Waikato Law Review
|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Waikato Law Review |
|
This article contemplates reasons why MŠori women do not feature in the “top jobs” within certain MŠori organisations, as well as strategies for positive change. It promotes EEO[1] as a useful tool to address the imbalance that places women in unnaturally subordinate positions within MŠori organisations and MŠori society generally.
Raukawa Trust Board[2] applied to the EEO Contestable Fund[3] to fund a project that aimed to develop an EEO resource for the Board in its role as an employer (the parent project). While the parent project concentrated on issues about the employment, work conditions and career development of MŠori women in MŠori organisations particularly in the Tainui rohe,[4] it has also produced a separate resource that is broad enough to be useful for other MŠori organisations as employers.[5]
This article is both a report of the parent project and an analysis of some of the research data collected.[6] It promotes a broad, positive view of EEO and advocates the advantages of EEO for MŠori organisations as employers; and the valuable contributions MŠori women make to society, and, in particular, to the work place.
I begin by setting out possible meanings of EEO and by sketching the surrounding legal landscape. Certain provisions of the Human Rights Act 1993 and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 that provide for measures to ensure ‘equality’, overarch more specific legislation that prohibits ‘discrimination’. It is argued that the failure to apply the measures contained in the more general rights-based Acts, coupled with the lack of specific employment legislation making EEO mandatory in the private sector, are key causes of the entrenched unemployment and underemployment of MŠori women.
EEO can have the following various meanings:
1. a fundamental ideal encompassing concepts of fairness and justice that our society values;[7]
2. an outcome depicted by a workplace where individuals have access to equal opportunities in all aspects of employment such as recruitment, development, promotion, and reward; where all persons are able, should they choose, to reach their full potential regardless of gender, ethnicity, age, disability, sexual orientation, or family circumstances; and/or,
3. a plan of action that firstly identifies unfair discrimination in the workplace and then provides for the development of strategies to counteract such discriminatory practices.
This article adopts the meaning of EEO proffered by the Working Group on EEO, that is:
A systematic, results-oriented, set of actions that is directed towards the identification and elimination of discriminatory barriers that cause or perpetuate inequality in the employment of any person or group of persons; and is further directed to redress the effects of past discrimination on disadvantaged groups so as to bring those disadvantaged groups to the level of the advantaged.[8]
This definition incorporates all of the meanings of EEO outlined above, and it emphasises the need for EEO practices to be proactive and affirmative.
EEO is based on the principle that people have a right to fairness and equitable treatment in society. It is based on the assumption that talent, ambition, skill and potential can be found in all people. But, it also recognises that some people are discriminated against on the basis of their membership of a particular group.
EEO is not necessarily about members of the so-called target groups of EEO (for example MŠori and women) striving for equality or sameness. Rather, it recognises and values diversity, and emphasises the importance of people. It is also about the pursuit of equity or fairness.[9]
This article proposes that these meanings and explanations of EEO are consistent with certain MŠori world views and core values including tino rangatiratanga (self-determination).[10]
The public sector is the main arena in which EEO operates. The law requires Government Departments and State Owned Enterprises to act as good employers. That requirement, in turn, imposes legal obligations upon employers in the public sector to adopt equal opportunities policies and programmes.
For example, the State Sector Act 1988 requires chief executives of Government Departments to develop EEO policies and programmes and to report annually on the extent to which each Department was able to meet the EEO programme for that year.[11]
In addition, the State Owned Enterprises Act 1986 requires State enterprises to operate as successful businesses and to that end be good employers.[12] A “good employer” is one who operates a personnel policy containing provisions generally accepted as necessary for the fair and proper treatment of employees in all aspects of their employment.[13]
Such a policy must include provisions requiring an equal opportunities programme; and the impartial selection of suitably qualified persons for appointment.[14]
There is no legal obligation upon private sector employers to adopt equal employment opportunities policies. However, there is an overarching legal obligation on the part of all employers not to discriminate against employees on the grounds specifically stated in the Human Rights Act 1993 and adopted in the Employment Relations Act 2000.
Under section 22 of the Human Rights Act it is unlawful for an employer, where the employee is qualified for work of any description, to discriminate by reason of any of the prohibited grounds of discrimination. Those grounds are set out in section 21 and are “sex, marital status, religious or ethical belief, colour, race, ethnic or national origins, disability, age, political opinion, employment status, family status, and sexual orientation”. The Employment Relations Act 2000, section 105, adopts precisely the same prohibited grounds.
Despite this overarching prohibition against discrimination, both the Human Rights Act 1993 and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 specifically provide for and allow for measures to ensure “equality”. Section 73(1) of the Human Rights Act allows for the development of specific recruitment programmes for occupations where target groups, like MŠori women, are under-represented. That section provides as follows:
73. Measures to ensure equality—
(1) Anything done or omitted which would otherwise constitute a breach of any of the provisions of this Part of this Act shall not constitute such a breach if—
(a) It is done or omitted in good faith for the purpose of assisting or advancing persons or groups of persons, being in each case persons against whom discrimination is unlawful by virtue of this Part of this Act; and
(b) Those persons or groups need or may reasonably be supposed to need assistance or advancement in order to achieve an equal place with other members of the community.
Section 19(1) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 confirms the fundamental right to freedom from discrimination on the grounds set out in the Human Rights Act. Section 19(2) is similar in form and effect to section 73 of the Human Rights Act. Section 19(2) stipulates that measures taken in good faith for the purpose of assisting or advancing persons or groups of persons disadvantaged because of discrimination do not constitute discrimination.[15]
Both the Human Rights Act and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act reflect New Zealand’s international obligations to provide equal employment opportunities and equal treatment in terms of work conditions. Those obligations are set out in a series of United Nations human rights instruments that New Zealand has ratified and adopted such as the 1979 United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), ratified by New Zealand in 1984.
The fact that there is little public awareness of these conventions, combined with the repeal of the Employment Equity Act 1990 and the continued lack of a legal obligation upon employers in the private sector to adopt EEO policies, is seen as a breach of those obligations.[16]
5. The Employment Equity Act 1990 (repealed)
A remarkable aspect of the history of EEO legislation in this country is the fate of the short-lived Employment Equity Act which was both enacted and repealed in 1990. The Act had broken new ground in that it legally required all organisations with 50 or more employees to have an EEO programme, and provided for a penalty system to encourage compliance.
It was explicit under the Employment Equity Act that EEO programmes were to be directed at “redressing the effects of past discrimination so as to bring disadvantaged groups to the level of the advantaged”.[17]
The Act, lasting only months, was repealed by the incoming National Government determined to reduce state intervention in the labour market. The repeal of the Act has been described as an example of how the fundamental restructuring of New Zealand’s economic and social system has had the effect of reasserting the dominance of patriarchy on women.[18]
Whether EEO ought to be voluntary or compulsory is a controversial matter. One perspective is that compulsory EEO is unnecessary because it is in the commercial interests of employers to promote EEO and enjoy the benefits of a diverse workforce.[19] Yet, in 1987, the Human Rights Commission had reported to the Royal Commission on Social Policy that ten years of voluntary EEO had produced no measurable results, and argued that structural change in the composition of the workforce would come about only if EEO were to be made compulsory.[20] Overseas and local experience confirms that legislation is the most effective means of achieving equal opportunities in the workplace.[21]
The current economic climate still emphasises voluntarism and free markets as opposed to state imposed compulsion. There is little likelihood that EEO will be made compulsory in the private sector in the short term, nor has the Labour-led coalition signalled any intention to legislate for EEO in the private sector.
The “merit” principle assumes that the most able and deserving individuals will move into the top decision-making positions, irrespective of issues such as ethnicity or gender. The principle is grounded upon the liberal philosophy that all individuals are born equal. This principle forms a major part of EEO programmes in New Zealand. Potentially, the merit principle poses significant problems for MŠori women, particularly if construed in a narrow way.
First, the merit principle carries an assumption that, if MŠori women do not move up the occupational hierarchy, it is because they lack the capability.[22] Yet this does not take into account past discrimination which precluded target groups like MŠori women from having the opportunity to acquire training and experience or to demonstrate their potential. Further, the skills that women, and particularly MŠori women, have acquired, such as organisational skills, fluency in te reo MŠori and knowledge of tikanga, are undervalued. On a wider interpretation of the concept of merit, these skills would be valued more.
By way of example, an interesting point that arose about merit during the project was the question of whether MŠori organisations that have preferential recruitment policies for beneficiaries, or MŠori, are acting consistently with EEO. There is a strong argument that employing the best person for the job, on the basis that that person is better able to provide certain services or has a better understanding of needs because, say, she is of the same iwi, is employing on merit.
This is because merit is contextual. It reflects the values of the evaluators. Yet, in most cases, it will not be MŠori women who set the criteria for merit.[23]
A classic illustration of the possible negative consequences occurred at a training seminar. Participants were asked to construct a job description for a hypothetical vacancy, a marketing manager for an iwi Trust Board. Participants then considered who might make up the appointment panel and why. Finally, two personal profiles of hypothetical applicants were distributed. The first hypothetical applicant, Kimiora Pai, was a mother of five aged 38. Her personal profile revealed that she was well known in the community for being a good organiser, particularly when organising food for large hui (gatherings) and major fundraising events for her children’s schools and sports teams. Upon leaving school, Kimiora had worked in a hotel as a cook and continued to work part-time for the hotel while carrying out the main care-giving duties for her children. Though Kimiora had no formal tertiary qualifications, while working for the hotel she completed the examinations and practical tests for her chef’s ticket. Kimiora was fluent in te reo MŠori and well versed in tikanga MŠori. She affiliated to the Trust Board.
We called the second hypothetical applicant Tama Rangatahi. He held a Bachelor of Management Studies and a Masters Degree in Commercial Law. While able to understand some MŠori, Tama was unable to speak the language. He was fluent in Japanese and had recently returned after a year spent in Japan on a work exchange programme working in the Japanese stock exchange. Tama was 25 years of age.
