Copyright is owned by the Author of the thesis.  Permission is given for 
a copy to be downloaded by an individual for the purpose of research and 
private study only.  The thesis may not be reproduced elsewhere without 
the permission of the Author. 
 



 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Design and operation of  
post-settlement governance entities 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A thesis presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the 
degree of  

 
Master of Business Studies  

in Management 
 
 
 
 
 

Massey University 
Manawatū, New Zealand 

 
 

Miriama Jordan Cribb 
 
 

2020 
 
 

 
 
 



 
 

ii 

Abstract 
 
Post-settlement governance entities (PSGEs) are an outcome of the Treaty of 
Waitangi settlement process. Their main role is to hold, manage and be 
responsible for the collective assets received on behalf of the claimant group, 
most often represented by iwi (tribes). However, many PSGEs serve a much 
wider purpose, including social, cultural, environmental and any other 
purposes as determined by iwi. 
 
In their response to meeting multifarious purposes, PSGEs must ensure that 
their design and resulting functions are robust enough to meet such purposes. 
This thesis, therefore, examines factors influencing the design and operation 
of PSGEs. 
 
The thesis suspects that given their main role, which is to hold, manage and 
be responsible for collective assets, the design of PSGEs are in large part 
determined by legal and financial influences. As a result, these entities are 
rarely designed from a management view to meet other iwi-defined purposes. 
 
Through analysing relevant literature and data collected from the experiences 
of three PSGEs, the study found that many of the challenges encountered by 
the entities are not a result of their design. But rather, they are attributed to the 
operationalisation of their functions as per the design. Furthermore, because 
iwi are limited in their choice of design, they have had to learn how to adapt 
their entities to achieve iwi purposes. 
 
With a clearer understanding of how they would prefer to arrange their affairs, 
iwi will be better positioned to negotiate the design of their PSGE. In response 
to the evolution of not only PSGEs, but Māori entities generally, this thesis 
contributes to Māori management discourse in the 21st century. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



 
 

iii 

Acknowledgements 
 
E rere kau mai te awa nui, mai i te kāhui maunga ki Tangāroa. Ko au te awa, 
ko te awa ko au.  
 
Firstly to my whānau, for putting up with stressed Miriama. For alleviating the 
pressures of having to do house work while I spend time writing, especially 
hitting the home stretch. Most importantly for your support in helping me also 
raise our Hina. Whaene Tarsh, we appreciate you so much.  
 
To Te Atawhai o Te Ao, the most awesome research institute in the country: 
your purpose to make research relevant and applicable for whānau, hapū, iwi 
and our communities gave inspiration for the need to get this mahi done.  
 
To Massey University and Te Rau Tauawhi for your ongoing support, both 
financially and academically. To Te Atihau Trust, Parininihi ki Waitotara and 
Whanganui Trust: you have always supported my educational endeavours. 
Thank you again for contributing the means to get this end product done. 
 
To the interviewees, the three post-settlement entities that were part of the 
study. Thank you for your time, your experience, your expertise, your wisdom 
and for allowing me to gain an insight into your PSGE. One day I will return 
the favour in a meaningful way. 
 
To my supervisors, Jason and Shirley, for believing in me. You probably 
thought I was crazy doing this while having a baby and working. But you never 
showed a sign of doubt and continued to guide and advise. In the end, we got 
there. 
 
Lastly, ki ngā hapū, ngā iwi o Whanganui nui tonu, Te Awa nui ā Rua, Te Awa 
Tupua. Although you were not part of my research, may the learnings go a 
small way in contributing to the ultimate goal of improving the health and well-
being of our awa and the health and well-being of our people. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



 
 

iv 

Glossary 
 

Ahikā Those whom keep the home fires 
burning 

Hapū Sub-tribe 
Hui Meeting(s) 
Iwi  Tribe(s), tribal 

Kaumātua Elder 
Kaupapa Purpose  

Kaupapa Māori  Māori approach (to research)  
Kawa Custom 
Koha Contribution  

Kōrero Narrative  
Mana Integrity  

Mana motuhake Autonomy  
Mana whenua Jurisdiction over land 
Manaakitanga Hospitality 

Marae Māori communal village  
Paepae Orator’s bench 
Pākeha European 

Pono Truth 
Rangatira  Chief, chiefs 

Rangatiratanga Self-determination, sovereignty  
Takiwa Region 

Tangata whenua Inidgenous people of the land 
Taonga Prized possession  

Te ao Māori Māori world (view) 
Te reo Māori language 

Tikanga Protocol(s) 
Whakapapa Blood ties 

Whānau Family 
Whanaungatanga Relationships  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



 
 

v 

Contents 
Abstract .......................................................................................................... ii 
Acknowledgements ..................................................................................... iii 
Glossary ........................................................................................................ iv 

Contents ......................................................................................................... v 

Tables ............................................................................................................ vi 
Figures .......................................................................................................... vi 
1 Introduction ............................................................................................ 1 

1.1 Aim of the thesis ............................................................................... 1 
1.2 Rationale ........................................................................................... 1 
1.3 Context ............................................................................................. 3 
1.4 Definitions ......................................................................................... 6 
1.5 Structure of the thesis ....................................................................... 7 

