Mark Robertson Shaw, Executive Trustee, The
E nga reo,
e nga mana, e nga tai e wha kua huihui mai nei i raro i te karanga o matou nei,
Nga Kaitaunaki Rangahau Iwi Tuatahi Puta i te Ao, nau mai haere mai. Te
Whakahaere-a-iwi Te Whakamarama-a-iwi– Indigenous Governance and
Accountability, koia nei te kaupapa o tenei hui.
kaupapa tenei mo te katoa; mo koutou te iwi Maori, mo matou hoki te iwi Kotimana.
Katahi ano kua whakatu he paramata hou mo matou kei reira, kei Edinburgh. Koia
nei hoki te kaupapa o te Tiriti. He tino kaupapa tenei mo nga iwi tuatahi o te
ao whanui. Na reira aku rangatira, tena koutou tena koutou, ara tena tatou katoa.
The Questions Posed
In this wananga we
focus on governance and accountability. In the process, we try to uncover some
portion of the gifts of knowledge truth and justice as they apply to the
relationship between those who have called Aotearoa home for hundreds of
generations, and those more recent arrivals and settlers.
When this wananga
was being planned, a number of questions were posited which would form the basis
of the papers presented and to inform the ensuing discussion. These questions
and the papers reproduced in this volume, stimulated many further ideas and much
were proposed for consideration through the panui that preceded the wananga.
Different models for the
governance and management of indigenous resources have developed from earlier
circumstances till now. How should such models balance financial and
environmental management on one hand against accountability to beneficiaries,
Within each iwi there are
different interests and expectations to consider; whether these are hapu to hapu
interests, whether they are interests of men and women, young and old, or
urbanites and home people. How can such a range of interests be balanced?
When accountabilities appear to
break down who should intervene? What type of intervention is appropriate, and
how can such intervention remain accountable to beneficiaries and other
What can be learnt from overseas
examples of indigenous governance? How can such
examples be adapted
to meet Maori needs and expectations?
How should Maori governance
relate to central and local government. And what legislative and constitutional
changes are needed to ensure this?
and social changes can be both difficult and controversial, especially when
trying to fit them into an historical perspective. For instance in considering
changing values and lifestyles, it can be difficult to ascertain whether
fundamental changes result from political or social pressures or merely from
One of the most
difficult problems facing iwi is how they should react to social and political
pressures for far-reaching changes in iwi organisation practices and attitudes.
The problems facing trustees and senior management are particularly acute – or
certainly appear so to those directly concerned.
Nevertheless it is
worth noting at the outset that iwi have been adjusting, for the most part
social and political pressures for many decades and that one of the hallmarks of
a successful iwi is its ability to foresee and react successfully to change, in
its widest sense. It is often said that hindsight gives us all 20:20 vision,
that our vision of past events appears clearer with time. Issues of governance
and accountability have to be made without the advantage of hindsight. This
volume and Ngai Tatou 2020 allows precisely that analysis from a position of
Rapid or radical
change is often accompanied by passionate or irrational controversy. The basic
issues may be blurred, either accidentally or deliberately, by both advocates
and opponents of change. The point needs to be stressed, since it is inevitable
if this volume is to discuss immediate and topical problems facing iwi, that the
views and value judgements expressed are my own, in spite of my endeavouring to
be as objective as possible. I would like to make it quite clear that I do so
with a desire to assist iwi in a difficult and often confusing area and to
stimulate discussion and debate, even though Pakeha definitions of things Maori,
have caused enough problems. Maori do not require and often resent Pakeha who
keep telling them who they are or how they should be.
steps needed to restructure the relationship between Maori and Pakeha are
identified. Strategies recommended for Maori to strengthen the governing
capacities of their iwi and to establish constructive working relationships
within the framework of New Zealand government and society. Some fundamental
reforms to the structure of New Zealand government are also identified as being
needed to achieve more constructive relationships with Maori.
terminology related to governance can have important practical consequences: it
may affect not only the definition of the problem but also the policy analysis
about how to resolve it.
Governance is a
term that in the past decade has progressed from relative obscurity to
widespread usage. It denotes a control and power structure where agreed rules
are used to make wise decisions on matters that affect the social, cultural and
economic health and well-being of the people. Governance came to the top of the
Crown’s agenda in 1989 when it published (unilaterally) its five Principles
for Crown Action on Treaty Issues, where it was referred to as the principle of
governance abound. Most writers about governance agree it has to do with taking
decisions about direction; governance involves the interactions among
structures, processes and traditions that determine how power is exercised, how
decisions are taken, and how beneficiaries have their say. Fundamentally it is
about power relationships and accountability: who has influence, who decides,
and how decision-makers are held accountable.
are complex. They exist at both hapu and iwi level. Hapu governance enhances
hapu importance, and fulfils hapu responsibility to its members. It provides
opportunities for hapu to federate and work together for the wider good.
Together hapu can establish a federal power structure to undertake services and
negotiate a treaty settlement while preserving hapu autonomy and allowing hapu
to survive and plan for the future from a solid framework and base.
essentially about leadership. Leadership has many facets including efficiency,
probity, integrity, fairness and responsibility. In order that leadership is
accountable it must be transparent, not just to the auditors but to all
stakeholders, particularly to beneficiaries. It must be seen to facilitate and
engender economic growth and prosperity but not at the expense of hapu and iwi
integrity – that is where tikanga is so important
In identifying that
good governance hinges upon the competence and integrity of trustees of boards
or runanga, it should be observed that standards of integrity and fiduciary
responsibility and the wider environment are just as critical. Governance in the
context of indigenous peoples raises a number of issues.
What forms of governance are
appropriate in the 21 st century
and suitable to the needs of indigenous peoples?
How can any new order of
governance harmonise its activities with existing governance?
What are appropriate strategies
to create capacity for tangata whenua to manage their new governance
How can tangata whenua
communities create a substantive economic base to help support their new
Good governance is
critical at all levels and in all sectors. How New Zealand and its tangata
whenua manage these and other issues will have an impact on hapu, iwi, state
government, the private sector, civil society and citizens generally.
concerned with the exercise of power. So that traditional freedoms may be
enjoyed, commerce may occur, the arts and culture flourish. Governance is
important in itself, in that it provides the context for valuing people and
taonga, personal liberty and freedom of assembly, within a framework of the rule
of law and the role of law within a constitution. Context matters; ‘Good
governance’ is thus an end in itself.
