This discussion paper commenced with the role of Te Kāhui Tika Tangata Human Rights Commission and its inquiry into strengthening accountability and participation in the housing sector and, in doing so, seeking a better understanding of what accountability means in Te Ao Māori. The central place of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its interpretation in the housing sector in legislation, plans, strategy, and policies are recognised. Te Tiriti and accountability discussions draw attention to accountability of Māori to Māori within the rangatiratanga sphere. The mechanism that may best operate in the relational sphere between the Kāwanatanga and Rangatiratanga is not addressed in any detail to tease out the deficit of accountability in the housing sector and institutional arrangements. This is an area where further thinking and discussion is recommended. Tikanga Māori as an integrated and long-term collective accountability system for Māori to Māori is elaborated as effective accountability. Models diagram the various accountabilities with examples that illustrate the models. Tino rangatiratanga is highlighted as the outcome expected and sought by Māori. The recent example of the new Māori Health Authority and accountability structures are considered as the basis for developing options and their strengths and weaknesses with respect to effective accountability for the Māori housing sector noted. A mechanism for addressing accountability that has been used at the regional level is that of Treaty audits of local government compliance with Te Tiriti responsibilities. This mechanism is an opportunity to consider on a short-term basis for the Kāwana to undertake for the housing sector in anticipation that an effective Māori housing entity 52 managed by and for Māori is the goal. It would provide helpful information as preparation for change. Although the Office of the Auditor-General already has an audit function for the Kāwana, its role is restricted to policy implementation and does not appear to have been undertaken for housing using the text of Te Tiriti, including tino rangatiratanga, as its yardstick. Such an audit system would enable exploration of the gaps in the housing structure, funding and supply and comparative response for Māori and Pākehā. It could identify what strategies and policies are currently enabling accountability, which in turn might be replicated and adopted by a new entity, and where performance requires correction. However, the Kāwana has not been able to demonstrate over the last 30 years (at least) effective or constructive accountability to Māori for decent housing, and the situation has been steadily worsening. A separate independent Māori housing entity demonstrating rangatiratanga through this role could start to address the dire deficit in funding and performance before the problem gets beyond the abilities of the Kāwana. Housing with appropriate funding, planning and construction training and a rapid increase in sector capability at all levels that is led and managed by Māori for Māori would be an appropriate Tiriti response as well as enable a response to wairuatanga as is addressed in Article 4. There are several options for such an outcome, discussed below. We note our finding that, with increasing autonomy, public scrutiny of responsibility and accountability is likely to increase but that this could enhance rather than diminish performance. We explore the following models and institutional arrangements for further discussion. Te Kāhui Tika Tangata New Zealand Human Rights Commission Housing Inquiry