Rights are social constructions and must be accompanied by countervailing duties. Their nature and character is altered as the circumstances impacting on the holders and the resource change. The original rationale of entitlement may remain but the extent to which that rationale can be satisfied is not set in stone. Rather it flows, and it is inevitably in conflict with expectations or the needs of the various groups that may have interests in the entitlement.
Given the primacy accorded to culture and its central importance in defining the modern identity of Maori, it is not surprising that there has been a growing interest in revitalising the identity and the operational capacity of the tribes. These are sociopolitical forms of organisation that were recorded as being in existence at the time of the Treaty of Waitangi. It is asserted that the rights that were lost in the process of colonisation were vested in the tribal collectivities. The losses may have been suffered by individuals and their personal circumstances may have been blighted, but the repository of the rights is the collectivity. It is asserted that by doing this, the integrity of the culture is safeguarded and the identity of the individual is assured, along with their tribal patrimony. In practice this means that the capital to be transferred by the Crown, as a consequence of the historical claims being satisfactorily settled, is to be vested in corporate bodies representing the tribal membership. Given that one can never renounce one’s tribal membership it is envisaged that this type of arrangement will sustain the existence of the tribe.
The challenge, however, arises when theory meets reality. The Maori population is overwhelmingly urbanised. It is by no means clear that a majority of Maori are regularly involved in tribal affairs. The tribes are rooted in certain territories, virtually all of which are rural, with an occasional urban presence. If there happens to be a city or large town within their boundaries, it is difficult to maintain contact with the full membership of the group.
The importance of the settlement of historical grievances is bound up with the affirmation of mana and the transfer of capital. Development cannot be sustainable if mana is not left intact. It represents the link with the past, both ancestral and divine, the roots of identity, as reflected in the well-known saying, He purapura i ruia mai i Rangiatea, e kore au e ngaro—A shoot planted in Rangiatea, I will not be lost.
Capital is a means to an end. As we proceed with the historical grievance settlement process, it is apparent that the end has more to do with sustaining the ancestral legacy, to ensure that future generations of Maori are well-adjusted in their culture. Increasingly added to this, is the notion of being competitive in the economy. To this end the debate about resource endowments looms large. The capacity of these endowments, however, in actually changing the material well-being of Maori depends on the quality of management. As Maori emerge from a prolonged period of poor education, suspicion of mainstream institutions, in particular the justice system, and poor socioeconomic status, the management of the capital flowing from these tribal settlements is a difficult issue.
In addition, the national census statistics show that 25 per cent of the population of Maori descent do not know their tribal affiliation. This is perhaps not surprising given the historical pattern of resource loss and the marginal position which tribes have had in terms of economic activity. Very few have been able to offer material assistance to their members. However, within the development model, flowing from the settlement of historical grievances, tribes are given an important role. Not only are they seen as being the body to receive assets but also the body to distribute the benefits, and this is a problem if significant numbers of the potentially eligible group are not known or have lost contact with their tribal kin and the administration.
This problem is currently before the courts in New Zealand as organisations formed to advance the interests of Maori based in the cities, are challenging the exclusive authority of the tribal bodies to deliver resources and fulfil development programs. The urban bodies wish to be included in the list of organisations eligible to receive assistance from the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission—a body formed to hold, administer and distribute resources to Maori from the multi-million dollar fisheries settlement completed with the Crown in 1992.
The urban organisations do not doubt the existence of Maori tribal bodies or their importance. They are, however, adamant that the Maori population is dynamic and institutions need to change to service the needs of Maori. In their view the needs of city-based Maori will not be met by traditional tribal bodies. They view the settlement of historical grievances as being primarily to compensate individual Maori and to assist them break out of dependency. To do this there need to be programs that are tailored to meet their needs, based on a very good understanding of their actual situation and the capacity to work closely with them.
A further view is expressed by those who do not favour the allocation of resources to tribal bodies because of human capital constraints. In their view the transfer of resources to Maori from the historical grievance process should be dedicated to building up large corporations with growing capital bases. The funds should be dedicated to meeting growth targets, maintaining technology advances and investment in people through a dividend policy that sees them engaging in further education and training. This is regarded as a centrist approach and is criticised as undermining the cultural identity of Maori. By not treating the tribe as the primary body for the vesting of resources, it is regarded as a ‘sell-out’. The Waitangi Tribunal has crystalised its thinking into a development model known as the tribal endowment thesis. It promotes the notion that all tribes require a critical mass of resources, a resource base that ensures all its members are able to learn tribal history and receive assistance for education and business development. An estate that they and their descendants can call their turangawaewae, a place to stand and celebrate their roots, a home away from the cities, and a place where each generation renews its ties with the past.
For fear of losing readers with too much detail it is important that several points are stressed here. Cultural politics cannot be underestimated. A particular model may make sense in a strict corporate, commercial sense. If, however, it is seen as weakening the capacity of the tribes to actually take possession of resources and engage in the development of those resources, it is likely that conflict will ensue. By and large the tribes are seen as being the legitimate bodies to advance the interests of Maori in terms of land-based historical settlements. In a linear sense they are the inheritors of the rights and resources denied to their forefathers. They are and will be handicapped for some time to come, however, as there are simply not enough skilled people from within their own ranks to fill the management responsibilities. This is only a temporary problem and will change as young Maori graduate, gain experience and take a place in the development of their own assets. Given the limited contact that the corporate world has had with Maori it will take a long time before the two worlds discover how to make their way together.
By and large the resources being returned to Maori lock them into the operations of the economy. The fisheries grievance was settled by assigning cash, share and fishing property rights (individual transferable quota) to Maori. The aspiration of the Maori leadership is for assets that generate immediate commercial returns, that can then be made available to the population in the form of dividend payments. The current leaders are very suspicious of the concept of investing to create work, although it is apparent that the greatest problem in Maori communities is unemployment. The model of the subsistence economy is not applicable to Maori today. The welfare dependency syndrome is relevant. Although the pressure is great to alleviate these problems, there are no major initiatives emerging from the historical grievance process to respond specifically to welfare dependency. By and large this is seen as a matter of personal responsibility and government action, and Maori urban authorities receive resources from the government to do this type of work. The tribal administrators, however, assert that if government cannot fix the problem, the tribal bodies will have greater difficulties, with their limited resources. Unless such problems are resolved, the amassing of assets and wealth under the name of tribal development may end up being of dubious benefit.
The distribution of resources is a question that Maori have only begun to address in the context of the historical grievance process. It is most certainly a critical issue. Unless the structure of Maori society is changed there will be no significant developments, notwithstanding the examination and laying bare the body of nineteenth century colonialism. Effecting a change to the structure of a society requires major investments in education, Maori are perhaps the most vulnerable in this regard.