In most indigenous
nations, political life has always been closely connected with the family, the
land and a strong sense of spirituality. In speaking of their governance
traditions, many Maori emphasize the integrated nature of the spiritual,
familial, economic and political spheres, and their responsibilities as kaitiaki
or guardians. This is generally perceived to be their prime accountability.
Most Maori continue
to be guided, to some degree, by traditional outlooks in their approach to
matters of accountability. In some instances, indigenous communities have made
traditional laws, practices and modes of leadership the basis of their
contemporary governmental institutions. In other cases, however, traditional
systems of governance have fallen into disuse or been replaced by new systems,
such as those imposed or at least supported by the various acts of parliament to
which iwi authorities are legally accountable.
We consider some
important aspects of Maori traditions of accountability. These aspects are
the centrality of the land
the rule of law
individual autonomy and
leadership and consensus in
leadership and roles of elders,
women and whanau
the restoration of traditional
There is no uniform
Maori outlook on these topics, many of which were the focus of lively discussion
and exchange among those at the wananga. Nevertheless, the very fact that they
are the subject of such interest shows their continuing importance in the
panoply of indigenous approaches to governance.
like others, constantly rework their institutions to cope with new circumstances
and demands. In doing so, they borrow freely and adapt cultural traits that they
find useful and appealing. As a consequence, the extent of their accountability
to the collective is often questioned. Aboriginal approaches to accountability,
based on respect for the land and the need for responsible action, differs from
Western conceptions of governance that emphasize domination and control.
According to Maori, people do not have dominion over the land; but are subject
to the land’s dominion.
For most Maori,
‘the land’ is understood to encompass not only the earth, but also lakes,
rivers, streams and seas; the air, sky, sun, moon, planets and stars; and the
full range of living and non-living entities that inhabit nature. In this
all-encompassing view, the land is the source and sustainer of life. In return,
people must act as stewards and caretakers of the earth for future generations.
Over the past two centuries, Maori relationships with their land have been
altered fundamentally by processes that have distorted (and in some cases
severed) these relationships. Some Maori have been left with virtually no
recognized land base of their own. Even where an exclusive land base exists, it
very small, a mere
fraction of the people’s traditional territories or has been individualised by
the actions of the Maori Land Courts and the imposition of the alien Torrens
land titles system.
In most indigenous
societies, an individual is imbued with a strong sense of personal autonomy and
an equally strong sense of responsibility to the community. Since the welfare of
the community depends on the ingenuity, initiative and self-reliance of its
individual members, individual rights and responsibilities are viewed as serving
rather than opposing collective interests. Traditionally, the family or clan
constituted the basic unit of governance for many indigenous peoples, for Maori
it was the hapu that was the basic unit of governance.
nations had any dealings with the indigenous peoples of this and other lands,
the whole realm of Maori being was centred on a clan system, a system of
relationships that were (and still are) defined by birthright and whakapapa.
This hapu system was and is a social order. The hapu system was and is a justice
system. The hapu system was and is a government. The hapu system was and is an
extended family unit.
More recently and
within the space of two or three generations, Maori have undergone a very rapid
transformation from agrarian, subsistence-level communities to a predominantly
urban, wage-based society not fully integrated into national life but with a
significant proportion of its membership not fully connected to their rural
roots, and with a sense of marginalisation from the wider Pakeha-led society.
That these social, economic and cultural issues will resolve themselves without
direct intervention is unlikely.1
this conference spoke of continuity with the past, and vision for the future.
They provided invaluable insights and directions from their own lifetime
experiences and during their tenure of these sometimes high-profile, other-times
almost invisible leadership roles. Planning for 2020 must rest on the resources
that will be available then, so younger participation is crucial. Most of our
current leaders will be history by 2020, even more so by 2040. Their input into
planning strategies are invaluable because of their greater understanding of the
position and towards facilitation. Long-term objectives can be left primarily to
those who will still be around then.
economic conditions related to land use and land development was a focal point
of Maori community debate and of government policy. The rural to urban migration
of Maori as a solution to the economic depression of rural life had begun during
World War II, and took hold in the late nineteen-forties and the
nineteen-fifties. The magnitude of the problem related to urban adjustment took
some time to manifest itself, (at the 1966 census almost 50% of the Maori
population was to be found living in urban places), despite the social
dislocation accompanying the growth of urbanism as a way of life for Maori. By
the 1970s the debate and policies had shifted from their forerunners in several
respects but particularly in a shift in emphasis from land (rural) to the urban
Now at the start of
the 21st century, many issues relating to Maori land use and development remain
unresolved, although there is now a wider range of development possibilities
than previously. Despite an increase in Maori-held wealth over the last few
decades, the level of land-based wealth per capita has been depleted
greatly by continuing land alienation and population increase. Neither have the
urban adjustment problems of the mid-century disappeared, even though Maori are
now essentially an urban people (more than 80% of the Maori population now lives
in urban places). To these geographically orientated rural/ urban issues have
been added others that relate to cultural identity, social dislocation, poverty,
and widening gaps in access and attainment levels of well-being between Maori
and Pakeha New Zealand.
society is much more diverse than ever before. Nowadays there is a wider range
of vocational and social skills and expertise, and a wider range of experience
and life-styles. Generational, experiential and ideological differences have
emerged, to add to the growing rural-urban differences.
Sovereignty, Tino Rangatiratanga, Mana.
spoke of the need for caution in using the term sovereignty. They noted that the
word with its roots in European languages and political thought draws on
attitudes associated with the rise of the unitary state, attitudes that do not
harmonize well with aboriginal ideas of governance. For example, in some strands
of European thought, sovereignty is coloured by theories suggesting that
absolute political authority is vested in a single political office or body,
which has no legal limits to its power. The classic notion of the sovereignty of
parliament as developed in British constitutional thought reflects such an
understandings of sovereignty are very different from those held by most
Aboriginal peoples. I do not like the word sovereignty because it denotes the
idea of a sovereign, king, or ‘head honcho’, a supreme decision-maker. From
my limited observations, Maori government was centred on a consultative process
where everyone was involved.
