaya to do a follow up report on the situation of Māori people in New Zealand. His report can he read online at http://unsr.jamesanaya.org/country-reports/the-situation-of-maori-people-in-new-zealand-2011. Although he noted some improvements, he also noted more needed to be done by the government.

This year the issues range across almost every political and legislative activity.  Resource exploitation, asset sales, charter schools, birth control for beneficiaries, union lockouts and many more issues are problems for everyone.  And increasingly everyone is seeing that the solutions hinge on a written constitution. 

That is why Ngāti Kahu was asked by Te Whakaminenga o Ngā Hapū o Nu Tireni to go to the Permanent Forum this year and seek UN support for a written constitution in this country based on the mana whenua and tikanga of each hapū, Te Whakaputanga o Te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni and Te Tiriti o Waitangi.  While specific to New Zealand, the intervention also fit with the Forum’s theme for its 2012 session; the Doctrine of Discovery.

This Doctrine is what European nations, particularly Spain, Holland, France and England, used to justify the wholesale theft of the lands and resources of indigenous peoples throughout the world and the subsequent genocide as millions were murdered and many nations entirely wiped out.

It is based on the false notion or myth that white Christians are somehow superior to all other people and must always dominate the world. It is the basis for the current legal and government systems we have in New Zealand and is what underlies the deeply ingrained racism we are constantly subjected to.

Over the next few weeks I will share reports on what happened at the Forum as this Doctrine and its modern day consequences were discussed.

WHAT NOW?

Quid nunc (what now) is a Latin term for someone who is a busybody and a gossip.  I first heard it in 1984 when the late Tā Hemi Henare used it in a speech he made to the newly elected Lange government with reference to those who are always ready to seek, spread and expand on any bad news about Māori. 

Quid nunc came to mind on Sunday just gone with an email from a Herald reporter who wrote, “I’m working on a financial accountability project for the paper in the wake of the recent sad news that Ngati Tama has lost virtually all of its treaty settlement funds… The purpose is to find out how many iwi keep their tribal members informed and whether the information is easily accessible… Respectfully, would your organization kindly provide your annual report and tell me if it is available to your iwi members? If so, how is it available?”

I have not responded to this request because, respectfully, I don’t need to; Ngāti Kahu know where to come if they want to know anything.  But the request itself made me think.

deListed NewZealand is an independent service that provides updated information on companies that have changed their name, failed or been delisted from the NewZealand Stock Exchange.  After getting the Herald’s request, I went online and checked the stats for 2011, and here is what I found.

Last year 663 non-Iwi companies went into receivership, 4767 more went into liquidation and a further 24 were placed into administration; that’s 5,454 failed non-Iwi companies.  To get an idea of what that figure means, during the same year the New Zealand Companies Register recorded the incorporation of 43,927 new companies.  Even allowing for the fact that there are almost 570,000 registered companies in the country, the failure rate of non-Iwi companies was more than 10% of the rate of all new companies registered during 2011. 

That was news to me.  So I emailed some Chief Executives of non-Iwi companies and asked if any of them had received a similar request from the Herald.  They had not.  I then emailed some Chief Executives of Iwi entities and asked if the Herald had contacted any of them with the same request?  It had. 

Apparently, based on the losses of a single Iwi, the Herald feels compelled to do a series on the financial accountability of all Iwi.  And yet, in spite of the failure of more than five and a half thousand  non-Iwi companies during 2011, it has yet to investigate the financial accountability of all non-Iwi.  And how do I know these were non-Iwi companies that failed? Because if they were Iwi, the media would have named them individually.

Apart from being inherently racist and unhelpful, this is lazy, lazy journalism; pure quid nuncery. 

WRITING OUR CONSTITUTION

This week I'm sharing a brief constitutional fact sheet put out by AotearoaMatike Mai (the Independent Working Group on Constitutional Transformation).

Every day Parliament passes laws that impact on Māori people but Māori never have any effective say over what those laws might be. There have been Māori MP’s of course, and now there is “consultation,” but in nearly every case Māori views are ignored. For example during the recent consultation on Section 9 of the SOE Act most Māori opposed the selling of State Assets but the government is going ahead with its policy.

The asset sales example is part of a history from the New Zealand Settlements Act of 1863 which confiscated thousands of acres of whenua to the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 which was passed in spite of the largest hikoi the country has ever seen.

The passing of all these laws in spite of Māori views and rights is part of a Crown constitutional process.

Ever since 1840 Māori people have argued that a process which operates in this way is contrary to Te Tiriti oWaitangi because the retention of Tino Rangatiratanga reaffirmed the constitutional authority or the right to make our own decisions that Iwi and Hapū had exercised for centuries.

As a result Māori history since 1840 has been an attempt to retain and exercise the authority to make our own decisions – it has been an attempt to adapt yet hold fast to what have always been Iwi and Hapū-based constitutional processes.   The Māori Parliament and Kotahitanga are just two examples, as was He Whakaputanga in 1835.

The Crown has never recognised the constitutional legitimacy of such attempts although it is clear that Māori people never signed Te Tiriti to be powerless in our own land. Instead it was signed to maintain an independent constitutional authority.

In more recent years Iwi and Hapū have couched these arguments in the language of “constitutional change” because of the need to change the way the Crown continues to exercise its authority by effectively reducing Māori People to just another “minority interest”.

The Working Group on Constitutional Transformation was formed at a National Hui in 2009 to further this discussion by actually transforming the whole process of government in a way that is based more honestly upon the relationship envisaged in Te Tiriti.  As Sir Archie Taiaroa stated at the three hui called by Sir Hepi Te HeuHeu in 1995-96 any attempt to change the way government works must be a “transformative process that restores authority to Iwi and Hapū while recognising the place of others”.

The Working Group is convened by Moana Jackson (Ngāti Kahungunu) and chaired by Margaret Mutu (Ngāti Kahu). Over the next year they are travelling around the motu to hui with whānau, hapū and roopu katoa, asking people to imagine what this transformative process might be like.