The seminar participants in the workshop were asked to identify the relevant skills and attributes that each applicant would bring to this job. The first group that was asked to report back was headed by a strong and outspoken kaumatua. This group considered that while Kimiora was a good wife and mother, she had “no skills” relevant to the job!
It was reassuring to hear that other participant groups identified that Kimiora would bring to the job organisational skills, knowledge of the community and an ability to network, a mature outlook, a demonstrated ability to upskill and te reo MŠori.
“Anti-discrimination” is based on the merit principle. Examples of anti-discrimination measures are ensuring that target groups such as MŠori and women are part of job interview panels, making sure that advertisements are worded appropriately, providing for an EEO coordinator in the workplace, and ensuring that childcare facilities are provided. These measures may help to remove formal barriers against the selection and promotion of individuals, and are a major component of EEO in New Zealand.
Any legislation, policy or programme that concentrates upon anti-discrimination alone will have limited effectiveness for MŠori women. When applying for jobs or promotion, they would continue to be disregarded because they lack qualifications that they had been denied the opportunity to acquire. The focus of these kinds of measures is on the individual, rather than on MŠori women as a group. This can cause difficulties. For example, when a complaint of discrimination is made, the responsibility to prove that discrimination has occurred is on the individual. And she is usually powerless when compared with the perpetrator. Furthermore, discrimination would have to occur before action could be taken. So, the measures do little to prevent discrimination from occurring.[24]
A complementary approach that employers ought to consider incorporating into any programme that is to improve the position of MŠori women in the workforce is affirmative action. Affirmative action aims to break down the effects of past discrimination. It focuses on systems rather than individuals. It is proactive rather than reactive and aims for greater equity in outcomes. Affirmative action embraces the concept of “positive discrimination”. This concept would provide temporary assistance to disadvantaged groups by, for example, preferential hiring and focussed up-skilling of MŠori women until they are more fairly represented in higher level positions and could compete on an equal footing. Opponents, however, would criticise such measures as amounting to reverse discrimination and undermining the “merit” principle.[25]
The ill-fated Employment Equity Act had incorporated aspects of affirmative action. EEO programmes were to be directed towards redressing the repercussions of past discrimination so as to bring disadvantaged groups to the level of the advantaged. In order to reduce resistance to the legislation, the “merit” principle was retained. Even so, the Act was repealed.
The Amaltal case[26] signals caution to MŠori organisations, however, and provides an example of the resistance to affirmative action in this country. The Amaltal decision is the only one where section 73 of the Human Rights Act 1993 (as well as its forbears and other similar provisions in other statutes) has been the central issue. Nelson Polytechnic ran fishing cadet courses. Under a contract with the Education and Training Support Agency (ETSA), the Polytechnic reserved four places out of 14 for MŠori or New Zealand resident Pacific Islanders in one such course, and all of the places in a second course.
An applicant who was not of MŠori or Pacific Island descent applied for the fishing cadet course and was rejected. Proceedings were brought by the Amaltal Fishing Company which operated a deep-sea fishing operation out of Nelson. The company claimed that the Polytechnic’s actions in reserving places for MŠori or Pacific Islanders breached the Race Relations Act 1971, the Human Rights Commission Act 1977 and the Human Rights Act 1993. In effect the Polytechnic did not defend the proceedings. The proceedings fell to be determined on the evidence of the plaintiff company. Consequently, the Complaints Review Tribunal found the claim proved, subject to the defendant being able to establish a defence under section 73 of the Human Rights Act 1993. To establish a defence the Polytechnic was required to show that:
(i) the thing done (that is, the reservation of places in the first course or all places in the second course for persons within the target group) was done in good faith; and
(ii) the thing was done for the purpose of assisting or advancing persons or groups of persons of a particular race (that is, MŠori or New Zealand resident Pacific Islanders); and
(iii) those persons or groups of persons need, or may reasonably be supposed to need, assistance or advancement in order to achieve an equal place in the community.[27]
The Tribunal accepted Amaltal’s acknowledgment that the Polytechnic satisfied the first two limbs.
As to the third limb, the Tribunal said that its task was to look at the aspirations of the particular target group and
...determine whether, on the balance of probabilities, those persons need or might reasonably be supposed to need, assistance or advancement in order to achieve an equal place with other members of the community with similar aspirations (i.e. young persons outside the target group who either wish to undertake the fishing cadet course or to make careers for themselves in the fishing industry.[28]
The Tribunal found this task difficult given the extremely limited evidence before it. The defence was not made out.
Declarations were made preventing the defendant from repeating the breaches of the Human Rights legislation. But the orders were framed in such a way that it was left open for the Polytechnic to reserve places for members of the target group in any courses in the future providing that it complies with the requirements of section 73 of the Human Rights Act 1993.
The Tribunal thus spelled out the Polytechnic’s independent obligations to establish that target groups needed the special measures afforded by the Human Rights legislation. It was not enough simply to rely upon the argument that Government Policy providing funding for courses for MŠori and Pacific Island students was sufficient evidence of such need.
It must be said that the guidelines in Amaltal were made without the benefit of full submissions and cannot be considered definitive. However, the decision signals that MŠori organisations who wish to employ special measures under section 73 of the Human Rights Act (or similar provisions) must be able to provide their own evidence that the special measures meet the requirements of section 73. General indicators of socio-economic conditions being worse for MŠori women than for the rest of society may not be sufficient to meet the requirements for need. Indicators of disadvantage would have to relate to the applicant’s need for the particular position being advertised.
To summarise, there is no legislation that requires EEO in the private sector in this country. Ideally, employment equity needs to be prioritised via statute. In the meantime, the EEO legislation currently in force in New Zealand still focuses on anti-discrimination measures and incorporates the merit principle. This is so, even though the Human Rights Act 1993, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and International Conventions specifically allow for affirmative action and positive action as measures to ensure equality.
These measures are being ignored, or interpreted strictly, at the expense of the status of MŠori women. The statistics relating to MŠori women’s participation in the labour force, when compared with others, continue to be appalling. This is an unnecessary state of affairs, given that it is lawful to take specific measures to help individuals or groups covered by the prohibited grounds of discrimination, if they need help to achieve an equal place with other members of the community.
MŠori organisations must be bold and consider adopting affirmative action policies if their employment policies are to be meaningful for MŠori women. It is also imperative that a wider interpretation of the concept of what constitutes merit be adopted in such policies and promoted in the community.
MŠori women face unique challenges within MŠori organisations and MŠori society generally. How has colonisation impacted on tikanga and kawa (accepted ways of doing things, customs)? Why is there a perception that MŠori women have become unnaturally subordinate in MŠori society?
This project has provided a timely opportunity to reiterate the strength of MŠori women and the valuable contributions that they can make to MŠori society and MŠori organisations. Nevertheless, gloomy statistical information continues to illustrate the multifaceted disadvantage of MŠori women when competing in the labour market. These statistics are a constant reminder of the need for empowerment of MŠori women, and it is suggested that EEO might be a useful tool to help do this.
Tino rangatiratanga or self-determination is guaranteed to MŠori under the Treaty of Waitangi. Many MŠori hold the view that it is for them to determine what their responsibilities are and to interpret their responses to situations in terms of their own way of doing things. This is the approach that many MŠori organisations take with respect to social services, training, health and other areas of development and local government issues.
There is a danger that MŠori organisations might see EEO as yet another invasive, non-MŠori construct and therefore shun it in the name of tino rangatiratanga.[29]
While overseas and local experience confirms that legislation is the most effective means of achieving equal opportunities in the workplace,[30] MŠori organisations, like many other private sector organisations, would be likely to oppose compulsory EEO in the name of tino rangatiratanga.
The maintenance of tikanga and kawa is often cited as an exercise in tino rangatiratanga. However, research suggests a perception that women are discriminated against on the basis of illogical reliance upon tikanga and kawa. For example, if MŠori women are seen as ineligible for certain leadership or management roles for reasons related to kawa or tikanga, then it is possible that, in some circumstances, the way tino rangatiratanga is being exercised can actually disadvantage MŠori women.
There is now a wealth of research verifying that, before 1840, MŠori women were significant leaders, organisers and nurturers at both whŠnau (family) and hapŸ (sub-tribal) level. There are countless examples of MŠori women who were explorers, poets, composers, chiefs and warriors, heads of families, founding tupuna or ancestors of various hapŸ and iwi (tribes), their accomplishments recorded in waiata (songs) and whakatauaki (sayings, proverbs).[31]
Much has also been written about the complementary nature of the roles of men and women prior to colonisation.[32] Neither gender was necessarily superior to the other. MŠori women certainly had rangatiratanga, and at times it was superior to the authority of men.
In addition, MŠori women had rights over land and resources. Unlike her PŠkehŠ counterpart, her rights would not become her husband’s property if she married. Thus, the traditional role of MŠori women was inconsistent with the colonial culture in which power and authority were the domain of males.[33] There are many examples of how MŠori adopted or “internalised” colonial values, or how these values were imposed, and how various tikanga and kawa and ways of doing things changed as a consequence. Examples can be found in MŠori Land Court records. Hohepa quotes an example from 1891 of men challenging, on the basis of gender, the right of women to be trustees on a MŠori land block.[34] As a result of this form of assimilation, MŠori women became unnaturally subordinate in MŠori society.[35]
Research participants in the parent project reaffirmed the ability, ambition, intelligence, talent and skills of MŠori women. They retold the strengths of many female role models who were and/or continue to be organisers and leaders in their own whŠnau and hapŸ.
But despite these known strengths and capabilities, the perception exists that MŠori women are discriminated against on the basis of illogical reliance upon tikanga and kawa. For example, MŠori organisations may consider MŠori women to be unable to lead or be placed in certain management positions within organisations because, as women, they will not be able to whaikšrero.[36] The inability to whaikšrero becomes more important than other qualifications, skills and talents that may be more critical to the job. This is a classic example that reflects the extent to which tikanga and kawa can be used to exclude possible candidates from contributing effectively to an organisation.[37]
Kathie Irwin has canvassed this issue of women’s speaking rights on the marae.[38] She argues that it is a misunderstood and abused issue of our culture because the role of orator is seen by many as having the most mana. And, because of this misconception, women are regarded as secondary to men.
