International models of indigenous accountability Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Anindilyakwa Land Council The Anindilyakwa Land Council is a case study example identified by the Australian Indigenous Governance Institute (AIGI), which outlines accountability with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. For instance, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander leaders sitting on governing bodies are accountable in many ways to their families, communities or nation, kin-based networks and laws, elders, senior men or women, managers, staff and members, funding bodies and business partners. These lines or horizontal and vertical accountabilities draw similar parallels to Māori organisations’ obligations and responsibilities, which we can learn from our tuakana with regards to accountability and tikanga. The AIGI states: “‘the meaning of accountability differs so much between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and non-Indigenous people, the governing bodies of Indigenous Culture, Laws, Rules and Forms of Accountability organisations have to carefully balance their own modes of accountability and values with those of funding bodies and other stakeholders.”102 There are many learnings we can draw from, especially in Te Tiriti context. For example, as aforementioned, Indigenous ideas about what accountability means can be very different to those of mainstream governments. In this case, AIGI describes Indigenous accountability as looking after their people, demand sharing and working for their people, whereas government accountability is grant reporting, service delivery and financial compliance. These two aspects of Indigenous and government accountability (Figure 5) can be viewed in the Aotearoa context through the rangatiratanga and Kāwanatanga spheres. Indigenous Organisations Non-Indigenous Culture, Laws, Rules and Forms of Accountability Figure 5. The two-way accountability of Indigenous organisations.103 42 Te Kāhui Tika Tangata New Zealand Human Rights Commission Housing Inquiry