The use of the term
‘sovereignty’ is problematic, as it skews the terms of the debate in favour
of a European conception of a ‘proper’ relationship. In adopting the English
language as a means of communication, Maori have been compromised. Accepting the
language means accepting the basic premises developed in European thought and
reflected in the debate surrounding the issues of sovereignty in general and
indigenous or Maori sovereignty in particular.2
In this context
tino rangatiratanga or mana are better terms for political authority, as they
are understood not only in terms of interests and boundaries, but in terms of
land, relationships and spirituality. They mean that the people take care of
themselves and the lands for which they are responsible. They means using
political power to express the people’s will.
and governance too are discrete concepts; self-determination implies a state of
being while governance implies a process. Self-determination is a right which
all peoples have (indigenous or otherwise). Maori right to self-determination
must be respected. Maori have long recognized that it is a right which operates
within the context of a political and economic reality. From a Maori
perspective, their right to self-determination is not detrimentally affected by
the arrangements and agreements reached with successive New Zealand governments
for the mutual benefit of both. While agreements must be based upon an
assessment of current capabilities to govern and administer, they do not
derogate from the right to modify and change those arrangements in the future
Governance and Accountability To What End?
Maori, indeed indigenous economic development generally. there are two main
approaches. The first is the ‘Jobs and Income’ approach, the sequence
of which goes something like this – realization that there is a problem that
there are not enough jobs and not enough income to sustain the people. So we
must try to get some businesses going to provide both jobs and income. Tribal
planners or consultants are asked to write proposals, seek grants, look for
investors, and thereby hope that through this process the problem will be
approach doesn’t work, because it seldom produces lasting businesses.
Certainly some enterprises get started, but they fail to live up to advanced
billing because seed funding is available to get started but is not continuous,
the start-up capital is insufficient to sustain the enterprise, or investors get
entangled in tribal politics and lose heart. Other business gets going but iwi
authorities siphon off the profits for other things, thus the enterprise becomes
primarily an employment service or a milch cow. In other cases costs rise and
the business cannot compete with its rivals where payroll costs are less.
Sometimes the iwi business becomes a source of patronage for leaders who seek
support at election time or employment for their favoured relatives. One way or
another the iwi ends up back at square one. This brings into question whether
jobs and income approach, getting some businesses going or winning grants or
getting joint ventures with outsiders is really a viable approach, except in the
very short term.
The second main
approach is called the ‘Nation Building’ strategy, (similar but much
broader than Government’s ‘Iwi Capacity Building’ policies). Nation
building starts with the same perception ‘we’ve got a problem’, and
recognises that a big part of the problem is lack of jobs and income but the
solution is more ambitious and more comprehensive than just starting up
businesses to get more jobs. The solution is to build a nation where both
business and human beings can flourish, by putting in place an environment where
people want to invest. They want to invest because there is a good chance of
monetary profits and producing a wider sense of satisfaction with a job well
done. There is a commitment in this strategy that it may raise the quality of
life in the community and reduce dependency on central government and/or boost
After all most
investors have choices, if they don’t see a decent possibility of profit they
will go elsewhere. This strategy involves more than money, especially as the
‘investor’ is used in its broader definition not just someone with money to
invest, but includes anyone with time, energy, ideas, skills or good will and
not just dollars to bet those assets on the tribal future. A development plan
that ignores attracting investors is in trouble. Nation-Building is a solution
to that problem.
What are the
components of a sound ‘Nation Building’ strategy? Certainly there is a
vision to make the iwi’s sovereign status a practical reality, more than just
rhetoric. Iwi need to back up their assertions of tino rangatiratanga
(self-governance) with the ability to govern effectively. It is one thing to
talk about tino rangatiratanga, or even to have the power to govern, but another
to deliver effective governance. In the past two decades, the shift from outside
control of tribal affairs to internal self-governance has placed the spotlight
on the tribes‘ capabilities to govern themselves. There are fewer excuses at
hand now ‘that the government did it’. The decisions that iwi make now and
the capabilities that they bring to the tasks of self governance are crucial
determinants of their futures. Assertions of sovereignty will have little impact
on socio-economic conditions in the absence of effective governing capability.
What does effective
governing capability involve? What does effective iwi self governance look like?
The key is the institutions through which iwi govern the way they
organize themselves to accomplish collective tasks. One of the unfortunate but
powerful legacies of colonial control is institutional dependency, whereby Maori
have had to rely on someone else’s institutions, someone else’s rules,
someone else’s models to get things done. In many instances iwi government has
become little more than a grants-and-programmes funnel attached to Te Puni
Kokiri and other government agencies. This is not to say that government is
always willing to hand over responsibilities to iwi. There have been and will
continue to be fights over who has the rightful authority (i.e. the sovereignty)
to do particular things in and with the community. Nonetheless, for sovereignty
to have practical effect tribes have to develop governing institutions of their
own. These may be considered in the following five categories:
Stable Institutions and Policies
governance are the formal mechanisms by which societies organise themselves to
achieve their goals. Through formal constitutions, charters, laws codes, and
procedures, and through informal but established practices and norms(tikanga and
kawa), a society establishes relationships among its members and between the
society and outsiders, distributes rights (ritenga) and powers, and sets rules
by which programmes businesses and even individuals operate.
Those who deal with
that society, whether members or not, look to those institutions to understand
the rules of the game. Those rules tell them what their rights are; tell them
which decisions are likely to be politicised and which are not; tell them how to
act in order to achieve their own goals; and to tell them what is expected in
their dealings with that society, and so forth.
If the governing
rules are subject to abrupt and frequent changes, then the rules of the game
become uncertain, and investors are less likely to invest. Instability in
governing institutions discourages investment. Instability comes not from
changing personnel, but from changes that personnel make in institutions
Fair and Effective Dispute Resolution
Iwi authorities as
governing institutions have to provide consistently non-politicised, fair
dispute resolution. They have to be able to assure people that their claims and
disputes including disputes with the iwi and hapu will be fairly adjudicated.
The key to this is a strong and independent judicial system. This is a major
difference between the ‘jobs and income’ strategy and the ‘nation
building’ strategy. The
former says ‘go find an investor or start a business’. The nation-building
strategy says ‘build a judicial system that reassures investors, levels the
playing field and gives both tribal and non-tribal business the chance to
flourish’. New Zealand has yet to reach this point in Maori re-development. In
dispute resolution, even within or between iwi, Maori must rely instead on
courts, tribunals and arbitrators
appointed by outsiders, largely staffed by outsiders and with a modus operandi
which are also determined by outsiders.