Some iwi have transferred this concept to the boardrooms of companies and trust boards. And women have been precluded from participating.
Annie Mikaere of Ngati Raukawa ki te Tonga has written of a recent conversation that she shared with a close male relative.[39] The relative expressed his view that their iwi would never allow a woman to take on a leadership role such as that of CEO of their iwi runanga. The comment was not made with any degree of approval, it was stated simply as a matter of fact. Mikaere then expressed her bewilderment about the implications of such a statement, as illustrated by the following extract:
How could it possibly be that no women, no matter how well qualified, could expect to win a top management position within an essentially PŠkehŠ vehicle, an incorporated society, simply because it was our iwi runanga?
If [the male relative] is correct, this is a prime illustration of what Kathie Irwin has described as “people taking a tikanga which relates to the marae atea, and transferring its cultural power to another location in which it has no meaning”.[40]
A popular view on this issue is that women do not speak on the marae because they have other significant roles such as being child bearers. Not speaking on the open marae during powhiri (formal welcome ceremonies) is a mark of respect for a woman’s reproductive role, not because she is of lesser status.
Another interesting point that emerged from the interviews relates to the role of whakapapa (genealogy or relatedness) and leadership or management qualities.
Whakapapa may indeed be an important factor in terms of leadership capabilities. But there are other qualifications, skills and talents that may be more critical to a particular job. Whakapapa ought not to be used to exclude possible candidates from contributing effectively to an organisation.
Despite some improvements in the participation of women in education and employment, the social and economic outcomes for MŠori women continue to fall well below those of men and non-MŠori women.[41]
In the context of discussing MŠori women and the health system, Mikaere and Milroy argue that the disempowerment of MŠori women is two-fold. Not only do they belong to an indigenous population that has been colonised, but also they have been colonised by a society with an oppressive tradition of entrenched patriarchy.[42]
This disempowerment, they argue, has meant that “MŠori women are, by and large, prevented from perceiving themselves as controllers of their own and their families’ destinies”.[43]
In the context of EEO, MŠori women are thus members of two target categories. The aims and aspirations of the various EEO groups are different. MŠori generally have focused upon economic and political self-development for all MŠori (tino rangatiratanga and mana motuhake). Women, on the other hand, have concentrated on equal representation in all spheres of work activity. It is not known how MŠori women prioritise their aims and aspirations in terms of EEO.
To analyse the intersectionality of race and gender is highly complex, and not attempted in this work. This type of analysis in relation to employment issues is being undertaken overseas. For example, Rose M Brewer analyses the “simultaneity of oppression” of Black women in terms of race, class and gender.[44] In setting out some insights on Black feminist theorising, Brewer describes the tendency in a good deal of the research on Black experience in relation to employment issues to centre on the:
dynamics of either race or gender which translates into discussions of white women or Black men. Dismissing intersections of race and gender in such autonomous analyses conceptually erases African-American women.[45]
Brewer emphasises the need for a more robust and holistic understanding of African-American life. A similar need exists in relation to understanding the realities of being a MŠori woman.
The following facts are reproduced from MŠori Women in Focus, a joint publication of Te Puni Kokiri and the Ministry of Women’s Affairs, published in April 1999. The facts contain some gloomy statistics that illustrate this dual disadvantage that MŠori women face when competing with others in the labour market, and they highlight the need for the empowerment of MŠori women.
1. There has been a notable improvement in the participation of MŠori women in education. The number of MŠori women enrolled in tertiary education has increased dramatically, more than doubling over the last eight years.
2. The MŠori female population is relatively young: 36% of MŠori women are under 15 years.
3. MŠori women tend to have their children at a younger age than non- MŠori women, and so have quite different patterns of participation in tertiary education and the labour force.
4. MŠori are over-represented in the unemployment figures. They also make up the majority of low-skilled and low-paid workers. MŠori are highly concentrated in industries that are sensitive to economic peaks and troughs (for example, manufacturing).
5. Women are generally less likely to be in paid employment than men are. Women tend to move in and out of the labour force and to change their hours of work as family commitments allow and as the supply of jobs fluctuates.
6. MŠori women are particularly vulnerable to unemployment. In 1996 the unemployment rate for MŠori women was 19% compared with 7% for non- MŠori women.
7. MŠori women continue to be more likely to work in less skilled occupations than their non-MŠori counterparts. This may reflect the combined effects of the greater tendency of young MŠori women to leave school with fewer qualifications, their earlier childbearing patterns, and their later entry into full time employment.
8. MŠori women are more likely than non-MŠori women are to undertake unpaid work outside the home. MŠori women have continued to be at the forefront of MŠori social and cultural development despite the social and economic challenges that they have faced. MŠori women continue to be a major driving force behind te kšhanga reo, kura kaupapa MŠori and other MŠori development initiatives. In addition, they have been actively involved with the growth in MŠori programmes and service provisions to MŠori communities.
These facts illustrate that MŠori women are almost three times more likely to be unemployed than are non-MŠori women. And when MŠori women are employed, they are more likely to be employed in lower skilled occupations than are non-MŠori women.
Further, the statistics indicate that women continue to be the main caregivers and nurturers of our young and will continue to perform the vast majority of the unpaid household work whilst having to compete in the paid labour force with men who are often recipients of those services.
In addition to these findings, research has revealed evidence that supports the contention that MŠori women often tend to undervalue their contribution.[46] Some MŠori women feel incapable of doing certain jobs because they believe women cannot do the job as effectively as men can.[47] So, a lack of self-esteem and empowerment are factors impeding the progress of MŠori women to higher-level positions.
These findings in relation to MŠori women demonstrate a clear need for education programmes, employment programmes, and/or self-esteem programmes aimed at empowering MŠori women. Given that a large proportion of the MŠori female population is now under 18 years of age, these programmes could be aimed at secondary schools.
Historically, EEO has focussed on challenging entrenched attitudes, perspectives, practices and behaviours which have evolved out of prejudice and bias rather than cultural mores.[48] As a strategy, EEO can be a useful tool for empowering women. Disempowerment has resulted largely because of misguided and misused assumptions about the roles of MŠori women today. Consequently, MŠori women have been precluded from contributing to their full potential within MŠori organisations.
The principles that underlie EEO, such as the pursuit of fairness and equity, and the recognition and acknowledgment of people, complement certain whakaaro or tikanga MŠori. Yet, very few of the organisations that participated in the project have formal EEO policies in place, despite the responses making a clear case for the relevance and indeed necessity for such policies. The research process also revealed a somewhat limited view of EEO as it relates to MŠori and consequently the need for better education about the possibilities that EEO has for MŠori organisations.
First, there is the concept of tikanga. In my view, both the word and the concept of “tikanga” are derived from the base word “tika”. Tika means right or correct. So, tikanga represents doing what is right or appropriate in the circumstances. It is a dynamic concept not a codified set of rules.[49] Many themes and concepts of tikanga are universal, but the specific expression of them varies from iwi to iwi.[50] I will offer examples of tikanga specifically expressed from my perspective.[51]
Secondly, there is the concept of whŠnaungatanga. Generally, the MŠori world was primarily concerned with human and divine relationships. A fundamental purpose of MŠori “law” was to maintain relationships of people to their environment, their history and each other.[52] Mana derived from how one is able to connect to another iwi.[53] MŠori culture is often celebrated for its emphasis on the importance of people and whŠnaungatanga.
Thirdly, there is the concept of aroha. Aroha can be translated as love or compassion and is the basis for peaceful co-existence. It is strongly linked to whŠnaungatanga.
Well-known examples of whakatauaki or ancestral sayings that illustrate these concepts are:
Kotahi te kohao o te ngira
E kuhu ai te miro ma, te miro
whero me te miro pango
There is but one eye of the needle,
through which the white, red and black threads must pass
This whakatauaki is attributed to Potatau Te WheroWhero and reiterates the importance of unity. The eye of the needle is said to represent God.
He aha te mea nui o tenei ao?
He tangata, he tangata, he tangata!
What is the most important thing in this world?
It is people!
This more universal and, it is suggested, self-explanatory saying is commonly heard throughout MŠoridom in song and oratory.
Responses to surveys and interview questions reveal a perception amongst the MŠori that participated in the project that EEO is relevant to MŠori only where the employers are Government Departments and SOEs (and therefore seen as PŠkehŠ) and employees are MŠori. The purpose of EEO MŠori is misunderstood to be limited to PŠkehŠ employers, ensuring that MŠori are fairly represented. This is not surprising given that much of the literature about EEO MŠori that has been published is written about the public sector.
In particular, there is much criticism of EEO for obscuring the obligations of public sector organisations under the Treaty of Waitangi, or for “lumping” MŠori together with other “target groups”.[54]
Conversely, some writers do see EEO MŠori as a useful tool to advance MŠori because public sector organisations can relate more easily to the language of EEO than to the Treaty.
This issue may not be directly relevant to MŠori organisations, except to illustrate the narrow focus of the literature about EEO MŠori and the misunderstanding about EEO that seems to exist in the MŠori community.
While there are perceived problems and limitations of EEO as it relates to MŠori, it can fulfil a positive purpose amongst MŠori.
One perceived limitation of EEO is that rangatahi (youth) is a disadvantaged group in the employment environment, as are people who belong to a low socio-economic class, and people who lack education. These issues are highly relevant to the disparities that exist between MŠori and non-MŠori, though none of these groups are separate target categories of EEO.
Admittedly, recent statistical information continues to tell the depressing tale about unemployment for all MŠori. However, the statistics relating to the employment status of MŠori women are particularly appalling.[55] The development of EEO policy that incorporates affirmative action for the benefit of MŠori women is an important incremental step in the larger process of addressing the wider issues of unemployment that face all MŠori.
