An investigation into the aspirations, governance and management challenges of Māori farming trusts

Abstract

This article investigates areas for possible improvement in the governance and management of large New Zealand Māori dairy farm businesses. Building on the innovative practices of their tūpuna (ancestors), Māori are defining their own aspirations, realities and goals in the dairy farming world and their accompanying challenges, as expressed by individuals and collectives currently engaged in Māori dairy farm businesses. The Māori way of doing business is described in this study as having a 'quadruple bottom line' of profit, people, environment and community business objectives. Māori are genuine leaders of dairy farm environmental management, due in part to their attitudes to land ownership, business values and holistic world views. The top tier of Māori farming trusts comprises fast growing enterprises, which are rapidly improving business performance. The expertise and governance of large corporate farms have much to offer other farming businesses.

Māori agribusinesses: the whakapapa network for success

“…The two legal constraints examined are the Māori Land Court (MLC) and the Te Ture Whenua Māori Act (TTWMA). There is widespread criticism of the TTWMA and MLC in the literature (MPI, 2014; Office of the Auditor General (OAG), 2004; Phillips et al, 2014; Reid, 2011; Te Puni Kokiri (TPK), 2014). The MLC has been around in various iterations since the mid-19th century.…”

“…However, critics note that it has not done enough to prevent continuing shareholder fragmentation, has lowered the value of Māori land, made access to finance difficult, and created inflexible governance structures (Bennion, 2013; Hitchcock, 2008; New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER), 2003; Waitangi Tribunal (WT), 2016). Likewise, the MLC has been criticised for having too much control over the governance of MALITs, of taking too long to make decisions, and of lacking the necessary skills and knowledge to make decisions, particularly relating to farming operations (MPI, 2014; Phillips et al, 2014; WT, 2016).…”

“…Problems regarding MALIT capability are a key theme in the literature (Hitchcock, 2008; Kingi, 2008; MPI, 2014; OAG, 2004; Phillips et al, 2014; Reid, 2011; TPK, 2014). MALITs have more complex, larger governance structures than comparable non-Māori land (Kingi, 2013) and many boards are identified as lacking the skills and knowledge needed to govern (OAG, 2004; Phillips et al, 2014; Reid, 2011). Board members are often elected due to their standing among shareholders rather than because they have any particular business or farming experience (Kingi, 2008).…”

“…Board members are often elected due to their standing among shareholders rather than because they have any particular business or farming experience (Kingi, 2008). Consequently, boards have been criticised as being too reliant on external consultants or, conversely, relying too heavily on their own inadequate capabilities (Phillips et al, 2014). That said, Kingi (2013, p. 1898) did note that while framed negatively, the “multiple layers of decision-making within these entities that require input from expert consultants, thus providing reporting and monitoring disciplines not often found in typical family farms” could be considered an advantage.…”

“…That said, Kingi (2013, p. 1898) did note that while framed negatively, the “multiple layers of decision-making within these entities that require input from expert consultants, thus providing reporting and monitoring disciplines not often found in typical family farms” could be considered an advantage. Sourcing skilled and willing shareholders to work on the farms is also identified as an issue in the literature (Keeys, 2015; Phillips et al, 2014).…”