Separation of Politics from Business Management
have to be able to separate politics from day-to-day business decisions. The
roles of business managers and iwi/hapu governance are quite different, even
though the iwi or hapu itself may own the business. Iwi authorities do not
select their leaders on their ability to read market conditions, or manage a
labour force or negotiate purchasing agreements with suppliers. Instead, they
choose leaders on the basis of vision, integrity, ability to make wise long-term
decisions, leadership attributes and so forth. When it comes to running a
business what iwi need is to find the best business people available, people who
know how to make businesses succeed and become lasting sources of income, jobs
and productive livelihood.
businesses as businesses rather than temporary welfare programmes requires a
clear division of responsibility. The elected leaders are responsible for the
long-term future of the iwi. Among other things leaders consider strategic
issues. What kind of society are we trying to build? What uses should we make of
our resources? What relationships with outsiders are appropriate? What do we
need to protect and what are we willing to give up? These are matters of
political debate which elected leaders should appropriately deal with.
When it comes to
personnel decisions like hiring the new foreman, or working through payroll
issues on the factory floor, or purchasing, operating hours, or even putting
together the business plan for the next year, these are not appropriate
political matters. They are business matters and should be left to the skilled
business managers to deal with.
If an enterprise in
a competitive market is not itself competitive because of no clear demarcation
between politics and business and the added costs that it incurs as a result,
then the jobs it creates won’t last long. On the other hand a strategy that
re-invests profits to maintain and expand the business eventually employs more
people, or re-invests profits in new businesses accomplishes the same thing that
may produce fewer jobs today, but far more jobs tomorrow.
A Competent Bureaucracy
All iwi authorities
require a competent, willing and sophisticated management organisation and
personnel. They are very important to negotiate from strength when dealing with
government agencies and other outsiders. They get things done and done well. As
iwi increasingly take over the management of social programmes, and resume their
former responsibilities for sustained commercial fisheries and other natural
resources and as they undertake ambitious development programmes, their
bureaucratic capabilities become even more essential to their overall success.
skilled personnel and establishing effective service systems that protect
employees from politics, putting in place effective personnel grievance systems
are all essential ingredients to a competent bureaucracy. They are crucial to a
tribe’s ability to govern effectively and thereby initiate and sustain a
successful programme of economic development.
A Cultural Match.
The task of
governing institutions is to back up expectations of iwi/hapu sovereignty with
the ability to exercise that sovereignty effectively. That is where sovereignty
pays off – in its effective exercise. But where do these effective
institutions come from? Should they simply be imported from somewhere else?
Cultural match refers to the match between governing institutions and prevailing
ideas in the community about how authority should be organised and exercised.
Such prevailing notions are part of the culture of the tribe. Governing
institutions match a society’s culture when its governing authority is
exercised and its members regard that as legitimate. When the culture match is
high, the institutions
of governance tend
to be held in high regard, have the support in the community, commanding
allegiance and respect. When culture match is low, so too is legitimacy, and
governing institutions are more likely to be ignored, disrespected and /or
turned into vehicles for personal enrichment. Institutions of government have to
have legitimacy with the people if they are going to work. This is not
necessarily a signal to revive traditional governing systems that were designed
for a very different environment than today, and had to meet the challenges of
their times. Iwi governments operate in a very different environment today and
have to solve very different kinds of problems. Not only have the demands on iwi
authorities changed but the ideas carried in the community, the iwi cultures
have changed too. The trick is to invent iwi governments that are capable of
operating effectively in the contemporary world, but also to match people’s
ideas, traditional or not, about what is appropriate and
The Wananga Responses
This wananga on
indigenous governance and accountability was noteworthy because it has brought
together people with a range of different backgrounds and ideas: academics,
officials, politicians, practitioners and iwi/hapu trustees, all participating
in the debate. All had their own ideas about the lack of symmetry in the
interface between indigenous peoples and governance and accountability; each has
his or her own story to tell: and each has their own proposals for remedy. This
is not to suggest that the wananga was characterised by disagreement. Indeed,
almost all those present held much in common and agreed on even more. That the
current situation needed remedy was a universal position. What was up for debate
was ‘how’, and ‘when’ and ‘in what priority order’ should the many
issues of an imbalanced governance and accountability be tackled.
We had the
advantage of a two special guest speakers. From aboriginal Australia, Mick
Dodson the Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner
and former Director of the Aboriginal Law Centre at the University of New South
Wales and from the Circumpolar region Joern Berglund Nielsen an aboriginal
Greenlander and Consultant to the Greenland Home Rule Government.
Mick Dodson drew on
his experience as an academic, as a community lawyer and an advocate for his
people. In addressing the issue of checks and balance he described how over two
centuries Australian and New Zealand indigenous populations have been dominated
by the ‘newcomers’ systems of governance which were alien to the ancient
systems of the peoples whose land was invaded. Joern Berglund-Nielsen emphasised
the value of local community decision-making and the organisation of governance
in Greenland into communes. National integration there was maintained by very
effective radio and television communications networks, which linked all
made by New Zealand politicians were of particular importance, given that 1999
was an election year, and all of the major political parties were invited to
contribute to the wananga. In the end, only the National/NZ First coalition
government, and the Labour opposition were represented. In the time that has
elapsed since the wananga and the appearance of this volume, both public opinion
and political fortunes have turned. National party ministers who contributed
official government positions were Tau Henare, Minister of Maori Affairs, and
Georgina te Heuheu, Minister for Courts. Since then Georgina Te Hueuheu has
moved to the opposition benches, Tau Henare is no longer in parliament, and
Sandra Lee, who was at the wananga as the Alliance and Mana Motuhake
spokesperson has assumed ministerial responsibility herself. Their ideas visions
and pronouncements take on different hues inside government than outside, in a
new Coalition government and vice versa. Their papers and speeches can be
examined for continuity and consistency with more recent statements.
able to consider some interesting, contemporary and recent research findings and
heard about some ‘on-trial’ and ‘experimental’ governance structures,
many of which ‘have at least a genesis’ in Maori thought and tikanga, and a
‘recognition’, however preliminary or restrictive, of official responses to
tikanga. There were discussions too, on giving more recognition to indigenous
peoples’ custom and law in national jurisprudence here, in Australia and
Greenland. There were insights into a notion of ‘ governance and
accountability structures which are not perfect, but nor are they impervious’.