2 Literature Review ................................................................................... 8 

2.1 Treaty settlements and treaty claims ................................................ 8 
2.2 Governance entities ........................................................................ 11 
2.3 The application of governance and management .......................... 14 
2.4 Māori management, design and function ....................................... 20 
2.5 Indigenous and tribal design and function ...................................... 22 
2.6 Designing the PSGE ....................................................................... 24 
2.7 Ratifying the PSGE ......................................................................... 29 
2.8 Summary ........................................................................................ 32 

3 Methodology ......................................................................................... 34 

3.1 Research paradigm ........................................................................ 34 
3.2 Research methods .......................................................................... 35 
3.3 Research question .......................................................................... 36 
3.4 Ethical considerations ..................................................................... 39 

4 Findings ................................................................................................ 42 

4.1 Organisational demographics ......................................................... 42 
4.2 Interview participants ...................................................................... 43 
4.3 Factors influencing design .............................................................. 43 
4.4 Structure of the PSGE .................................................................... 45 
4.5 Advice received .............................................................................. 48 
4.6 How the PSGE operates ................................................................. 50 
4.7 How well the PSGE operates from a management perspective ..... 51 
4.8 The future of PSGEs ....................................................................... 52 

5 Discussion ............................................................................................ 54 

5.1 Design, Intention, Theory ................................................................ 54 
5.2 Implementation, outcome, application ............................................ 62 
5.3 How well PSGEs operate from a management perspective ........... 70 

6 Conclusion ........................................................................................... 78 

6.1 Critical insights into PSGEs ............................................................ 78 



 
 

vi 

6.2 Factors influencing design and operation ....................................... 79 
6.3 In response to duality ...................................................................... 80 
6.4 Contribution to Māori management ................................................ 81 
6.5 Contribution from organisational design ......................................... 82 
6.6 Limitations and opportunities .......................................................... 82 

References ................................................................................................... 84 

Appendix 1 Interview schedule .................................................................. 90 

Appendix 2 Invitation letter ........................................................................ 91 

 

Tables 
Table 1 Summary of Literature .................................................................... 2 
Table 2 Organisational demographics ...................................................... 42 
Table 3 Management theories in PSGEs ................................................... 73 
 

Figures 
Figure 1 Settlement process ........................................................................ 4 
Figure 2 Private Trust Model ........................................................................ 6 
Figure 3 Organisational configuration ...................................................... 60 
 
 
 
 
 



 
 

1 

1 Introduction 
 
1.1 Aim of the thesis  
  
The aim of this thesis is to contribute to the theory of organisational design 
and what effective organisational design could look like from a Māori 
perspective. The thesis set out to provide critical insights on the design and 
operation of three post-settlement governance entities (PSGEs). This thesis 
contributes to an emerging discourse on Māori management in the 21st 
century, particularly with the evolution of not only PSGEs but Māori entities 
generally. 
 
The main research question is ‘what factors influence the design and operation 
of post-settlement governance entities?’ The thesis approaches this question 
by studying literature on the design of PSGEs and the experiences of three 
PSGEs as to how their entities were designed and implemented. Both 
research processes—literature and interviews—ultimately look at the 
relationship between design and operation. 
 
1.2 Rationale  
 
When establishing PSGEs, much of the focus is on ensuring statutory and 
financial obligations uphold the legal and tax responsibilities (McKay, 2012). 
Yet, given the multipurpose existence of PSGEs (Best & Love, 2010; Mika, 
Smith, Gillies, & Wiremu, 2019), little attention is given to the holistic, 
managerial functions and organisational design principles needed to support 
the effective design and operation of PSGEs. That is, designing and procuring 
an effective entity, that incorporates the agreed legal structure and considers 
the cultural, social and economic needs of stakeholders, namely, the claimant 
group. As claimant groups tend to be pressured with time and other 
constraints, the design process is often rushed. 
 
Literature on treaty settlements, treaty claims, and PSGEs falls within diverse 
subjects which are summarised in Table 1. As a result, little consideration is 
given to the organisational design components or even managerial principles 
when establishing PSGEs. When management is discussed, it is done so in 
the slightest manner, such as discussing the management of assets, or of 
management being an operational level activity. This thesis hopes to explore 
and contribute to this gap in understanding. There is much to gain from better 
understanding of organisational design and how it can improve new and 
established PSGEs. 
 



 
 

2 

Subject area Relevant citations 
Law and politics (Andrew, 2008; New Zealand Law 

Commission, 2002; Wiri, 2013) 
Colonisation and 
recolonisation  

(Summerfield, 2015) 

Social justice and 
inequality 

(Glover, 9 July 2019; Lashley, 2000) 

Economic and sustainable 
development  

(Harmsworth, Barclay-Kerr, & Reedy, 2002; 
Meade, 2004; Mika, Smith, et al., 2019; 
SmartGrowth, 2013; Wineti, 2015) 

Tikanga (customs) and te 
ao Māori (Māori 
worldview) 

(Chapman Tripp, 2017; New Zealand Law 
Commission, 2002; Roxburgh, 2016; The 
Māori Affairs Committee, 2013) 

Governance and 
governance entities  

(Chapman Tripp, 2012; Joseph, 2014; McKay, 
2012; New Zealand Law Commission, 2006; 
Te Puni Kokiri, 2004) 

Conservation, co-
management, resource 
management  

(Dodson, 2014; Te Aho, 2010; Warren, 2016) 

Table 1 Summary of Literature 

This thesis acknowledges assumptions and perspectives from the researcher 
who was a former trustee of a PSGE. The researcher was one of the first 
elected trustees to the trust. Throughout the term of their election, there was 
an overwhelming overlap between the values, wants and aspirations from the 
past, namely the settlement journey. Together with the need to develop a good 
infrastructure to move into the future, whilst also acknowledging the political 
nature of treaty settlements and input from hapū (sub-tribe) and iwi, was 
challenging.  
 