Another perception, though not common, is that there is no “wairua MŠori” or “MŠori spirit” in EEO. It is a PŠkehŠ construct and therefore irrelevant to MŠori. Yet, as noted above, EEO is consistent with MŠori concepts of whŠnaungatanga, the importance of people and the recognition and acknowledgment of difference. MŠori organisations do not have to use the language of EEO. Indeed, many organisations have adopted other terms such as ‘managing diversity’. MŠori organisations may consider some other term more suitable – a term that would encompass a desire for equity, fairness, inclusiveness, and acknowledgment of difference.
As an exercise in tino rangatiratanga, MŠori organisations can adapt, expand and mould EEO to make it work for them. Of particular need, however, is EEO for MŠori women.
Although there may be no generally agreed theory about appropriate methodology for MŠori research, some common guidelines as to appropriate frameworks for such research have been written about extensively elsewhere.[56]
From the outset I sought to design the research project to incorporate features of methodology appropriate for what I determined to be Kaupapa MŠori research.
Linda Smith recounts a description of Kaupapa MŠori research, which description incorporates principles that I have used as a basis for this research. Kaupapa MŠori research is research which is “culturally safe”, which involves the “mentorship of elders”, which is culturally relevant and appropriate while satisfying the rigour of research, and which is undertaken by an appropriate MŠori researcher.[57]
Important features of methodology that were adopted in this research process are referred to where appropriate. Such features include a personal approach,[58] both in the follow up of the questionnaires sent out to MŠori organisations and in the interview process. As well, appropriate researchers[59] were selected to carry out the information gathering. Their skills had to include a knowledge of te reo MŠori me ona tikanga, particular to Waikato and Raukawa. This writer agrees with the view that researchers ought to be accountable to interviewees and the people being studied generally.[60] As part of that accountability, the valuable contribution of the research participants needed to be acknowledged and some form of practical outcome produced from the research that provides the people studied with something in return.
A bilingual questionnaire was sent out to eleven MŠori organisations with a covering letter which was followed up by personal contact.
The term “MŠori Organisation” in the context of this research means a special legal regime to conduct business or operations for community or communal purposes, or that has some significant connection with communal purposes or interests.[61] Obvious examples are iwi authorities charged with managing resources owned by and to be used for the benefit of iwi or hapŸ. Other organisations that fall into this category include private companies registered under the Companies Act 1993 and charged with creating wealth for the benefit of iwi or hapŸ.
Other common forms in and through which much MŠori business is conducted are MŠori Trusts and MŠori Incorporations. MŠori Trusts include those under the Te Ture Whenua MŠori Act 1993 and those still operating under the MŠori Trust Boards Act 1955.[62] MŠori incorporations are legal entities with full legal personality as bodies corporate. Each organisation represents a defined group of people. For example, Trusts represent beneficiaries, whereas limited liability companies are accountable to their shareholders. The key determinant as to what constitutes a MŠori organisation for the purpose of this research has been an organisation’s capacity as an employer of MŠori.
MŠori organisations that participated include those both with large economic bases as well as relatively small economic bases; and those that are tribal and pan tribal. They include iwi runanga, trust boards, private companies that manage MŠori resources, and urban MŠori authorities. Two kšhanga reo and an “iwi radio station” also participated.
In essence, the following issues were addressed in the questionnaire and survey package that were sent out to these organisations:
1. the make-up of employees of MŠori organisations;
2. what EEO policies, if any, various MŠori organisations have in place;
3. what general comments top level managers had about EEO, and
4. consent, confidentiality and privacy.
Some interesting comparisons emerged from the responses to the questionnaires. And the information presented a general picture about MŠori organisations as employers.[63]
A key successful factor of the parent project was the willing participation of those selected MŠori organisations, and the valuable information gathered from them.[64] There was a danger that Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) and managers of MŠori organisations would baulk at completing the questionnaire. First, they are extremely busy. Secondly, one of the research goals is to identify possible reasons for the lack of women in management positions within these organisations. This carried the obvious risk that these organisations could be perceived as discriminatory. This kind of information is particularly sensitive in this era of increased public scrutiny of MŠori organisations.[65]
The success in securing completion of the questionnaire exercise was largely (if not solely) dependent upon existing personal networks between the project coordinators and the managers or CEOs of the various organisations. This illustrates the importance of adopting appropriate principles of methodology such as research by MŠori for the benefit of MŠori, using a personal approach when seeking sensitive information, and choosing an appropriate person to seek the information.[66]
The interviews that were conducted during the research process canvassed a range of perspectives of MŠori women. The interviews examined such issues as tikanga and/or kawa regarding the role or status of women in Tainui, the depth of knowledge about EEO amongst women in Tainui, and perceptions about tikanga and kawa generally. The discussions that transpired were often inspirational. Some of the interesting findings have been incorporated into this work below.
The interviews were divided into two categories: wahine rangatahi and wahine pakeke or kuia.[67] The interviews of wahine pakeke and kuia were conducted largely in te reo MŠori. In order to do this, it was necessary for the interviewer to have an expertise in te reo as well as an expertise in interviewing techniques specifically relating to oral history.[68]
The interview participants were personally selected because they represented a diverse range of backgrounds and perspectives. Some had acted in the role of employer; some are or were employees of MŠori organisations. Some had been involved in the development of EEO Policy. Others had no formal knowledge of EEO. Ultimately, 18 women were interviewed.[69] The women that participated are not necessarily representative of all MŠori women, or even MŠori women in Tainui. They were not intended to be so. Rather, the information gathered from the interviews provides a montage of different perspectives of MŠori women who affiliate to the Tainui waka. The information sought related to how behaviours and attitudes about the role of women in MŠori society generally, and in MŠori organisations, might impact on EEO in the workplace where the employer is a MŠori organisation. This information enhanced what little information was gathered in the literature review.
A primary objective of the interviews was to collect important data for analysis. A second yet significant objective was to provide a forum to discuss, and therefore raise awareness about, EEO issues and how the role of women in MŠori society is perceived.
Because we were drawing upon human resources, a thorough process was undertaken to ensure that the interview format was culturally and ethically appropriate. Initial drafts of an information sheet, consent form and questionnaire were prepared and sent to a suitable project consultant for quality assurance advice. The same drafts were also the subject of an application for approval by the Research Ethics Committee of the School of Law, University of Waikato.
Substantial thought had gone into designing the questionnaire, which had been intended as a prompt for discussion. Nevertheless, a few of the research participants considered the questionnaire to be leading or confusing, particularly in relation to the unfamiliar language of EEO.
A dilemma emerged during the interview process. It became clear that the interviewers were in a vulnerable position. The research seemed to challenge accepted practices and perspectives of some of our fellow tribal members. As researchers, we had to ask ourselves whether the benefits of seeking answers to probing questions, intended to contribute to the advancement of our iwi and particularly the women in our iwi, outweighed the fear of becoming branded as troublemakers.
The parent project was questioning whether MŠori women enjoy equal employment opportunities within MŠori organisations such as tribal runanga (councils) and companies that manage tribal resources. MŠori organisations in Tainui are predominantly managed and governed by MŠori men. This project sought to expose any need for those MŠori organisations, as employers of MŠori women, to have appropriate EEO policies.
Tainui tribal administration systems are unique in MŠoridom. Historically, the Tainui MŠori Trust Board has been an overseer of tribal administration. This Board was dissolved as a requirement of the Waikato Raupatu Settlement Act 1995.[70] The Board has been succeeded by a framework of trusts and other corporate bodies overseen by Te Kauhanganui, a form of tribal council.[71] The Board has been inextricably linked to a form of leadership, the Kingitanga or king movement, originally modelled on the English monarchy. Dedicated tribal members continue to instil in our children an intense and lifelong commitment to the Kingitanga.
A number of interview questions were designed to appraise the perspectives of Tainui women as to the role or status of women in the Tainui rohe. Why are there virtually no women in top-level management or governance positions within MŠori organisations in the Tainui rohe? To what extent are women perceived to be secondary to men and not eligible for management or governance roles on grounds of tikanga and kawa? To what extent are the tikanga and kawa that we espouse to be our traditional and customary way of doing things a product of colonisation? Are our women stopped from progressing in the name of tikanga and kawa?
Such questions were perceived by a few tribal members as threatening. One kuia believed that any reference to the Kingitanga and Kahui Ariki in the questionnaire was altogether inappropriate, in that it was somehow questioning the role of the Kahui Ariki or the Kingitanga. As noted above, there is one school of thought that the Kauhanganui and the Kingitanga are inextricably intertwined. Another is that the operations of the Kauhanganui are quite separate from the Kingitanga.
Two of the wahine rangatahi specifically sought further verbal assurances about confidentiality (despite written assurances in the interview package sent beforehand) so that they felt safe to speak freely. Yet, others welcomed the opportunity openly to challenge perceptions and practices.
The dilemma demonstrated how both the researchers and some of the participants experienced an internal conflict between a commitment to our iwi and a desire to expose anomalies of accepted perceptions and practices.[72] Reactions to the interview questions prompted me to explore the dilemma of the young MŠori women researchers who were involved in asking such troublesome questions.
The situation was uneasy for a time. It forced me to look closely again at the methodology of the research project and whether anything more could have been done to conduct the research in a way that was perceived to be safe and beneficial to the researchers, subjects and end users. For the later interviews it was essential to explain the research questions more clearly before the interview and stress that the interview questionnaire was nothing more than a prompt for discussion.
This writer felt safe enough, given the support of the Raukawa Trust Board and the history of active participation by my wider whŠnau in tribal hui and affairs. These were critical factors in terms of the relationships between researchers and research participants.
Further, the combination of the ethics approval process and the quality assurance process, both of which involved MŠori and non-MŠori input, provided a degree of confidence that comes with two separate objective assessments of the interview format.