Governance itself is not inherently or philosophically unfair, but the bases are
loaded and greater balance is recognised by those in the sector as both needed
Different Accountabilities for Different Needs
Contract based and
kinship based systems are compared and contrasted. Is whanaunatanga a form of
nepotism in disguise and if it is, so what? Whanaungatanga is a key concept in
Maori social organisation. Market models and contractual arrangements require
specific performance. Kinship based models require diffuse responsibilities and
accountabilities. How can the accountabilities that are expected by the
beneficiaries be delivered? The Crown argues that in its interpretation of such
actions, they constitute nepotism and are thus unlawful.
The denial of a
constitutional framework for indigenous governance has meant that Maori have
rarely had the opportunity to exercise self governance, in New Zealand since the
time of the 19 th century
charismatics, Tawhiao, Te Kooti, Te Whiti and Tohu. Western models of government
are understood i.e. the framework of governance, its structure, function and
development, are understood. No such structures exist for Maori, national,
regional and local elections are alien to an indigenous model. Tried, tested and
accepted models to ensure the type of indigenous governance that Maori need,
rest on tikanga, on ‘nga mahi a nga tupuna’. Maori governance requires
building on that and leaping into the 21
st century with much of
that tikanga intact.
The Crown insists
that modern day Maori governance needs to be based on constituencies, voting
eligibility, methods of choosing representatives, terms of office, policy
direction, regular structural reviews, dispute resolution and accountability
mechanisms, all basically western in structure. In dealing with accountability
to beneficiaries a tension exists around decision-making. The Crown expects iwi
decisions to be taken democratically i.e. by a vote, ideally by secret ballot.
This still rankles with many iwi authorities as it undermines their mana by
replacing the rangatira by the ballot box. Thus the question is posed (often
with some reluctance) who should vote and what should their vote be worth?
What sort of iwi,
hapu or national registers are appropriate for Maori? How should people register
as beneficiaries? What forms of accountability are appropriate? How should
beneficiaries be counted? Should beneficiaries, by right of whakapapa be
entitled to register on more than one iwi register? Should each vote have the
same value or should votes be weighted to take into account te iwi noho taone,
te iwi kainga, tai tamariki, rangatahi and pakeke?
Tikanga and Indigenous Knowledge Systems
knowledge refers to the complex set of knowledge and technologies existing and
developed by populations and communities indigenous to a particular area.
Indigenous knowledge systems can also develop within communities descended from
populations that inhabited a country at the time of conquest or colonisation.
These populations, irrespective of their legal status, retain in part or in
whole, their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions and their
values and their laws or tikanga.
An understanding is
required of indigenous knowledge and its role in community life. From an
integrated perspective that includes both spiritual and material aspects of a
society as well as the complex relation between them. At the same time it is
necessary to explore the potential contribution of indigenous knowledge to local
development. Research is required for the protection of indigenous knowledge,
for its utilisation for the benefit of its owners and the communities where it
knowledge systems have been suppressed by colonising peoples. Colonisers who
operate nation states have ignored, debased or actively destroyed aboriginal
knowledge, values and aspirations. Therefore indigenous knowledge should be
brought into the mainstream of knowledge to establish its place within the
larger body of knowledge. The socio-economic potential of indigenous knowledge
should be considered, as well as its other values, such as the impact of
indigenous knowledge on lifestyles and the ways in which societies organise and
operate. Ideally, research into indigenous knowledge systems should be carried
out with the participation of the communities in which they originate.
Successes and Failures in Iwi Governance
Te Runanga o Ngai
Tahu Act of 1996 and subsequent Charter established Te Runanga o
Ngai Tahu and its basic form of governance. Albeit a relatively young
organisation, it has been recognised for its leadership, stability, adaptability
and excellence in performance. Since 1998, tribal equity has increased from $30
million to over $270 million4.
The Ngai Tahu charter created a clear division between tribal development
undertaken by Ngai Tahu Development Corporation and its commercial activities
run by Ngai Tahu Holdings Corporation. This separation was considered
fundamental to the sound governance of tribal activity. Ngai Tahu have
demonstrated that commercially based solutions, involving the 18 regional runaka
of Ngai Tahu can achieve win:win situations for all parties involved in the best
use of Ngai Tahu related resources. Ngai Tahu demonstrate the diverse range of
investments and involvement by iwi being developed and implemented by the
Development Corporation and the Holdings Corporation.
Te Runanga o Ngai
Tahu Act 1993 was the ultimate vehicle for Ngai Tahu re- organisation, self
determination and control, although it falls short of providing Ngai Tahu with
the power of government. Through the act, Ngai Tahu became a body corporate with
all the perpetual succession and the rights, powers and privileges of a natural
person and with the right to draft a charter to determine how the iwi’s
affairs will be run. The Act being purely administrative in function. The heart
of the matter is that the Charter has everything to do with Ngai Tahu and
nothing to do with the Crown. There are few paternalistic restraints on Ngai
Tahu, they have removed most of the shackles of colonialism, save that the 1996 Act can be repealed by a
simple majority in the New Zealand parliament.
concerns over the fundamental dealings surrounding Tainui Maori Trust Board,
which settled a $170 million raupatu claim against the Crown in 1994 found
pressure by 1998 for a full public inquiry into the Trust Board’s financial
husbandry, corporate governance, investment and what some see as an abrogation
of iwi responsibility when they sold off the Huntly housing stock. Board members
and employees became embroiled in litigation and public argument over such
things as luxury cars and corporate box at Ericcson stadium, overseas travel,
and the basic tension between centralisation of the tribal wealth in the hands
of the kahui ariki and wider distribution through a more representative
are not held under statutory trusts but through the Tainui Trust Board Act then
held by the Waikato Raupatu Lands Trust. This approach meant Tainui were
answerable to Tainui alone, trustees and managers were able to avoid the
political constraints of the Maori Trust Board Act 1955. However there are no
statutory requirements imposed on charitable trusts like the Raupatu Lands
Trust, requiring it to file its financial statements publicly. Only the Attorney
General can intervene when there are concerns about the operation of a
charitable trust. Establishing the Kauhanganui marked a new era for the people
of Tainui, new even though the name itself derived from Potatau’s time.
Sir Robert Mahuta
noted that Tainui-Waikato needed to define commercial and non commercial
objectives and needed to separate governance and management structures. The
challenge was to manage, protect and develop capital to promote long term
benefits for the tribe. The tribe was unable to do this in the climate of
mistrust that existed until recently. Building governance is like building a
house you need sound foundations for a sound structure for the right occupants.