The process and how best to carry out the necessary tasks within the duration 
of the term, signalled a need to consider and research what the intentions are 
for PSGEs, if any, the design principles and process. If these were clear, it 
would be of benefit to better prepare and strategise for not only the future but 
the present as well. The actualisation of the settlement is heavily reliant on the 
capability of all those within the structure. Those people need not only the right 
skill, but the right resources to perform their duty effectively. These resources 
include an understanding of the past to better prepare for the future.    
 
Therefore, there was an important need to allow space and time for this. The 
researcher has administration and management experience, managing a 
research institute for nearly five years. The benefits of a clear strategy, 
informed by the past and future, supported by good systems, good processes, 
and good policies, gives credence that there is a place for management and 
organisational design in the way in which PSGEs operate.      
 



 
 

3 

1.3 Context 
 
1.3.1 The Treaty of Waitangi  
 
In 1840, the Treaty of Waitangi, the founding document of this country, was 
signed in good faith by the British Crown and Māori rangatira (chiefs) (Office 
of Treaty Settlements, 2018). However, the Crown breaches against the 
Treaty of Waitangi have revealed that in many cases the Crown’s actions were 
flawed. The Treaty of Waitangi Act was passed in 1975, establishing the 
Waitangi Tribunal whose role is to investigate Crown breaches of the treaty 
whereby Māori have suffered prejudice as a result (Waitangi Tribunal, 2020). 
The Waitangi Tribunal is a standing commission of inquiry which makes 
recommendations on claims brought by Māori relating to Crown breaches. 
 
Historical claims are Crown acts or omissions that occurred before 1992 and 
claims after this date are contemporary claims (Waitangi Tribunal, 2019). 
Claimants, also known as large natural groupings or iwi, can enter into direct 
negotiations with the Crown without having claims heard by the tribunal. Both 
processes look at claims and redress, with none having a particularly distinct 
effect on the design of PSGEs. Previously, the Waitangi Tribunal operated in 
isolation. Today, it is part of a collective of agencies involved in the settlement 
process, namely the Office of Treaty Settlements, various ministers of the 
Crown such as the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Minister 
of Finance, the Minister of Māori Development, the Minster of Conservation, 
the courts and formal bodies (Hayward & Wheen, 2004). 
 
There are four main steps in the settlement of a treaty claim (Andrew, 2008). 
The first—the pre-negotiation stage—is when a claim is registered with the 
tribunal, the large natural grouping is established, mandating is attained and 
the terms of negotiation are signed. The second—the negotiation stage—is 
when an agreement in principle and final deed of settlement are negotiated. 
The third—legislation or ratification—is when the deed is ratified. The fourth—
implementation—is when both parties work together to implement the details 
set out in the deed of settlement and the settlement is legislated. A deed of 
settlement sets out the historical account, the nature of the claims and the 
redress to be provided in full and final settlement of the claimant’s historical 
claims. Figure 1 (Crown Forestry Rental Trust, 2008) shows the full settlement 
process. 
 



 
 

4 

 
Figure 1 Settlement process  

 



 5 

1.3.2 Post-settlement governance entities 
 
A PSGE is the legal entity that a claimant group must ratify and establish 
before settlement with the Crown (Sanderson, Arcus, & Stokes, 2007). The 
design and development of a PSGE can start as early as the pre-negotiation 
stage, but usually takes place in the negotiation stage. As per the requirements 
of the Crown, a PSGE must be representative of the claimant group, 
transparent in its decision-making and dispute resolution procedures, 
accountable to the claimant group, for the benefit of the members of the 
claimant group and ratified by the claimant group (Chapman Tripp, 2012). It is 
therefore, a matter for the claimant group to choose a governance entity that 
will serve their needs and reflect their tikanga (protocols) (Office of Treaty 
Settlements, 2018).  
  
However, in determining the structure of any PSGE, the Crown must also 
ensure the responsibilities to both the claimant group and New Zealand 
taxpayers at large are fulfilled (McKay, 2012). In doing this, the Crown has 
developed a set of principles against which proposed governance entities are 
assessed. If the proposed governance entity is consistent with these 
principles, the Crown can transfer assets. While initially the options and 
flexibility for claimant groups seem varied and plentiful, the Crown has, to date, 
accepted two principal legal entities as suitable PSGEs, which are common 
law trusts and statutory bodies (Sanderson et al., 2007). Common law trusts, 
a familiar arrangement used by many iwi, exist of a parent body with subsidiary 
trusts or companies set up underneath (Gibbs, 2015).  
 