However, the dilemma highlighted the importance of using appropriate methodology from the outset.
5. Acknowledging Contributions
All of the women who participated in the project made valuable contributions to the project. To recognise that contribution, the research team commissioned a MŠori woman artist[73] to provide ipu tŠonga (pottery vessels) as koha (gifts) to present to the research participants at the conclusion of the project, together with a brief summary of the general findings from the research. The intention to do this had been expressed in the Ethics Approval Process. The notion may well have raised the eyebrows of committee members grounded in Western university research principles. Proponents of such principles do not approve of “payment” for research participation. However, the rationale for presenting koha to research participants was to reiterate the importance of giving something back, of reciprocity, of personal contact and a long-term commitment to those participants and the project.
The publication of the Guide for Employers that was produced from the parent project fulfilled a desire[74] for the research to have created a positive and practical outcome for those who had been the subject of the research. One MŠori organisation who received a complimentary copy of the Guide commented that it was “wonderful to see this kaupapa in a useful form” and requested more copies for that organisation’s managers and separate trusts.
The presentation to the Board was made by way of an interactive workshop rather than simply a lecture on EEO. Presenters, then, were required to draw on knowledge of te reo MŠori and an ability to communicate interactively with a diverse range of participants.
To summarise, this project created positive and practical outcomes for MŠori women in the workplace. The conscious effort to engage principles that are commonly recognised as necessary for this type of kaupapa MŠori research provided a measure of protection for the researchers against certain dynamics that emerged during the journey of the research, which might otherwise have become culturally unsafe.
Increasingly, more iwi are shifting their focus from asset return to asset administration, bringing about a growing need to analyse the ways in which iwi assets and resources are being managed and the impact of management models within those entities on the status of MŠori women.
Throughout this article I have referred to “MŠori organisations” which, as mentioned earlier, refers to a special legal regime to conduct business for community or communal purposes; or that has some significant connection with communal purposes or interests.[75] Obvious examples include iwi authorities such as runanga and Trust Boards charged with managing resources owned by and to be used for the benefit of iwi or hapŸ. Other organisations that fall into this category include private companies registered under the Companies Act 1993 and charged with creating wealth for the benefit of iwi or hapŸ. As noted above, for the purposes of this article, the key determinant is an organisation’s capacity as an employer of MŠori.
This part of the article sets out some interesting points about employment policies and practices of MŠori organisations that emerged from the information gathered from those organisations surveyed. I also consider reasons why MŠori organisations ought to adopt EEO policies.
92% of the employees of MŠori organisations surveyed are MŠori, and 49.3% of employees of MŠori organisations surveyed are MŠori women.
Many of the MŠori organisations surveyed are grossly under-resourced. While the research project indicated that even the least affluent and smallest MŠori organisations are enthusiastic about EEO in theory, in practice it is an area that is neglected. One reason given is a lack of the resources of time and money to implement EEO. Survival is the priority.
In fact, very few of the MŠori organisations surveyed have formal employment policies in place that govern recruitment, staff development, or promotion. For example, recruitment tends to occur on a project-by-project basis, largely governed by funding requirements of various Crown Funding Agencies. Often “employees” are seconded from Crown agencies.
Do MŠori organisations see EEO as relevant to them? Do they have EEO policies? Most MŠori organisations that took part in the survey confirmed that EEO is both relevant and desirable to them. Yet, very few have an EEO policy in place. Of those that do not have formal policies, some expressed the hope that they provide equal opportunities regardless. (“Ko te tumanako kei roto i a tatou katoa”).
Some interesting points emerged from the responses to the question of whether EEO was relevant to MŠori organisations. The first relates to preference for beneficiaries in employment policy. Other points provide interesting justifications for MŠori organisations to adopt EEO policy.
There is a tendency for some MŠori organisations to provide preferential recruitment programmes for beneficiaries or iwi affiliates where applicants are similar in experience, skill and qualifications. Some cited Crown funding agency requirements as their justification for doing so.
Some MŠori organisations indicated a desire to have preferential policies but thought that this was against the law. Others did not want preferential policies simply because they thought that this was against the law. Yet New Zealand law does allow for the development of specific recruitment programmes for occupations where ‘“target groups” are under represented.[76]
Another interesting point to emerge from the responses relates to how MŠori organisations are perceived by their beneficiaries or key stakeholders. One organisation commented that:
EEO is more about being seen to do the right thing by our own people rather than a particular preoccupation with the notion that we are intrinsically sexist, ageist or homophobic. EEO is a process that assists us to maintain a level playing field and eliminate notions of nepotism and or distrust in ourselves.
The research disclosed a perception amongst MŠori that MŠori organisations, particularly iwi runanga and trust boards, lack consistent and fair employment procedures; and that there is too much opportunity for nepotism to occur. Having an EEO policy can provide certainty by giving clear and consistent guidelines to managers and others who might be involved in recruitment. This, in turn, provides some degree of protection for boards of trustees and directors. The issue of protection is important in this age of increased public scrutiny of MŠori organisations. MŠori organisations cannot afford exposure to risk. The recent spate of newspaper reports about the administration of the Waikato Raupatu Settlement proceeds (often referred to as “Tainui”) provides a dramatic example of this exposure to risk.[77]
4. Public Image – Competitive Edge
An issue that is related to how a MŠori organisation is perceived by its own beneficiaries or stakeholders is how clients perceive that organisation. For better or for worse, these organisations are now operating in a world of increasing competition.[78] The EEO Trust has tried to persuade private sector organisations to adopt EEO policies by emphasising that EEO can give them a competitive edge.
This has attracted a caution that by emphasising the language of “managing diversity”, the emphasis on business efficiencies may distract from the “fundamental commitment to the justice concerns of the EEO tradition”.[79] Nevertheless, it is more likely than not that prospective clients, particularly Crown agencies, would find a MŠori organisation that has EEO policy more attractive to work with as a business partner. This is significant, given that many MŠori organisations rely heavily on contracts with Crown agencies.
5. Staff Turnover
It is equally important that staff are more likely to be attracted to workplaces that provide EEO. MŠori organisations cannot afford to lose good staff members with the ensuing costs of staff turnover.
The jobs that women do in MŠori organisations reflect wider community trends relating to women and employment. For example, figures published in Panui by the Ministry of Women’s Affairs in August 1997 confirm that women work mainly in two industries. First, they are most likely to work in clerical and service jobs. Secondly, women are the “carers” in society. More women work in areas of community, social and personal services than in any other industry.
The responses of the MŠori organisations to questions about the jobs women do in those organisations reflect this wider trend. The chief executive officers, managers, directors of companies and trustees of trust boards are predominantly male. There are a few notable exceptions.
At the time that the information for the parent project was gathered, all but one of the MŠori organisations within the Tainui rohe that participated in the project were managed at CEO/General Manager level by a MŠori male. The exception was a kšhanga reo who had MŠori women as the two most senior employees.
Outside of Tainui, one of the organisations was (and is still currently) being managed at CEO level by a MŠori woman. Since that time, another organisation has employed a MŠori woman CEO.
At governance level, MŠori men dominated every MŠori organisation that participated in the project. Generally, no more than 20% of the trustees and company directors were women. The most common scenario was to have one or two women sitting on boards of 8-10 trustees or directors. One organisation exceeded the 20% ratio. Of its trustees, 3 were MŠori women.
Significantly more MŠori women reach the higher ranks of employment in the areas of social services, health and kšhanga reo.[80] Some organisations have emphasised the need for a better balance of women and men in order to be more effective in these fields. According to the MŠori organisations that participated, the main reason for the imbalance is that more women apply for positions in these areas.
On this point, one organisation summarised its position as follows:
It is fair to say that the employment of women and men varies relevant to industry. For example, in terms of our Parents As First Teachers programme we have 11 employees, all of whom are women. In terms of our Health interface, out of the 15 people managing and acting as clinicians in our Health unit, three are male. These three males include two doctors and one of the senior coordinators of our Health management group.
A kšhanga reo that responded to our survey offered the following reasons why MŠori women seem to dominate the higher positions within kšhanga reo generally:
[K]o te nuinga o nga hunga mahi Kšhanga Reo ko a tatou wahine. Ko ratou tonu te tuara i nga Kšhanga Reo. E toru nga whakaaro mo tenei take. 1. Pohehe te nuinga o tatou he mahi wahine tenei ara te tiaki kohungahunga. 2. Tukino tamariki. E mataku ana nga Kšhanga Reo pea te tuku mahi ki nga tane na tenei ahuatanga. Heoi ano me ki he uaua ake o nga tane te whai mahi i roto i te Kšhanga reo. 3. I tenei wa ko te tane tonu te mea whai moni ahakoa tokomaha hoki o ou tatou wahine e mahi ana. Na tenei ahuatanga ka kore hiahia i tenei mahi na te iti o te moni te hunga nei ka whiwhi.
My translation of this statement is as follows:
The majority of employees in Kšhanga Reo are our women. They are indeed the backbone of Kšhanga Reo. There are three possible explanations for this. 1. Many mistakenly think that caring for our young children is women’s work. 2. Abuse of children. It may be that Kšhanga Reo are scared to employ men because of the potential for abuse. In any event, it seems that it is more difficult for men to gain employment in Kšhanga Reo. 3. At this time it seems as though our men are still seeking better wages, even though many of our women are working. Because of this, many men do not wish to work in Kšhanga Reo due to the modest wages available.
A different organisation had similar comments to make about financial rewards in the context of social services. The manager of an iwi social services unit within a large MŠori organisation confirmed how difficult it is to compete with Government Departments that have the resources to attract and recruit suitably qualified staff. Then, it was noted that:
...it is very difficult to attract male employees primarily because generally men are not qualified in this area and/or will not or cannot afford to work for Iwi ...
The Guide to Employers that was produced from the parent project does not suggest token placements of MŠori women or MŠori. Rather, it advocates that MŠori organisations take the time consciously to scrutinise employment practices and seek ways to address the imbalance that exists in MŠori organisations regarding MŠori women.