Interior Plateau (VIP) Project, started in 1999 and planned to conclude in 2003,
has as its goal to transfer the ownership of Crown Forestry Assets in the
Volcanic Plateau to claimant based governance structures. Their vision is:
‘to restore the economic, physical and social ability of tangata
whenua within the Volcanic Interior Plateau to determine their own destiny by
developing self governance arrangements which enable them to achieve an honest,
timely and efficient settlement of their outstanding treaty claims’ 5
Whilst Crown policy requires settlement to occur at iwi level, VIP seeks to initiate a cluster-based economic development model to dovetail with the post settlement governance structures that seek to return the settlement assets to hapu. To ensure that existing land trusts in the participating iwi (Te Arawa & Tuwharetoa), the concept of a grand council (Runanganui) based on hapu representation is proposed, there will be a place for land and resource trusts in that runaganui.
Balancing Hapu and Iwi Interests
A tension exists
between the mana of hapu and the expediency of dealing with iwi. In her seminal
work on the dynamics of tribal organisations, Angela Ballara traces the history
of iwi and hapu from eighteenth century to the mid 20 th
century She notes that in pre contact Maori society there were
hierarchical structures known as iwi (or tribes) which comprised a number of
hapu or (sub-tribes). In the eighteenth and nineteenth century the hapu was
politically independent. Generally groups of related hapu were spoken of as iwi
or people, but iwi had no everyday political role except when under
governments prefers to deal with iwi for expediency purposes. They do not relish
the prospect of dealing separately with 700 or more politically independent hapu
and therefore promote the concept of iwi federations and iwi settlements if only
to make their own task easier. Nowadays the accountability mechanisms implied by
trusts are essentially political in nature rather than commercial. Political
accountability mechanisms tend to be less sharply focussed and slower in
operation than commercially oriented accountability regimes.
Where an iwi has
been in settlement negotiation, the pool of talent and experience appropriate to
that type of operation is normally highly developed. However the skills and
talents required for settlement negotiation are not the same as those required
for commercial management. In speaking about the education and preparedness of
Ngati Whatua o Orakei for their protracted negotiations with the Crown over
their land at Takaparawha, one of the interim board rather ruefully remarked
that “our management experience were about equal to that of a local tennis
club committee”6 .
gives us one instance of a further grievance being created from a settlement.
She quoted from a submission made to Te Whare Ahupiri7.
Here in the matter of the
Crown’s fiscal settlement of Tainui’s raupatu claim8.
The applicant Te Ariki Manaki Kewene objected to the Crown vesting their hapu
lands at Hopuhopu in other iwi authorities without consultation with them as the
original owners. The original donors of Hopuhopu were Ngati Whawhakia. This
particular example deserves explanation for the reason that the example shows up
a serious and potentially damaging aspect of treaty settlement which created
In 1853 Heta
Tarawhiti, chief of Ngati Ngaungau gifted 1385 acres of land at Hopuhopu. The
Govenor issued a school grant for Hopuhopu to the Bishop of New Zealand so long
as the land was to be used to support and maintain a school for religious
education. A school opened in 1857 but ceased to function a decade later. By
1873 Heta Tarawhiti asked the Church Missionary Society [CMS] on behalf of his
hapu why the land had run to gorse, why the school was closed and why the land
had not been returned to them? The CMS without consultation then promptly leased
out the land for a period of 42 years.
At the beginning of
the 20 th century
descendents of Heta Tarawhiti, petitioned the CMS and the Government for not
adhering to the conditions of the school grant. This was investigated by a Royal
Commission of Inquiry in 1905. Continuing on, in 1920 Hone Pere and 41 other
descendants of Heta Tarawhiti petitioned parliament for the return of the land.
However in 1922 the Crown acquired the land through the Public Works Act. In
1950 another generation of descendents from Ngati Whawhakia and Ngati Ngaungau sought information on previous petitions to determine their
position or current status. Apparently this was to no avail, as the Crown
continued to hold the land for defence purposes.
In 1991 the
Government vested the land (Now declared surplus for defense requirements) to
The Tainui Maori Trust Board, an iwi authority which said that it represented
only 33 hapu throughout Waikato. The transfer of Hopuhopu was in partial
settlement of the Tainui-Waikato Raupatu claim. Amongst those who benefited from
the settlement were hapu of Ngati Haua and Ngati Maniapoto. The Crown’s action
was taken without consultation with the direct descendents of the original
donors who were unaware of the Crown’s intention. In March of 1993 Heta
Tarawhiti’s descendents appealed against the vesting, however the Maori
Appellate Court declined their appeal and in the following November 1993 failed
to uphold their interlocutory injunction. Every inquiry or petition was
forwarded by Heta Tarawhiti himself or his direct descendents.
All this occurred
despite the Crown being reminded that the Articles of the Treaty of Waitangi are
protected by Te Awaranginui O Mokai the authority granted by Queen Victoria of
England to the Maori nation, the right of free carriage of Westminster if her
government is found guilty of an injustice. This right was reaffirmed by Edward
VIII in 1936 but ignored by the New Zealand government.
Indigenous Governance – The Old Ways and the New
Perhaps we are at a
unique stage in national development for indigenous peoples to take back control
of that which is rightfully theirs. This is an overwhelming expectation of
indigenous peoples, and will happen within our lifetimes and will affect the
future of hapu and its members. To settle claims and plan for the future with
certainty without risking Tainui, Muriwhenua or Taranaki type struggles for
power and order. Without good governance hapu will have difficulty in settling,
will be isolated from critical
strength of similar organisations coming together and will lose even further
what faith they have in an equitable future for their membership.
This wananga was
developed from the base that the environment of iwi governance is undergoing
social and political change and that it is necessary for both Government
and iwi to understand fully the implications of these changes and be able to
assess their significance within the iwi perspective. To do this they need to
examine clearly iwi ideology or philosophy. Those charged with governance and
accountability are required to adjust to change and to the acceptance of an
increasing degree of social responsibility.
As more iwi reject
the ideas, identities and models of government imposed upon them and return to
their own traditions, Maori leaders and government policy makers alike will need
an understanding of traditional thought and its application to contemporary
concerns.Various intellectual conflicts emerge when dominant historical
narratives are related to those of Maori. It can be argued that the conventional
historical view of Maori/Pakeha relations is flawed, most Pakehas understanding
of history has been prejudiced by the situation of their knowledge within a
colonising framework. How can authorities be accountable to their iwi if they
are always in contestation with the state over
issues of identity and inclusion?
