Do Treaty of Waitangi settlements lead to better social outcomes? And should they?

Monday, 6 August 2018

Stuff's NZ Made/Nā Nīu Tīreni project: When the Treaty of Waitangi was signed, Māori owned more than 66 million acres of land. By 1975, almost 97 per cent had been sold or taken. (Last published February 1, 2021.)

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 Māori still lag behind on so many social indicators?

The idea that the financial redress in 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 Māori loss over several decades. 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 that money alone cannot quickly wipe away inequality.

* The extraordinary scale of Māori land, economic and social loss

* The Treaty and Me: New Zealanders talk about the Treaty

* Watch: The son of a full-blooded Maori and full-blooded Pakeha**

AUT's Dr Ella Henry has spent 25 years researching the Treaty settlement process and helped negotiate Ngāti Kahu ki Whangaroa's settlement.

For Henry, 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 Ngāi Tahu and Waikato-Tainui] and now the 10-year strategy of Ngāti Whātua 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 post-settlement 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 their descendants of their tribal members by offering – as Ngāi 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 support each other and gave each other opportunities to reach our potential.'

Ngai Tahu, the South Island iwi which settled in 1996, has turned its initial $170m settlement into a business empire worth more $1.7b. Ngāpuhi, of Northland, is yet to settle.

Has Ngai Tahu's settlement resulted in better social outcomes for its people compared with Ngāpuhi?

SETTLED OR NOT

Census data allows comparisons on education levels, employment status, income and home ownership by iwi. There are some social indicators, particularly health-related, not comparable using the census.

Members of Ngai Tahu do tend to have better outcomes than Ngāpuhi. At the last census in 2013, they were, on average, more educated, more likely to own their home, more likely to be in full-time employment and more likely to earn over $50,000.

Oysters, fresh off the vessel Nga Roimata oysters are processed at Ngai Tahu Seafood Ltd, in Bluff on March 2.

But this was also the case in the 1996 census, before the Ng ā i Tahu settlement had a chance to have any impact.

The rates of change have been slightly more favourable for Ngāi Tahu since 1996. Can we attribute these small differences to Ngāi Tahu's successful settlement? Attributing cause and effect is a tricky business, especially when the effect is small, but it seems plausible that at least some of this is thanks to Ngāi Tahu's business empire.

The iwi paid out $50m in dividends to its members in 2017, funding numerous cultural programmes, savings and home ownership schemes and support for tertiary study, amongst many other schemes.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern receives gifts of a new life jacket for herself and one for her then-unborn child from Ngai Tahu Tourism chief executive Quinton Hall at Shotover Jet in April.

However, the big picture is that outcomes for all Māori have tended to change fairly uniformly across time, regardless of iwi.

Prevailing economic conditions and social policy are probably much bigger factors in determining the social outcomes for Māori.

For example, a 2011 study of the impact of Working for Families (WFF) on Māori households found that for 'the majority of participants, receiving WFF assistance made a significant, and positive, impact on their family'. Most of the families interviewed for the study received an extra $60-$300 per week in their household budget from Working for Families.

'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.

Dr Ella Henry senior lecturer at AUT talks about her experience with a Treaty on Waitangi claim.

WHOSE JOB IS IT ANYWAY?

There are deeper philosophical questions about the jobs of iwi and the government in lifting the prospects for Māori. If Māori 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 Rangitāne 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,' Te Tau says.

'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.'