The main role of any PSGE is to hold, manage and be responsible for 
collective assets that are received as a result of the redress of their treaty 
settlement (McKay, 2012). However, many PSGEs serve a much wider 
purpose including social, cultural, environmental and any other purposes as 
determined by the claimant group (New Zealand Law Commission, 2002). 
These include, functioning as a commercial business, deliver services and 
other benefits to iwi members and work closely with central and local 
government (Gibbs, 2015). Therefore, determining the structure of a PSGE is 
the last and most onerous obstacle featured in any settlement process 
because it must ensure it is flexible enough to achieve all these functions 
(McKay, 2012).  
 
For the purpose of this thesis, the structure that will be referred to will be the 
legal structure, the same structure that must be ratified by the claimant group 
(see Figure 2 – (Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa-Tāmaki-Nui-Ā-Rua Settlement 
Trust, 2016)). This same structure is also referred to as the PSGE entity or the 
governance structure, as described in previous paragraphs and at times will 
be used interchangeably. This legal structure also incorporates a 
representation component (see purple part of image), which appoints selected 
trustees to sit on the parent body (in blue). This component of the structure is 
called the electoral or representative model which determines how trustees 
are elected (Gibbs, 2015). Whilst this component is important, it is not the 
intention of the thesis to focus on the electoral model, but rather the overall 
legal structure as highlighted in this image.  



 
 

6 

 

 
Figure 2 Private Trust Model 

1.4 Definitions 
 
1.4.1 Defining management 
 
This thesis looks at the extent to which mangement is present or absent in the 
design and operation of PSGEs. Thus, it is useful to define management and 
organisational design. For the purpose of this thesis, management is the 
process of forecasting and planning, of organising, of commanding, of 
coordinating and of control (Fayol, 2016). Management involves examinig the 
future to devise a plan, building a dual structure of material and human 
resources, maintaining and unifying activity and effort, and of conformity to the 
rules and expressed command (Fayol, 2016). As such, it is the 
accomplishment of these actions in pursuit of the organisation’s objectives 
while maintaining relationships with stakeholders, technologies and other 
internal and external artifacts (Clegg, Kornberger, & Pitsis, 2016).  
 



 7 

1.4.2 Defining organisational design 
 
Organisational design is an ongoing process, with design principles underlying 
any well-functioning organisation (Burton, Obel, & DeSanctis, 2011). 
“Organizational design is the plan of an organization’s rationally designed 
structure and mode of operation” (Clegg et al., 2016, p. 517). This thesis looks 
at the structural components of organisational design, including the structure 
chosen by PSGEs, the intention of the structure and how the structure helps 
to support PSGEs achieve their goals. The thesis then looks at the functional 
components of the PSGE, such as how the structure is implemented and how 
the functions are operationalised. Both objectives intend to contribute to 
understanding the factors influencing the design and operation of PSGEs.  
 
1.4.3 Defining organisations  
 
In this thesis, the term organisation refers to the PSGE, including its structure. 
The application of organisational design is practical for those enterprises that 
include several layers of hierarchy, a wide range of occupational categories, a 
number of functions and or departments (Clark, 1972). An organisation is also 
a social entity, existing for and made up of people. It has goals and exists for 
a purpose. It has boundaries, some internal and some external. The external 
is called the environment, which is an important consideration for the design 
of the internal (Burton & Obel, 1998). So the terms organisation, enterprise, 
and entity, all refer to PSGE in this thesis.  
 
1.5 Structure of the thesis 
 
The rationale and aims of the study have been explained and this will be 
supported by the literature review, which contributes to the first component of 
the relationship between theory and practice, by reviewing key texts. The 
literature review thus helps inform the methods that this study employs through 
both a Kaupapa Māori (Māori approach) paradigm and an interpretive 
approach. The methodology chapter also identifies ethical considerations. The 
findings summarises key themes that emerged from the interviews and the 
discussion chapter analyses these themes as they pertain to the research 
question and aim of the thesis. A conclusion summarises the thesis. 
 
In summary, this thesis examines design thinking when developing a PSGE, 
and the mode of operation and application once a structure has been decided. 
It aims to achieve this with a management lens. The working definitions 
provided here are to establish initial boundaries but are adapted as analysis 
unfolds. The thesis contributes to knowledge of Māori management. 
  



 
 

8 

2 Literature Review 
 
This thesis is a study of PSGEs. It reviews the design process of developing 
a PSGE and investigates the implementation once the PSGE has been 
established. The overall aim is to provide theoretical insights and practical 
implications, looking at what was intended versus what actually happened. 
Both considerations ultimately looking at the relationship between design and 
operation. This literature review contributes to the first component of that 
relationship by examining the literature, information and discussion that exist 
on the determinants of the design of PSGEs. 
 
This literature review explores six areas pertinent to the design of PSGEs. The 
first looks at what is generally discussed about PSGEs. What perspective do 
the discussions come from, who is writing about them and what is the key 
focus on those discussions. The second area widens the scope to include 
governance entities as opposed to just PSGEs. This leads into the third 
aspect, why there is little written on design and PSGEs and presents the 
arguments around the application of governance and management. The fourth 
area looks at Māori management design and function and the fifth at 
indigenous tribal design and function. The sixth and last area summarises the 
literature used during the design of PSGE entities, the advice received and 
information for ratifying the PSGE. 
 