Settler society and
the states that have emerged in the modern era such as Australia, New Zealand
the United States and Canada have claimed the right to determine who is
indigenous. The state manipulation of identity issues and membership entitlement
further advances an assimilation agenda which has led to the serious crisis of
representation within indigenous communities themselves and encourages the
retention of Anglo hegemonic views characterised by Ngati Redneckery9
It is a sad
political fact that there can be no consideration of autonomy or meaningful self
groups of people are dispossessed and in a state of economic dependency on
external authorities. Maori were denied access to their lands and to the
economic benefits of having ownership of their land recognised. At the same
time, they have been victims of racial discrimination and oppressive measures
within the political/colonial system. They remain largely outside the economic
mainstream and collectively have not attained the education and skills necessary
to take full advantage of opportunities within the modern economy of Aotearoa.
Relationships Between Hapu/Iwi Governance and the State
In promoting the
Bay of Plenty (Maori Constituency) Empowering Act, the Bay of Plenty
was conscious of the lack of Maori representation on local bodies. Their concern
was given greater authority by the demographics; Maori comprise 28% of the Bay
of Plenty population and own half of the land, including half the land available
for development. But Maori have never reached 28% of council membership indeed,
few Maori are ever elected to local or regional bodies in the Bay of Plenty.
This Act introduces a Maori electoral roll at local level and to ensure that
Maori are be better represented at the council’s tables. To some this is
anathema, to others it is not just appropriate but long overdue. These latter
give the existence of Maori seats in parliament for almost 140 years as a
precedent. The Act may ensure that Maori elected to local councils will not be
beholden to Pakeha electors for their positions but to Maori electors.
I believe Maori are
a practical and resourceful people, who when given the opportunity to pursue the
different options available to them, will create the best of possible futures
for themselves and their people according to their individual talents and
circumstances. Maori want to design a society and economy that enables them to
participate effectively in both the old ways based on
the land and its bounty, as well as in the new ways based on space
technology and world wide communications or what is currently being called the
The political and
social realities facing contemporary Maori leaders are constantly shifting and
have demanded an increasingly sophisticated response. Vision is the driver of
board governance. The governance vision describes three facets of board
leadership – board impact, image and culture. If we have learned anything over
the years it is that the answer to building stronger Maori communities does not
lie in some government program it lies with the Maori communities themselves.
deconstruct colonial attitudes, they will reaffirm beliefs and structures to
revitalize traditional spiritual and cultural aspects of their societies. This
is premised on the conviction that contemporary indigenous identities,
institutions and movements must be rooted in traditional values to be authentic
In NGAI TATOU 2020
our objective is not just to look ahead but to gain an appreciation of the depth
and complexity of traditional Maori culture, to approach a basic understanding
of Maori modes of expression, and to group the fundamental tenets of the Maori
world view embedded within those forms of cultural expression. From there, the
whole of society can progress in greater unity.
situation of Maori collective rights within the law is an extremely complex
issue. Aside from the fact that Maori people themselves have laws and are party
to the Treaty thus define their rights clearly, state agencies have attempted to
redefine Maori through legal fictions that support the colonial enterprise and
its foundational myths. Maori signed the Treaty of Waitangi to formalise the
relationship they were entering into. The Treaty was an instrument of
international law that recognises the inherent nation to nation relationship
between Maori and Pakeha signatories.10
The wananga was
held in September of 1999 some two and a half months out from the general
election. In their election manifestos, the following points were made:
The Alliance proposed
more money for the Waitangi Tribunal, better public education about the Treaty.
Maori should choose their bargaining agents not Government.
to continue Treaty settlements in their current form.
First proposed more money for
the Waitangi Tribunal, to ensure bargaining agents are representative and
believed any deadlines on claims would be unhelpful.
to continue treaty settlements. And did not believe durable settlements would
come from forcing negotiations.
ACT proposed to end
claims by 2010. No more claims should be accepted after 31 December 2000. All
race-based laws repealed and Maori seats in Parliament abolished by 2006. Under
their catch cry of “full, fair and final” all treaty settlements would be
finalised. Clearly worded that should have meant that settlements would be 100
cents in the dollar rather than the usual I or 2 cents in the dollar being paid
out now. These are neither full, nor fair and therefore settlements are unlikely
ever to be final.
capacity for good governance can be, and should be, the primary way to eliminate
‘gaps’. The challenge for all societies whether nation states or indigenous
peoples is to create a system of governance that promotes, supports and sustains
human development, especially for the poorest and most marginal. But the search
for a clearly articulated concept of governance has just begun.
Governance can be
seen as the exercise of economic, political and administrative authority to
manage an iwi’s affairs at all levels. It comprises the mechanisms, processes
and institutions through which beneficiaries articulate their interests,
exercise their legal rights, meet their obligations and mediate their
differences. Governance must be open to scrutiny by the political beneficiaries
i.e. it must be accountable. Good governance must be, among other things,
participatory, transparent and accountable and ensure that political social and
economic priorities are based on broad consensus.
Sir Adrian Cadbury
has stated 11
is...holding the balance between economic and social goals and between
individual and communal goals…the framework is there to encourage the
efficient use of resources andequally to require accountability for the
stewardship of those resources…”
does not function effectively, scarce resources are wasted. When it does not
legitimacy in the
eyes of the people, it cannot meet its objectives or theirs. Good governance
demands well-functioning and accountable public and private institutions. It
requires people’s empowerment and participation. It entails mobilising social
capital for development. Representation is inevitable in large societies, but it
is inevitably imperfect. Agents do not speak with the same authority as
Research in the
area of the relationship between institutional factors and development of
Aboriginal communities in North America was sparse until comparatively recently.
But over 18 years, Stephen Cornell and Joseph Kalt, have conducted an empirical
study on American Indian Reservations as part of the Harvard Project on American
Indian Development. In their conclusions, three factors determine why some
tribes develop and others do not. These are:
There is now a
growing body of work on the question of Aboriginal governance and, in
might constitute sound governance from an Aboriginal perspective.
I return in
conclusion to the note on which I began. Iwi over the centuries have shown an
infinite capacity for adjustment, but the pace of past social change and hence
of iwi adjustment was leisurely. The social movements of our time are rapid and
escalating. Tendencies, which previously took perhaps several generations to
work through to a culmination, have now been brought to a decision in a matter
of a decade or even less. Accordingly, modern conditions require trust board and
management attitudes to be at once far more perceptive, anticipatory and
flexible than those previously found adequate. This is the greatest challenge
for iwi governance and accountability nowadays.
