Wider cost of Treaty redress
Do Treaty of Waitangi settlements lead to better social outcomes? And should they? Andy Fyers reports.
To many New Zealanders watching the Treaty settlements process from afar, a common question seems to be: While millions of dollars are paid out in settlements, why do Ma¯ ori still lag behind on so many social indicators? The idea that the financial redress in a Treaty settlement could – or even should – be expected to correct many decades of deprivation is controversial, to say the least. Firstly, there is the vast scale of Ma¯ ori loss. And when you consider that total cash payments for Treaty settlements are worth the equivalent of two months worth of national superannuation, it should be fairly obvious money alone cannot quickly wipe away inequality.
Auckland University of Technology’s Dr Ella Henry has spent 25 years researching the Treaty settlement process and helped negotiate Nga¯ ti Kahu ki Whangaroa’s settlement.
For her, it’s still too soon for the full impact of settlements to be realised for the vast majority of tribes, most of which only settled in the past decade.
‘‘Everybody says a tribe gets a few million dollars and it’s overnight going to transform the demographic landscape of its tribal members,’’ she says. ‘‘Clearly that’s not possible. But what we have seen with the 20-year strategy [of Nga¯ i Tahu and Waikato-Tainui] and now the 10-year strategy of Nga¯ ti Wha¯ tua is that the investment in education, training and business development is having some much wider positive implications downstream.
‘‘We can all expect our iwi to go through the postsettlement phase of figuring out what they are and how to do it and making some mistakes as the big tribes have done, but eventually getting to a place where they are able to deliver something back to the tribe.’’
Henry believes the few tribes that have had time to consolidate their settlements have been able to deliver tangible benefits to their members.
‘‘There are certainly ways the tribes can enhance the expectations and experiences of the descendants of their tribal members by offering – as Nga¯ i Tahu has done – education, savings opportunities, teaching programmes, business advisory set-ups, research – those are the sorts of things that tribes used to do prior to the Treaty. We invested in each other and we supported each other and gave each other opportunities to reach our potential.’’
Ngai Tahu, the South Island iwi which settled in 1996, has turned its $170 million settlement into a business empire worth more $1.7 billion. Nga¯ puhi, of Northland, is yet to settle. Has Ngai Tahu’s settlement resulted in better social outcomes for its people?
Census data allows comparisons on education levels, employment status, income and home ownership by iwi. Some social indicators, particularly health-related, are not comparable using the census.
Members of Ngai Tahu do tend to have better outcomes than Nga¯ puhi. At the 2013 census, members were, on average, more educated, more likely to own their home, more likely to be in fulltime employment and more likely to earn over $50,000. But this was also the case in the 1996 census, before the settlement had any impact.
The rates of change have been slightly more favourable for Nga¯ i Tahu since 1996. Can we attribute these small differences to its successful settlement? It seems plausible that at least some of this is thanks to Nga¯ i Tahu’s business empire.
The iwi paid out $50m in dividends to members in 2017, funding cultural programmes, savings and home ownership schemes and support for tertiary study, amongst many other schemes.
However, the big picture is that outcomes for all Ma¯ ori have changed fairly uniformly across time.
Prevailing economic conditions and social policy are probably much bigger factors in determining social outcomes for Ma¯ ori. For example, a 2011 study of the impact of Working for Families (WFF) on Ma¯ ori households found for ‘‘the majority of participants, receiving WFF assistance made a significant, and positive, impact on their family’’. Most families interviewed received an extra $60-$300 per week.
‘‘The families we interviewed spoke of the additional income as enabling them to ‘survive’ and to not have to ‘struggle’ quite so much to make ends meet,’’ the study states.
There are deeper philosophical questions about the jobs of iwi and the Government in lifting Ma¯ ori prospects.
If they were disadvantaged by unfair treatment in the settling of this country, why should it be up to them alone to repair the damage?
Piri Te Tau, a claimant for Rangita¯ ne o Wairarapa, dismisses the idea: ‘‘This x amount of dollars is 150-odd years of bulls... from you white fullas, now you expect us to turn it around overnight? Dream on.
‘‘A lot of them are saying all these kids are in care, all these people in jail – what’s the iwi doing about that? My response is your system put them in there, your system needs to pay for it.’’ Henry has a similar view.
‘‘It is not for tribes to fix social problems that were caused by inequality in New Zealand society. It is the role of government and it has that role and that obligation to every New Zealand citizen.’’