To summarise, some MŠori organisations are so under-resourced that they are in survival mode. While they acknowledge that EEO for MŠori women is important, they have not seen it as a high priority. Many organisations do not have any formal employment policies and/or practices. And very few have an EEO policy in place. In other organisations, the key focus is profit making. EEO is not mandatory, and very few have EEO policies in place. As a result, the chief executive officers, managers, directors of companies, and trustees of trust boards are predominantly male. MŠori women continue to be channelled into the areas of clerical, service, and caregiving jobs.
In this final part I consider possible reasons why MŠori women are over represented in certain positions in MŠori organisations but do not feature as chief executive officers, managers, directors, and trustees. This includes a deliberation of the traits of some of the men who sit at the helm of these organisations.
Smaller, less affluent MŠori organisations, and/or those organisations that have as their primary focus the social advancement of iwi or beneficiaries, face many competing demands. While the parent project indicated that they are enthusiastic about EEO in theory, in reality it is an area that is not a high priority and is therefore neglected. The people in charge lament that they lack the resources of time and money to implement EEO. Survival is the priority. It is easy to understand and sympathise with this viewpoint. However, if MŠori organisations are truly committed to the well being of MŠori women, they must make EEO a priority.
In recent times iwi authorities have preferred to use the company structure for wealth creation. How are MŠori women placed in these organisations?
This article proposes that some of the problems that MŠori women are experiencing in relation to employment are a result of “corporate warriors”[81] mimicking an exploitative corporate culture.
An example of how an iwi organisation uses the corporate structure for wealth creation comes from the administration framework for the Waikato Raupatu Settlement proceeds. The tribe’s leaders face a cumbersome range of expectations: from providing educational grants, to negotiating with the Crown for the settlement of further claims under the Treaty of Waitangi, to managing complex commercial enterprises. As noted above, the Waikato administration has adopted a framework of trusts and other corporate bodies to administer assets from the Waikato Raupatu (land confiscation) settlement.[82] Separate companies have been established to manage the commercial aspects of the Waikato Administration Framework’s operations.
These companies are registered under the Companies Act 1993 and are commonly viewed as separate cells to create benefits for the tribe.[83] In most cases the company passes financial benefits on to a shareholding trust. The trust’s board of trustees, in turn, is concerned with the distribution of that wealth in a manner that is appropriate for the iwi. In other words, the commercial activities of the tribe are not an end in themselves but a means to an end - that is, the development and enhancement of our people socially, culturally, spiritually and financially.[84]
There is an expectation gap that exists between what some people perceive as appropriate corporate behaviour and what corporations actually do, and it has been argued that this is because corporations have abdicated their social responsibility.[85]
We have become a market driven society as a result of the past decade of Government policy that promotes strict profit maximisation. Advocates of pure neo-liberal economic theory argue that the only obligations corporations have are to make profits for their shareholders.
Margaret Wilson has argued that the repeal of the Employment Equity Act 1990 is an example of how the fundamental restructuring of New Zealand’s economic and social system has had the effect of reasserting the dominance of patriarchy on women.[86]
Recently, Jane Kelsey has analysed the consequences of this economic restructuring, and she argues that those hardest hit are those “that already had the least”.[87] Included, of course, are MŠori and women. Kelsey had this to say about the consequences for women:
Women’s economic role had traditionally been marginalised, as orthodox economics refused to recognise the productivity of unpaid household work, undervalued their participation in the paid workforce, took them for granted as community workers and volunteers, and penalised them for being dependent on men and/or the state.[88]
Further, Kelsey summarises that:
MŠori were the most marginal of the marginalised. Having been systematically stripped of the resources that guaranteed their economic, cultural and spiritual well-being, MŠori were reduced to an underclass in their own land.[89]
An expectation gap between what might be seen as appropriate corporate behaviour and actual corporate behaviour certainly exists in relation to MŠori companies that manage iwi or hapŸ assets. MŠori have extremely high expectations of their corporations. The assets are seen as either tŠonga tuku iho (treasures passed down from generations of ancestors - particularly in relation to land) or crucial for the benefit of unborn generations.[90]
The term corporate warrior has been adopted to describe the MŠori managers and directors (primarily male) who dominate the companies that manage iwi resources. The word warrior connotes a desire to retain a distinctive MŠori element about the way in which these companies operate. However, the prefacing word, corporate, marks the priority that these directors place on achieving efficiency and profitability as is required in the “real world” of the market place.[91]
A frightening notion is that these corporate warriors hide behind these corporate structures while they copy the exploitative behaviour of their non-MŠori counterparts.[92] As a consequence, women as well as the environment suffer. And these were aspects that were so celebrated in traditional MŠori society that they were said to be worth dying for, as evidenced by the following whakatauaki (saying).
He wahine, he whenua, e ngaro ai te tangata.
By women, by land, men are lost.
I have set out elsewhere a discussion of how a focus on profit making can be exploitative of the environment.[93] One example that I often use is that of a company established as a commercial entity to manage fishing quota allocated to an iwi under the national MŠori fisheries settlement (often referred to as the Sealords Deal). When exercising powers or performing duties, directors of the company must act in good faith and what the director believes to be in the “best interests of the company”.[94] The test is subjective, being based on what the director actually believes. In considering the interests of the company, it appears to be acceptable for the directors to look to the future of the company and the interests of future shareholders. The company may therefore carry out acts which have no short-term benefit for the company but which will be to its benefit in the long term.[95] Nevertheless, in my experience, directors seem to judge that acting in the best interests of the company means acting in the best commercial interests of the company.[96]
A local hapŸ on the shores of a Harbour complains of a decrease in the availability of kaimoana (seafood) that they traditionally gather. The hapŸ believes that the decrease is caused by an increased presence of commercial fishing vessels in the Harbour. The company’s cashflow has been low for the past few months and the company really needs the vessels in the Harbour to bring in good catches. The local hapŸ has requested that the company respect a rahui[97] in the harbour. What should the director do, be the director MŠori or PŠkehŠ? To insist on fishing in the name of the best commercial interests of the company would be an illustration of how a focus on profit maximisation conflicts with the concept of kaitiakitanga, a core value of guardianship of natural and physical resources in our environment.[98]
I use this example to illustrate how MŠori men mimic the behaviours of those who have been criticised by MŠori as oppressive. A further example of this comes from the widespread criticism of MŠori negotiators following major Treaty of Waitangi Settlements.
Sir Tipene O’Regan and the late Sir Robert Mahuta were both involved in the settlement negotiations of their respective iwi, Ngai Tahu and Waikato, as well as the negotiations relating to the “Sealords Deal” ,the settlement of the commercial Treaty fishing rights for all MŠori (even those who did not sign). Nan Seuffert has traced the one-sided, oppressive and corporate nature of these state-initiated settlement “deals”, and argues that the state has contributed to the construction of the likes of Mahuta and O’Regan as “corporate players in the global marketplace”.[99]
Conveniently, Seuffert summarises the criticism levelled at Mahuta and O’Regan,[100] citing references to them as being “middle-aged, media addicted men ... [with a] tendency ... to mimic the behaviours of government that have been roundly criticised by MŠori”.[101] They have also been tagged as the “Business Brown Table” as a reflection of the Business Round Table.[102] Seuffert goes further to suggest that the knighting of both O’Regan and Mahuta are signals of their acceptance by the dominant culture.[103] A series of recent newspaper articles indicate that a similar kind of criticism has been directed at the men who have been in powerful management and governance positions within the Waikato Administration Framework.[104]
While many of these criticisms have come from MŠori women, it is interesting to note a theme that emerged from the interviews with kuia and pakeke. Discussions of the behaviour of these corporate warriors were not characterised by anger. Rather, our kuia and pakeke felt aroha or compassion for MŠori men. One pakeke stated:
I think there are some issues with our MŠori men. There are men who hold views, they have been colonised more so than our MŠori women, and I think it’s because they’ve been exposed in that whole employment area for much longer than we have. We have tended to look after our marae, being able to nurture and maintain more strongly our MŠoriness, ... that’s not to put men down, but I think that historically, they have been badly colonised, and have had some really bad role models ...
The theme was so prominent that Pania Papa, the researcher who interviewed the kuia and pakeke, composed a song that reflected this aroha of MŠori women for MŠori men.[105] An excerpt from the song is as follows:
Ka pupu ake te aroha,
kua memeha to mauri ora
Tu ake ra koe me to mana,
he mana rangatira!
Compassion overwhelms me
when I think of how much you have
carried through the years
It is time now to stand with pride
It is indeed a chiefly pride
It is fair to say that many of the younger women interviewed were somewhat less patient. One interviewee stressed the need for more transparent processes in MŠori organisations. She noted that if she had to work again in a MŠori organisation (which she was reluctant to do) she would be less polite. She would not take as much cognisance of “cultural games” played in the name of “tikanga and kawa for no other reason than personal agendas and gains”.
On the other hand, it is interesting to note that some of the interviewees wondered whether, in fact, many MŠori were well aware of the abilities of MŠori women. It was posited by participants that perhaps some MŠori men exclude powerful MŠori women from the workplace because they feel threatened by having to compete with them.
One possible explanation why indigenous peoples generally (including MŠori women and men) internalise oppressive values, comes from the seminal work of Paulo Freire. He theorises about how the oppressed individuals and peoples of the world might struggle for their liberation from those that “oppress, exploit and rape by virtue of their power”.[106] He argues that the oppressed internalise the image of the oppressor and adopt his guidelines. The oppressed are caught in a contradiction “in which to be is to be like, and to be like is to be like the oppressor”.[107] Freire argues further that the oppressed tend themselves to become oppressors, or “sub-oppressors”. Thus, liberation can only come once the oppressed discover themselves to be the “hosts” of the oppressor, and then determine to exorcise themselves of oppressive values and behaviour.[108]
I hasten to add that I do not aim to (and cannot) oversimplify Freire’s complex theories in a few short excerpts. I have drawn out some brief references in an attempt to illustrate how Freire’s theories might be applied to the plight of MŠori (the oppressed) striving for liberation from the oppressive coloniser. That the process of colonisation in this country has been oppressive for MŠori, must surely be beyond doubt.[109]
Using Freire’s analysis, it could be said that some MŠori men, in particular, the corporate warriors, have become like the oppressive coloniser. In this article I have attempted to demonstrate that the internalising of views about speaking on the marae, the narrow application of the merit principle, and the practice of hiring people in their own image, are examples of this type of behaviour that has been detrimental to MŠori women.