Any structure that
results from a Treaty settlement will have long term impacts on tribal
therefore must ensure a wider vision than any Treaty settlement. Western law
alone is not always going to drive relations in this country.
is inherent, it also has an historical basis in the extensive diplomatic
relations between iwi and hapu and European powers from the early period of
contact onward. In the eyes of many the fact that the British Crown concluded
treaties demonstrates that these nations were sovereign peoples capable of
conducting international relations.
Maori see their
right of self-government as an inherent right that does not come from
government. It does not originate in the treaty. The right of self-government
and self-determination comes from the Maori people themselves. It is through
their authority that they govern. The treaty reflected the Crown’s recognition
that Maori were, and would remain, self-governing, but neither the Crown nor the
Treaty itself created Maori nationhood.
Pursuing Distant Horizons
wananga on governance and accountability does not stand alone, but is part of a
wider planning strategy called Ngai Tatou 2020. This is an educational
strategy whereby Maori will be able to propose, discuss and agree on suitable
pathways to the future, Ngai Tatou 2020 looks towards the year 2020 and makes
plans for how Aotearoa/New Zealand will be for our mokopuna (descendants) to
inherit. Ngai Tatou 2020 is not solely a Maori strategy, but rather a Maori-led
strategy, which involves all of us, all New Zealanders, Maori and Pakeha,
present and future, who can be informed by valued historic and contemporary
Maori perspectives. Papers and participants were carefully chosen to bring a
wide range of perspectives and responsibilities to debate. Several of the
presenters whose papers are reproduced herein, speak about what is happening now
on the social political and organisational fronts, and how these moves (or lack
of moves) are likely to affect our lives over the next twenty years.
Maori leaders Sir
Graham Latimer, Sir John Turei and Justice Eddie Durie urge us to look beyond
2020 to 2040, the 200 th anniversary
of the Treaty. At Waitangi in 2001, they broached a longer term planning
strategy Rua Rautau, looking towards the year 2040 when all of this
nation will be celebrating our bi-centenary. The Rua Rautau strategy is
Maori-led. It will involve long-term visionary planning with five-yearly
assessments related to the regular census enumerations. The first population
census of this century/millennium was conducted in 2001. That is the first
benchmark. Ngai Tatou 2020 looks towards the mid-point of that Rua Rautau - 40
As the old people
would have put it:
Ko te pae tawhiti,
whaia. Ko te pae tata, whakamaua kia tina.
Pursue the distant
horizons, (and also) grasp opportunities close-to-hand.
This hui manifested
a clear desire to generate a better future where being Maori is positive, and
where participation in the wider world, the global economy are all acceptable
givens, not alternatives.
As Bishop Manuhuia
Bennett said in his introduction ‘this generation stands as the link between
past generations and future generations. It is also a link between the values of
the past and the values of the future and between the expectation of those past
generations and our expectations for our future’. Manuhuia himself stood as a
major link with the past generation of Sir Apirana Ngata, Te Rangihiroa and Pei
Te Hurinui Jones, it is important to record here his passing on 23 December
Haere atu ra e te
rangatira Manuhuia, haere ki Hawaiki nui, ki Hawaiki roa, ki Hawaiki
pamamao. Hoki ki o tupuna, ki te ringa kaha o te Atua.
1 Douglas & Robertson Shaw (eds), 2001, Ngai Tatou 2020 Indigenous People & Justice
Maori concepts of
the mana and tapu of hereditary leadership were not far removed from the
connotations of the ‘Divine Right of Kings’ In November 1856 when Te
Whereowhereo was made king, many of his followers were unhappy with the
title, they preferred the traditional term Ariki Taungaroa. The elevation of
Potatau was the most nationally representative gesture that Maori had made
since the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840. In Waikato the immediate function of
the kingship was specific and practical. It formalised a system of local
government that had begun to evolve in the preceding years. Communities set
up runanga or councils with the local chiefs acting as magistrates and over
the runanga lay the mana of the king and his council of twelve advisors.
This system allowed life at village level to be regulated in a manner that
the system of national government had been unable to achieve
& Joseph Kalt, ‘Sovereignty & Nation Building’, American
Indian Culture & Research Journal, Vol22, No3, 1998
4 Tino Rangatiratanga Mo Tatou, Mo Ka Uri a Muri Ake Nei – Creating Our Own Destiny For Us and Our Children After Us Ngai Tahu 2025, Te Manako o te Iwi, October 2001 p34
Interior Plateau Annual Report 1999-2000 P.4
6 Kawharu, H. 2001 pers comm
Te Whare Ahupuri was
initially set up by the Confederation of Chiefs of the United Tribes of Te
or the United Tribes of NZ, also sometimes called the Confederated Tribes or
“Te Whakaminenga o
Hapu o Nu Tireni as in the Declaration of New Zealand 28 October 1835 or the
Treaty of Waitangi 1840
Maori Court existed long before that time when the United Tribes first met
as a body in 1816. This ancient
Maori Court had several procedures and strict rules. In pre European times i.e. pre 1840, and according to tikanga, hapu or iwi had the right to seek an audience with the Taiopuru being the sovereign Head of the United Tribes. Each hapu has an opportunity once a year to air their grievances from sunrise to sunset. According to the ancient laws a member of a hapu was selected to karanga on three separate occasions calling on their Taiopuru announcing their grievances affecting the hapu. Once the karanga was completed a period of 42 days was the waiting period before approaching the Taiopuru whare to receive instructions from a messenger to when the Court would sit. One chief and three members of the hapu were to attend the Court hearing. (Forbes, Mary He Panui 30 09 1995)
A term coined by Ngaitahu leader Sir Tipene
O’Regan to describe the perpetrators of criticism of his tribes Treaty
10 The broad principle in the Treaty of Waitangi that Maori people may retain their own lands in accordance with their own customs and their own customs to govern their dealings with each other found expression in the NZ Constitution Act of 1852. It was an Imperial Statute introducing representative government to the colony. Sect 71 of the Act provided for native laws to govern native people and native districts in which those laws would be supreme. The principle was important for Maori people. New Zealand’s history is marked by continuing Maori attempts to assert tribal law and autonomy both before and after the Constitution Act of 1852
11 Cadbury Sir A, Preface to Corporate Governance: A Framework for Implementation