Te Tiriti o Waitangi is critical to strengthening accountability and participation in the housing sector. According to the Waitangi Tribunal, all Treaty partners are of equal status, and there needs to be accountability and compromise in the relationship.18 The concept of accountability can be interpreted in various ways – for example, the Crown accountability to Māori or Māori accountability to Māori or even Māori accountability to the Crown. Within the current housing institutional context, there is a deficit of accountability mechanisms. The only independent accountability mechanism for Māori to hold the Crown to account is through the Waitangi Tribunal in the WAI 2750 Housing Policy and Services Inquiry, which is currently under way. This is a kaupapa inquiry that will hear claims and grievances brought on behalf of many whānau, marae, iwi and hapū across Aotearoa concerning housing policy and services. There are four key themes that guide the Inquiry: • Housing policy, practice, and regulation of the housing market. • Social housing – the provision of public housing by the government (central and/or local). • Use and development of Māori land for housing. • The relationship between poor physical and mental health (and other socio-economic factors) and housing.19 14 For this discussion paper, we specifically aim to gain a better understanding of Māori accountability to Māori at local, regional, and national levels and explore the potential for institutional arrangements of accountability for the housing sector. We explore different models of accountability systems with a particular focus on Tangata Whenua. In Figure 2, model one identifies Tangata Whenua (Māori) accountabilities to the Kāwana (Crown), model two identifies the Kāwana accountabilities to Tangata Whenua, model three identifies Tangata Whenua accountabilities to Tangata Whenua, model four identifies Kāwana accountabilities to Tangata Tiriti (non-Māori) and model five identifies the accountabilities of Tangata Whenua and Tangata Tiriti to each other. We are particularly interested in the tino rangatiratanga sphere and exploring what accountability means to Tangata Whenua. The models were developed by the authors, except that of Matike Mai Aotearoa as noted, and aim to explain and demonstrate the accountability levels and spheres. The sources of the models are based on research from small case studies provided in conjunction with more detailed analysis of the accountability relationships. In our models Te Ao Māori sphere is shown as black while the Kāwana sphere is in red. Te Kāhui Tika Tangata New Zealand Human Rights Commission Housing Inquiry