2.1 Treaty settlements and treaty claims 
 
Much of the literature on PSGEs is located within settlements themselves. 
That is, the discussion is heavily focused towards treaty settlements in its 
entirety and not particularly about PSGEs. This is true given that PSGEs are 
an outcome of settlements as opposed to a planned, isolated piece of work. 
For this reason, it is fair to say that while the settlement may paint a picture 
about how a PSGE is set up, what is learnt about them is only known once a 
PSGE is established. Although the first established PSGEs have now been in 
place for some years, understanding of how PSGEs should be structured is 
still developing (Gibbs, 2015). As a result, the literature continues to evolve. 
 
The issue of the obscurity and lack of PSGE literature is further complicated 
by the fact that, it is located within many subject fields except that of 
management. This mirrors the idea that because the focus is more on the 
intentions and journey to implementation, organisational design or even 
management, are only discussed in regard to management of assets or of 
management being an operational level activity. Little is said about the 
involvement or even the contribution organisational design and management 
can have on PSGE performance. 
 



 9 

Ward (1999), a contract historian for the Waitangi Tribunal, writes about the 
purposes, motivations expectations and political contexts of treaty claims from 
a historical and political justice point of view, but there is no mention of PSGEs. 
One is, therefore, required to look within specific treaty settlements to get an 
understanding of the design aspects of their PSGEs. For example, factors 
such as asset management in the fisheries claim or social and economic 
advancement in the Ngāi Tahu and Tainui claims. 
 
Wheen and Hayward (2012), write about treaty negotiations, the settlement 
process, legal challenges, apologies, land settlements, water settlements, 
taonga (prized possession), financial and commercial dimensions, identity, 
representation, impacts for Māori and Māori-Crown relations. Again, there is 
no mention of PSGEs as a managerial phenomenon other than particular 
features that impact on the management of key resources such as land, forest 
and fisheries. This raises a point in that the literature on PSGEs are not located 
within the field of management because it is the objectives that determine the 
features of PSGEs as opposed to management being a universal subject 
within which PSGEs can be designed. 
 
Summerfield’s (2015) thesis on decolonisation and positive treaty partnerships 
argues that Māori continue to resist the efforts of the Crown to retain control 
and influence. This occurs through negotiating favourable settlements and 
insisting that settlements be accepted on the claimants’ terms. While this might 
not have a direct correlation with the structure or design of PSGEs, it may well 
highlight a predisposition in regard to the challenges that PSGEs face when 
trying to devise a structure that meets the requirements of the claimant group.  
 
Andrew (2008) reviews the negotiation and settlement process within the 
political arena, the Waitangi Tribunal and the courts. She concludes that failure 
of the courts and of the political arena remain very real for claimants, therefore, 
also limiting the value of the tribunal in bringing about justice. Similarly, the 
New Zealand Law Commission (2002) in their report addressing the post-
settlement phase look at the intertwine between tikanga Māori and the 
legislative framework. The commission identified that an issue of high 
importance was the need to “devise structures to ensure the success of 
settlements entered into…” (New Zealand Law Commission, 2002, p. 12).  
 
Wiri (2013) writes about mana whenua (jurisdiction over land), Māori 
customary law, and the treaty settlement process. Wiri essentially looks at the 
academic and legal definitions of mana whenua and how this concept was 
misinterpreted by some iwi within the Treelords Deal (Central North Island 
forest collective settlement) for commercial gain. This raises particular issues 
including inter-tribal disputes, poor leadership and communication and the lack 
of upholding Māori values. While Wiri made no particular mention of structural 
arrangements, such contributing factors are undoubtedly considerations when 
developing a PSGE. The Treelords Deal highlights the issues when dealing 
with multiple claimant groups. 
 



 10 

Lashley (2000) argues that treaty settlements, while they aim to provide 
redress to Māori people, has neither reduced income inequality nor the rate of 
Māori poverty. Treaty settlements are, therefore, insufficient to remedy 
economic inequality. This review of treaty settlements argues that settlement 
assets are distributed to Māori tribal collectives and managed by tribal trust 
boards as commercial ventures and investment portfolios. Little of the benefits 
are provided directly to individuals thus impacting the government’s 
obligations in rendering redress and social justice to Māori as individuals. This 
highlights a key determinant in the design of the structure of PSGEs where 
both investment and distribution functions exist. 
 
Treaty settlements and their cost to the New Zealand economy have also been 
brought to light, particularly with settlements and their relationship to taxes and 
health inequalities (Fyers, 2018; Glover, 9 July 2019). The literature indicates 
that the cost of treaty settlements are minor in comparison to other government 
spending, the scale of the breaches and to the social, cultural and 
environmental disparities claimant groups are meant to be responsible for. In 
2018, for example, the income generated on taxes from Māori in alcohol, 
tobacco and gambling alone far exceed what was distributed in treaty 
settlements for that year (Glover, 2019). 
 