I noted above that research revealed evidence that supports the contention that MŠori women seem to lack confidence in their own ability. Freire argues that, at a certain point,
‘self-depreciation’ is another characteristic of the oppressed, which derives from their internalisation of the opinion the oppressors hold of them. So often do they hear that they are good for nothing, know nothing and are incapable of learning anything ... that in the end they become convinced of their own unfitness.[110]
Further, at some point the situation of oppression changes. The oppressed seek to prove to the oppressor that they do have the capability, and consequently, they become exploited![111]
In the context of MŠori organisations, some MŠori males have adopted the values of the colonial oppressor that disparage the abilities of women generally. Applying Freire’s analysis to the subject of this article, if MŠori women are continuously led to believe that they cannot do a job as effectively as a man, at some point they become convinced that it is true. To the extent that MŠori men propound such views, they are at least partially responsible for both the lack of confidence that some MŠori women have in themselves, and the exploitation of others.
It is difficult to determine the extent to which MŠori men contribute to women’s lack of faith in themselves in the context of MŠori organisations. When asked why there appeared to be a lack of women in the most senior positions within MŠori organisations, those who responded on behalf of MŠori organisations cited the lack of appropriate qualifications, and therefore lack of merit, as the reason.
For example, one organisation made the following statement:
We have had senior female management CEO positions. Unfortunately although they were given the opportunity their qualifications and management skills and human relations ability caused their stay to be rather short.
Another organisation commented that:
The nature of our work activity requires specific work skills that are in short supply currently at the level necessary to function in our business.
Admirably, the MŠori organisation that offered the latter response also advised that it had commenced a “cadetship” programme with university graduates. The programme aims to provide a nursery to start graduates out in the “real world” by assisting in “developing the capability to be employed as senior specialists in finance and marketing and in the specific industry knowledge and skill”. At the time of information gathering, all participants in the cadetship were male.
One organisation expressed its views about the importance of merit in the following terms:
[W]ith respect, it does not really matter how much flesh one has hanging off one’s chest or the end of one’s tummy. What it comes down to really is merit and performance. It does not come down to who you are related to, how well you are related to them or how superior their whakapapa is. Our [organisation] will rise and fall on merit and merit alone.
These responses illustrate the way in which MŠori organisations have endorsed the “merit” principle and the underlying assumption that MŠori women do not move up the occupational hierarchy because they lack the necessary skills and capability. I have argued earlier that such strict application of the merit principle poses significant problems for MŠori women.[112]
I have discussed above the finding that many MŠori women tend to undervalue their potential for certain jobs. However, it must be said that there were many women who felt quite confident of their ability to lead and or manage MŠori organisations. Nevertheless, it was the view of one research participant that, while she was more than capable of being the chairperson of the board of trustees, or the CEO, she also felt that it would be more acceptable to the outside world if such positions were held by men.
A different dilemma affects MŠori women who have reached the highest echelons within MŠori organisations. It is interesting to note that some of the interview participants, both rangatahi and pakeke, wondered whether, in fact, many MŠori men were well aware of the abilities of MŠori women. It was posited that perhaps some MŠori men exclude powerful MŠori women from the workplace because they feel threatened by having to compete with them.
In early 1999, when the last few interviews were being conducted, Pam Corkery announced publicly that she was leaving Parliament because it was “not a nice place to be”.[113] At the time of that announcement, I could not help but see an analogy between these women and MŠori women who had, at some time, held CEO/General Manager or other senior positions within MŠori organisations, and who had contributed to the parent project.
These MŠori women told of the “power games” that were often played by some of the men involved at governance level, and often felt that the “culture” of the organisation was not supportive of them as women. This was particularly the case when a senior female disagreed with or contradicted a senior male trustee, director or chairperson. For example, one participant recalls a hui being relocated to a marae in order to prevent her from being able to speak, and on another occasion being told that she had not been “brought up properly” when she contradicted the view of the chairperson. These were not isolated incidents; there are other examples that have not been recounted in the interests of anonymity.
This is perhaps another reason why we see so few MŠori women at the head of MŠori organisations. It is not because they are incapable, but because some feel that they can make better use of their capabilities, and/or that their capabilities may be valued more in other places. There seems to be a general perception that the accountability demands of working for iwi make life difficult for all employees of MŠori organisations. However, for all of the reasons set out above, I submit that the climate within MŠori organisations is more oppressive for MŠori women than for MŠori men.
To summarise, one reason for the lack of MŠori women in the most senior management and governance positions in MŠori organisations is that those in charge have embraced the ideology of market driven economics and are mimicking a culture that continues to exploit, and in particular exploits MŠori women. Such behaviour is uncharacteristic of a more authentic MŠori culture that celebrated the role of women.
Much more work needs to be done in order to create more positive possibilities for MŠori women in the workplace. Though EEO is not mandatory for MŠori organisations, it would be beneficial for women, not least MŠori women, if employment equity were prioritised by statute.
In the meantime, however, there are mechanisms within the legislative framework of EEO, including rights to adopt “measures to ensure equality”. These mechanisms must be interpreted broadly and promoted in the community in order to ensure employment equity for MŠori women. If they are not, the statistics relating to MŠori women’s participation in the labour force, when compared with others in this country, will continue to be appalling.
The parent project has shown that MŠori organisations do recognise the merits of EEO programmes. However, there has been little appreciation that the principles that underlie EEO complement certain whakaaro and tikanga MŠori. Also, many MŠori organisations have not been aware of and accordingly have not taken advantage of the economic benefits that EEO can bring to an organisation.
The plight of MŠori women is unique. They face a two-fold disadvantage when competing in the paid workforce. This article contends that EEO can be used as a tool to mitigate this disadvantage.
This article also links the lack of employment equity for MŠori women in MŠori organisations with the effects of colonisation upon the traditional roles of MŠori women. It also seeks to dispel some incorrect assumptions about the roles of MŠori women today and how such assumptions have unnecessarily precluded women from contributing to MŠori organisations.
Many MŠori organisations are under-resourced and struggling to survive, and so do not prioritise EEO. Others are headed by “corporate warriors” who seem to model behavioural traits of an exploitative corporate culture. I acknowledge that these people must balance finely their traditional (reconstructed or otherwise) obligations with the more modern pressures of the market. In the end, this article does not suggest token placement of MŠori women or MŠori. Rather, it advocates that the people in charge of our MŠori organisations, and they are predominantly MŠori men, must scrutinise the management models and employment practices that they are choosing to adopt. They must design and implement strategies to address the employment inequities that continue to disaffect MŠori women in MŠori organisations.
[*] Lecturer in Law, University of Waikato.
[1] Equal Employment Opportunities.
[2] A charitable trust established in 1987 primarily to promote and develop the social and economic advancement of the Trust’s beneficiaries, the descendants of the Raukawa iwi (tribe). The Trust operates from its offices in Tokoroa. Raukawa is affiliated to the Tainui waka confederation and is closely associated with many iwi through the Kingitanga (King movement).
[3] A fund established upon the repeal of the Employment Equity Act. The fund is intended to help with the promotion of business benefits of equal employment opportunities to employers throughout New Zealand.
[4] The Tainui rohe (tribal region) is situated in the central North Island, according to the following tribal saying: Mokau ki runga, Tamaki ki raro, Mangatoatoa ki waenganui, Ko Pare Hauraki, Ko Pare Waikato. Mokau is the southern boundary, Tamaki the northern boundary. Mangatoatoa is in the centre, and Pare Hauraki and Pare Waikato are eastern and western landmarks.
[5] Te Aho, L A Guide for Employers on: Equal Employment Opportunities (EEO) for MŠori Women in MŠori Organisations (July 1999).
[6] The writer was involved in the project as a coordinator and researcher.
[7] Wilson, “Equal Pay and Equal Employment Opportunities 1972 – 1997: where to from here?” Closing the Gap: Proceedings of the Forum on Equal Pay (1997) 5.
[8] Wilson, M Towards Employment Equity: Report of the Working Group on Equal Employment Opportunities and Equal Pay (1988) 9-10.
[9] Ibid, 9.
[10] See the discussion in Part VI below.
[11] State Sector Act 1988, ss 56, 58 and 60.
[12] State Owned Enterprises Act 1986, s 4.
[13] Section 4(2).
[14] Section 4(2)(b) and (c).
[15] See infra note 26 and associated discussion.
[16] McGregor, “Breaching the Convention: New Zealand’s International Obligations” in Sayers, J and Tremaine M (eds) The Vision and the Reality (1994) 28.
[17] Wilson, supra note 8, at 10.
[18] Wilson, “The Inaugural Women’s Law Lecture” in Women’s Law Conference Papers (1993) 317-318.
[19] Knowles, “Women and Work”, paper presented at the conference Women at Work: Issues for the 1990s, seminar, held at Victoria University, Wellington, 1993, cited by Briar, “Tracing the Patterns: The Development of EEO Policies in New Zealand and Overseas” in Sayer and Tremaine, supra note 16, at 31.
[20] Human Rights Commission, “Affirmative Action for Women in Employment” (1987), paper submitted to the Royal Commission on Social Policy, cited in Briar, ibid, 32.
[21] Skiffington, “In Search of Employment Equity” [1998] Employment Law Bulletin 26.
[22] Briar, supra note 19, at 32-33.
