Tangata Whenua accountability to Tangata Whenua Rangatiratanga Kāwanatanga Tangata Whenua 1 Tangata Whenua Organisations led and controlled by Tangata Whenua require clear accountability mechanisms for their own people. This can be understood by different levels of accountability and in relation to both collective and individual accountabilities. For example, some iwi groups may have a range of accountabilities to Māori organisations, community groups, hapū, whānau, marae, hāhi and others. Accountability processes may include wānanga, hui ā-whānau, hui ā-hapū and hui ā-iwi. Unless the structure of the iwi entity limits direct whānau, hapū and iwi accountability relationships, such as a trust, we understand that tikanga Māori will be applied at the whānau level initially and be applied at each level as the context requires. Even with the legal structure of a trust in place, the tikanga Māori accountability relationship tends to prevail. Accountability and its relevant context are discussed and agreed by whānau/hapū members at the marae level in Te Ao Māori. The context consideration may relate to a broader scale such as at iwi or national level, but the strength of maraelevel accountability is that response and the need for modification is observed and conveyed rather than being siloed and addressed when perceived issues occur. In seeking to achieve change and better outcomes through strengthening accountability, a relevant factor is the contrast between independent and individual action and responsibility, as is the basis of the Westminster system of laws, and collective responsibility, which is at the heart of Te Ao Māori. The collective approach takes place in a forum where the collective (whānau, marae, hapū and more broadly iwi) have considered the context of a situation and therefore what are appropriate obligations and responsibilities and where they lie and then work as a collective to ensure that this is understood, respected and implemented. The accountability process that operates and has operated in Te Ao Māori has been discussed. How this applies in practice at whānau, marae, hapū and iwi level can be complex and is becoming more complex as a variety of entities that may have been created through Kāwana processes are also taken into consideration (Figure 3). An example is iwi trusts set up as the result of settlement agreements or for specific purposes. The settlements needed to be negotiated by an iwi, as a Kāwana requirement, but Te Ao Māori accountability mechanism operates from a marae/ hapū level. From the point of view of one iwi/hapū as an example, an iwi structure that was resolved because of a Treaty settlement has been mandated through tauiwi law, and the structure is ‘not quite right’. 23