Dodson (2014), discussed treaty settlements in light of conservation, co-
governance and communication and argues that policy makers need to learn 
from the innovations of treaty settlements. Firstly, Dodson notes that 
structures and frameworks can draw stakeholders together. Secondly, that the 
structures and frameworks help us to reconsider conservation policy and 
allows for key communicative spaces whereby partnerships can be 
constituted, negotiated and developed. Dodson also points out the importance 
of dismantling colonial structures and how to recognise indigenous rights (in 
reference to conservation) is critical in the establishment of PSGEs. 
 
An example is the Whanganui River Settlement ("Te Awa Tupua Act 2017," 
2017) and includes a special feature with the Whanganui River being 
recognised as a legal person with rights, powers, duties and liabilities. The 
framework itself not only aims to draw stakeholders together as outlined by 
Dodson (2014), but in a practical sense binds people to work together for the 
betterment of the river. This is achieved through the joint role of Te Pou Tupua 
where iwi and the Crown each select a representative to speak on behalf of 
the river. It is also done through the establishment of Te Kopuka nā Te Awa 
Tupua, the strategy group, where the collective interest and responsibilities of 
the river communities are recognised.  
 
Te Aho’s (2010) writing on co-management within the Waikato River 
settlement, highlights how Māori were excluded from the decision-making 
process on natural resources. She makes particular note around how the 
Waikato River settlement can make way for enhanced governance and 
management of a significant waterway. There is no specific mention though of 
how the structure of the PSGE helps to achieve this. Instead, one is provided 
with a background on the settlement in its entirety and some examples are 
given of how the administrative arrangements operate in a practical context.  



 
 

11 

 
Warren (2016) investigates the Whanganui River and Te Urewera and 
innovative developments in rangatiratanga (self-determination, sovereignty) 
and resource management. Both the Whanganui River and Te Urewera are 
large natural resources that have been given status as legal personhood to 
exercise sovereignty by the claimant groups. Both settlements include 
features innovative in their entirety. The establishment of both groups’ 
arrangements were discussed as too were some of the practicalities of the 
settlements as they relate to innovation. The thesis also attempts to show the 
potential to exercise rangatiratanga and autonomy in the settlement and post-
settlement world. 
 
Other perspectives on treaty settlements and post-settlement contexts can be 
provided through the notion of being multipurpose or of acknowledging the 
quadruple bottom line of cultural, environmental, financial and social values 
(Best & Love, 2010). Research was conducted on thirty treaty settlements that 
affect the western Bay of Plenty (SmartGrowth, 2013). Amongst other findings, 
the research confirmed that traditional economic activity will continue such as 
fishing, forestry and farming, but alongside Māori education, health and social 
services. At the same time, tangata whenua (indigenous people of the land) 
are required to learn from past experiences while also plan for future 
generations. They are also required to consider existing and new entities and 
communities. 
 
Mika, Smith, et al. (2019) research about tensions within post-settlement 
governance and tribal economies, find that a central challenge is 
exponentialising tribal capabilities because of the multiple purposes ascribed 
to post-settled iwi. While they focus on indigenous entrepreneurship and tribal 
governance, they allude to PSGEs being multipurpose. A key point is how do 
PSGEs remain fit for purpose and maintain tribal ways of knowing and being 
if they are continuously facing tensions?  
 
Treaty settlements are generally discussed within politics, law, mana whenua, 
inequalities, the environment, co-management, rangatiratanga, co-
governance. There is no particular separation of PSGEs within this literature 
and no clear relationship between settlements and management. Managerial 
concepts such as structure, co-management and frameworks are, however, 
mentioned. As the literature does not explicitly identify management as a core 
factor influencing settlements, it is necessary to consider governance. 
 
2.2 Governance entities  
 
The inclusion of governance allows the thesis to move to an entity view of 
PSGEs, where governance exists any time a group of people come together 
to accomplish an objective (Joseph, 2014). Although governance may be 
broad, it sheds light on the managerial challenges that PSGEs face. While the 
literature on governance entities is strategic, it is these decisions that influence 
structures and functions. 
 



 12 

Joseph (2014) argues that there is no one size fits all model for best practice 
good governance due to differences in legal systems, institutional frameworks 
and cultural traditions noting that even good governance principles conflict 
each other. This is understandable given the different contexts and multiple 
responsibilities of Māori governance entities. For this reason, Māori continue 
to struggle with actualising self-determination and that transformational Māori 
governance, including those found in PSGEs, continue to struggle to improve 
the well-being of Māori communities.  
 
Doctoral and masters theses have contributed considerably to the literature 
on management and the post-settled world (Knox, 2005; McKay, 2012; 
Prendergast-Tarena, 2015; Summerfield, 2015; Tinirau, 2017; Warren, 2016). 
Roxburgh (2016) provides a distinctive human resource flavour by looking at 
values and culture and how they are transmitted through human resource 
practices of recruitment and induction of an iwi entity. Roxburgh’s thesis 
looked at how iwi entities preserve kaupapa Māori values and practices whilst 
operating in a western business context. Roxburgh finds that traditional iwi 
values and methods were brought into the contemporary business setting at 
the iwi entity. 
 