[23] Narraway and Rani, “Implementing Equal Employment Opportunities (EEO) Policy in the Workplace” Women’s Law Conference Papers (1993) 89,93.
[24] Briar, supra note 19, 33-36.
[25] Ibid, 36-40.
[26] Amaltal Fishing Company Ltd v Nelson Polytechnic [1996] NZCRT 1; [1996] NZAR 97.
[27] Ibid, 115.
[28] Ibid.
[29] See Part VI for an example of this.
[30] Skiffington, supra note 21.
[31] Songs, sayings and proverbs are often essential records of the oral tradition of the indigenous MŠori of New Zealand. See Smith, “MŠori Women Discourses, Projects and Mana WŠhine” in Middleton, S and James, A (eds) Women and Education in Aotearoa (1992) 35; Sykes, A “How are MŠori Women doing 100 Years Later?” Women’s Law Conference (1993) 161-162; and Jahnke, “MŠori Women in Education” in Te Whaiti, P, McCarthy, M and Durie, A (eds) Mai i Rangiatea: MŠori Wellbeing and Development (1997).
[32] Mikaere, A “The Balance Destroyed: The Consequences for MŠori Women of the Colonisation of tikanga MŠori”(unpublished thesis, University of Waikato, 1995); and Barlow, C Tikanga Whakaaro: Key Concepts in MŠori Culture (1991) 148-9.
[33] Hohepa, P and Williams, D “The Taking into Account of Te Ao MŠori in Relation to Reform of the Law of Succession” (A Working Paper) (1996) 29-30.
[34] Ibid.
[35] For more examples, see Law Commission Justice: The Experiences of MŠori Women Report 53 (1999) chapter 2.
[36] Whaikšrero, or rehearsed speeches performed during ceremonies, often contain important records of history and tradition.
[37] MŠori Women’s Welfare League, Equal Employment Opportunities (EEO) Project (1997) 10-11.
[38] Irwin, “Towards Theories of MŠori Feminisms” in Du Plessis, R (ed) Feminist Voices (1992) 18.
[39] Mikaere, “Colonisation and the Imposition of Patriarchy: A Ngati Raukawa woman’s perspective” (1999) 1 Te Ukaipo 34, 47.
[40] Ibid.
[41] Mikaere and Milroy, “MŠori Women and the Health System” in Women’s Law Conference Papers (1993) 263, 265.
[42] Ibid.
[43] Ibid.
[44] Brewer, “Theorizing Race, Class and Gender – The new scholarship of Black feminist intellectuals and Black women’s labor” in James, SM and Busia, APA (eds) Theorizing Black Feminisms (1993) 13.
[45] Ibid, 18.
[46] Ibid.
[47] See infra note 110 and associated discussion of possible reasons for this lack of confidence.
[48] MŠori Women’s Welfare League, supra note 37.
[49] Waitangi Tribunal Muriwhenua Land Report (Wai 45, 1997) 21.
[50] Rangihau, “Being MŠori”, in Te Ao Hurihuri Aspects of MŠoritanga, 190; and Stokes, E “MŠori Research and Development A Discussion Paper”, prepared for the Social Sciences Committee of the National Research Advisory Council (1985) 9.
[51] Mikaere, supra note 32, at 4. Mikaere emphasises the importance of developing theories and tools of development from an “own culture” perspective.
[52] Waitangi Tribunal, Muriwhenua Land Report (Wai 45, 1997) 21.
[53] Justice Durie, presentation at Te Hunga Roia MŠori 1999, based on his discussion with Sir Monita Delamere, kaumatua.
[54] See eg Doherty, J “EEO – The MŠori Perspective” in Sayers and Tremaine, supra note 16, at 257, and Tremaine, “Different Ways of making a Difference: EEO MŠori and Tino Rangatiratanga in Public Sector Organisations” in Sayers and Tremaine, ibid, 72.
[55] See supra, Part V.
[56] Milroy, “MŠori Women and Domestic Violence: the Methodology of Research and the MŠori Perspective” (1996) 4:1 Waikato Law Review 58, 60; Smith, L Decolonising Methodologies, Research and Indigenous Peoples (1999); and Te Awekotuku, N He Tikanga Whakaaro: Research Ethics in the MŠori Community: A Discussion Paper (1991).
[57] Smith, ibid, 184, citing Irwin, “MŠori Research Methods and Practices’, in (Autumn) 28 Sites 27.
[58] See Milroy, supra note 56, at 61.
[59] Ibid, 63.
[60] Ibid, 61; and see also Smith, supra note 56, at 191.
[61] An adaptation of a description of a MŠori economy in Mfodwo, K The Political Economy of Treaty of Waitangi Settlements: Aspects of Policy Issues and Research Agenda (1996) 29-30.
[62] This Act is currently being reviewed.
[63] See Part VIII below for a fuller discussion.
[64] Only one organisation that was invited to participate did not return a completed questionnaire.
[65] Dramatic illustrations of such scrutiny include the inquiry into Aotearoa Television Network in 1996. Other examples are the inquiry into the operations of the now dissolved Tainui MŠori Trust Board following a series of National Business Review articles; and, most recently, the media foray regarding the reported financial woes regarding the administration of the Waikato Raupatu Settlement Assets.
[66] Royal, C Te Haurapa: An Introduction to Researching Tribal Histories and Traditions (1992) and Smith, supra note 56, at 183-193.
[67] WŠhine rangatahi refers to younger women. In our interviews we classified women between the ages of 20 and 40 as wŠhine rangatahi. WŠhine pakeke refers to more mature women, and kuia are elderly women. We classified wŠhine pakeke and kuia to be those over the age of 40.
[68] Pania Papa, also of Raukawa and Waikato descent, conducted these interviews.
[69] 22 women had been approached initially. Only one declined to participate. Difficulties in scheduling mutually suitable times prevented the other interviews from taking place.
[70] Waikato Raupatu Settlement Act 1995, s 28.
[71] Te Kauhanganui had its first meeting in August 1999. It is made up of 183 members being 3 members elected from each of the 61 beneficiary marae of the Waikato Raupatu Settlement. A management committee of 12 has been appointed whose functions seem to be similar to those of the outgoing Board.
[72] This aspect of the research project became the subject of a paper “The Dilemmas of Conducting Research that Challenges Accepted Practices and Perspectives of a Tribal Administration System” that the writer presented at the Feminist Law Conference, Sydney, February 1999.
[73] Rahera Porou of Ngati Porou and Ngati Ranginui.
[74] Both for the writer and for the interview participants.
[75] Supra note 61 and associated discussion.
[76] Supra, Part II.
[77] See eg Waikato Times, 29 and 31 January and 9 February 2000, and The Dominion, 18 January 2000.
[78] See below for a discussion of how this has disaffected MŠori and particularly MŠori women.
[79] Humphries, M EEO and the ‘Management of Diversity’ A Cautionary Tale (1997).
[80] A kšhanga reo (language nest) is a preschool centre that focuses on reinforcing the use of MŠori language.
[81] See below for an explanation of the meaning of this term.
[82] I will refer to this as the Waikato Administration Framework.
[83] This was the view espoused by the late Sir Robert Mahuta in “Inside Story”, Waikato Times, 20 May 1997.
[84] Parata, R “Priorities for MŠori Development: MŠori Investments for the Future” (paper Delivered at Te Hui Whakapumau: MŠori Development Conference at Massey University, 1994) 4-5.
[85] Corcoran, “The Corporation as Citizen and as Government: Social Responsibility and Corporate Morality” (1997) 2:1 FJLR 53.
[86] Wilson, supra note 18.
[87] Kelsey, J The New Zealand Experiment (1997) 271.
[88] Ibid, 285.
[89] Ibid, 283.
[90] See eg Waikato Times, 29 January 2000, page 6.
[91] Seuffert, N “Treaty of Waitangi Settlements and Globalisation in New Zealand: Colonisation’s next wave” (unpublished draft article); Te Aho, W and L “Corporate Management of Natural Resources. Legal Issues and Practical Realities Regarding Corporate Management of Natural Resources and the Impact on Indigenous Beliefs and Values” in Legal Developments in the Pacific Island Region (proceedings of the 3rd Annual Conference, 2000,)166.
[92] Te Aho, ibid, 169-171.
[93] Ibid.
[94] Companies Act 1993, s 131.
[95] Watson, et al The Law of Business Organisations () para 12.01.
[96] See Corcoran, supra note 85.
[97] A suspension of fishing for a specified period of time, usually to allow for rejuvenation of a species.
[98] The concept of kaitiakitanga has been enshrined in the Resource Management Act 1991, ss 2 and 7(a).
[99] Seuffert, supra note 91.
[100] Ibid, 14.
[101] Parata, H, “Te Roopu WŠhine MŠori Toko I te Ora”, Speech to MŠori Women’s Welfare League, National Conference (Ikaroa, 8-12 May 1994) cited in Seuffert, ibid.
[102] Seuffert, supra note 91.
[103] Ibid.
[104] Supra note 77.
[105] Pania Papa is the tutor and leader of Rangimarie, the cultural group who performed this song at the recent Aotearoa MŠori Traditional Performing Arts Festival at Turangawaewae, February 2000.
[106] Freire, P Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1997) 26.
[107] Ibid.
[108] Ibid, 30.
[109] See Seuffert, “Colonising Concepts of the Good Citizen, Law’s Deceptions, and the Treaty of Waitangi” in (1998) 4:2 Law Text and Culture 69-104. See also Mead, “Decolonisation and identity: The bridge to Unite or Divide women, Women and Leadership Power and Practise”. Mead argues that the process of colonisation continues to be oppressive.
[110] Freire, supra note 106, at 46.
[111] Ibid.
[112] Supra note 22 and associated discussion.
[113] Corkery was one of the three high profile women who opted to leave Parliament, the others being Christine Fletcher and Deborah Morris.
NZLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/journals/WkoLawRw/2001/8.html