2.2.1 He Waka Umanga 
 
In 2006, a report titled He Waka Umanga was released proposing a law for 
Māori governance entities (New Zealand Law Commission, 2006). It came 
about because of the different legislative and policy requirements, depending 
on the agency involved. A generic legal form, therefore, appeared urgent. At 
the core of the commission’s proposal was an analysis on the issue of tribal 
governance and management of collective Māori assets. What is of particular 
interest is the development of a comprehensive framework for Māori entities, 
the processes by which they would operate, and the way in which they would 
interact with stakeholders. 
 
The commission’s report offers a comprehensive analysis that considers 
governance entities from a management perspective with acknowledgement 
of two key issues. The first being a lack of a legal framework to represent and 
manage the interests of tribes and other collectives in a way suitable both for 
them and those with whom they deal. And secondly, the lack of a legal 
framework for tribal restructuring to ensure they are both representative of the 
group and their culture. The commission continues to state that a key aim is 
to provide for a legal entity specifically shaped to meet the organisational 
needs of Māori tribes and other groups in managing communal assets (New 
Zealand Law Commission, 2006). 
 
The commission makes recommendations on structural formations, 
economies of scale, internal communication, accountability, functions, 
subsidiaries and the corporate office. Although these are listed as governance 
recommendations, they concern management functions previously 
unaddressed by other literature. The commission looks at the practicalities of 
entities including their daily operation. However, He Waka Umanga is not only 
for PSGEs but for various Māori entities. 



 
 

13 

 
McKay (2012) does a comprehensive review of He Waka Umanga and argues 
that the government missed an opportunity by not passing the He Waka 
Umanga Bill. McKay argues that the government would rather keep the status 
quo instead of supporting Māori in their ability to fully benefit from their 
collective assets in the post-settlement era. Both the bill and the review by 
McKay argue that the structures do not meet the varying needs of Māori and 
their management of collective assets and that “there is at present no entity 
that can cater to the wide-ranging needs of Māori, nor address the unique 
circumstances Māori collectives face in managing their assets” (McKay, 2012, 
p. 133). 
 
2.2.2 Ngā Tipu Whakaritorito 
 
A similar effort has been made by Te Puni Kokiri who stated that “finding the 
structure that will best meet the unique governance requirements of Māori 
collectives has challenged Māori incorporations and trusts for quite some 
decades” (Te Puni Kokiri, 2004, p. 3). They continue to argue that the key 
challenges to such structures are time and cost restrictions, statutory 
amendments and that the current governance entities available are not 
meeting the needs and unique requirements of Māori collectives. The Ngā 
Tipu Whakaritorito report offers a new governance model and constitutes the 
biggest development in the governance of Māori interest in over 50 years. 
Although written in 2004, the report remains relevant today. 
 
Ngā Tipu Whakaritorito identifies related issues with governing entities. 
Appropriate structures, the need for those structures to be flexible and of Māori 
entities being multipurpose. In addition to the definition by Best and Love 
(2010) and Mika, Smith, et al. (2019) on entities being multipurpose, Te Puni 
Kokiri’s (2004) definition of being multipurpose includes management and 
development of assets, treaty and fisheries, interactions with government and 
local authorities, delivery of social services, cultural development and the 
development of commercial interests. 
 
Similar to McKay’s (2012) review of He Waka Umanga (New Zealand Law 
Commission, 2006), Meade (2004) undertakes an economic appraisal of Ngā 
Tipu Whakaritorito. At the core of his report, he views the proposal in light of 
economics, in particular, the cost of organisations, operating economic assets, 
customer-owners and supplier-owners. The greatest contribution of this review 
has been the ability to discuss the topic, the issues and the challenges of 
governance entities as it pertains to economics. This type of review is what is 
needed, but from a management perspective and forms a large part of why 
this thesis is being done.  
 



 14 

Meade (2004) also argues that there is no harm in members of Māori 
collectives having one more governance option available to them. And whilst 
the Ngā Tipu Whakaritorito lacks detail and does not offer over and above 
what existing governance models offer, Māori collectives continue to use a 
variety of governance structures for different types of activity. Based on 
economic arguments, this is appropriate (Meade, 2004). This view is also 
shared by Te Puni Kokiri and both they and Mead conclude that the model is 
likely to complement rather than replace the use of existing structures.  
 
2.3 The application of governance and management  
 
The reason why there might be little written on management and PSGEs is 
merely because of a variation in these terms and their application. The 
intention of this thesis is to study PSGEs from a management lens. However, 
PSGEs continue to appear as everything other than management, mainly 
governance. Te Puni Kokiri (2004) defines governance as that which “refers 
to the people, structures, systems, policies and processes by which an 
organisation operates” (p. 6). 
 
Burton et al. (2011) argue that design principles cause well-functioning 
organisations to ask what are our goals, what are the basic tasks, who makes 
which decisions, what is the structure for communication and what is the 
incentive structure? The purpose is not to analyse definitions of governance. 
For now, the aim is to highlight the overlap between management and 
governance. For as Cadbury (1914) believes, understanding how to apply the 
principles of management should not be confused with the principles 
themselves.  
 
2.3.1 Exploration of management 
 
The definition of management for the purpose of this thesis was provided in 
the introduction of this thesis. It focused on Fayol’s (2016) functions of 
management. These are forecasting and planning, organising, commanding, 
coordinating and control. As such, management is the accomplishment of 
these actions in pursuit of the organisation’s objectives while maintaining 
relationships with stakeholders, technologies and other artefacts both within 
as well as between organisations (Clegg et al., 2016). This definition of 
focuses on framing and how to conduct management functions. 
 



 15 

To think about how management functions are carried out, is portrayed well 
by Koontz (1961), who identifies six major schools of management theory. 
These theories encapsulate a variety of understanding and application of 
management, without being too prescriptive. First, the management process 
school looks at the function of managers. Second, the empirical school is 
based on the study of experience. Third, the human behaviour school focuses 
particularly on the human aspect. Fourth, the social system school are the 
cultural interrelationships and often makes references to the organisation. 
Fifth, the decision theory school has a rational approach to decision making. 
And sixth, the mathematical school, sees management as a system of 
mathematical models and processes. It considers scientific, empirical, human, 
social, rational and mathematical management.  
 
Management can also be defined against time by comparing the application 
of management against the theories of the time. Bureaucracy is a social 
intervention perfected during the industrial revolution to organise and direct 
the activities of the firm (Bennis, 1966). The six dimensions of bureaucracy 
are: a division of labour; a well-defined hierarchy of authority; a system of rules 
and procedures; technically qualified personnel; a system of procedures; and 
impersonality of interpersonal relations (Bennis, 1966; Daft, 2010).  
 
Bennis (1966) predicts that because of bureaucratic problems, within the next 
twenty-five to fifty years, we should all be witness to and participate in the end 
of bureaucracy and the rise of new social systems better able to cope with 
twentieth century demands. As such, we see the rise of the post-bureaucratic 
era, where the organisation is decentralised, loosely coupled, flexible, 
nonhierarchical and fluid (Alvesson & Thompson, 2005). Amongst other 
things, post-bureaucracy will operate on a basis of horizontal and vertical 
networking, mutual adjustment, and will be guided by visions and shared 
values. While this might be ideal, it remains that there is still no concrete 
definition of post-bureaucracy or of the post-bureaucratic organisation 
(Heckscher, 1994).  
 
Regardless of which management theories are used to understand the design 
and operation PSGEs, none make reference to place, only to time and context. 
That is, there is little reference to the specific hybrid and multipurpose, 
multifunctioning role of PSGEs in Aotearoa New Zealand. Mintzberg (1983), 
perhaps offers better advice in that organisations are better designed to be 
guided by fashion, that is, the power of the norms of the culture in which the 
organisation finds itself. Therefore, this thesis accepts all these principles of 
management as a guideline to establish the parameters of this thesis and 
acknowledges that it is a work in progress as the thesis evolves.  
 



 16 

2.3.2 Exploring organisational design 
 
Perhaps looking instead at a particular activity within management, such as 
organisational design, will provide a better lens in which to articulate the 
application of governance and management. “Organizational design is the 
plan of an organization’s rationally designed structure and mode of operation” 
(Clegg et al., 2016, p. 517). It involves the specification of strategy, structure, 
processes, people, and incentive components of the organisation (Burton et 
al., 2011). Organisational design is also concerned with the ought to be, 
focusing on that which is desired (Burton & Obel, 1998) and “relies heavily on 
the ability to relate the systems of organization to their market, social, and 
technological contexts” (Clark, 1972, p. 12). 
 
Organisational design is also concerned with the process of deliberate 
configuration of structure, processes, metrics, reward systems but goes 
beyond activity to include people practices, mind sets and culture to channel 
individual and collective energy towards the achievement of business strategy 
(Kates & Galbraith, 2007). Some of the key tasks involved in doing 
organisational design are materialising problems through mock-ups, 
scenarios, process of generating, developing and testing ideas and most 
importantly the implementation stage, which is the clear development and 
specification of the idea, its effective communication and engagement of 
others (Clegg et al., 2016).  
 
The definitions of management and of organisational design help to illustrate 
that the lack of management literature in regard to PSGEs could simply be 
because of its application. While there may be a lack of the application of 
management principles in the design of PSGEs, the principles themselves 
should still be considered in the design of PSGEs. For example, structure is 
one factor that is considered by both governance and management. However, 
it is the governance perspective that continues to be discussed.  
 
Mika and O'Sullivan (2014) define Māori management as “the systematic 
action-oriented deployment of resources by Māori and potentially non-Māori 
managers within a Māori world view (āronga Māori), to achieve purposes that 
are meaningful and of benefit to whānau (family), hapū (sub-tribe), iwi (tribe), 
Māori communities and others, in terms of both the means and ends, and 
which may be conducted within both Māori and non-Māori organisational 
contexts” (p. 655). Mika and O'Sullivan (2014) also argue that the purpose of 
traditional Māori management was the survival of whānau, hapū and iwi. It is 
at this abstract level of thinking where management and Māori management 
comes in to play with regards to PSGEs, as the literature review has illustrated.  
 



 17 

What is needed though is a distinct application of Māori organisational design 
and functionality in the design of PSGEs. Mika and O'Sullivan (2014) adopt 
Fayol’s functions of management as a framework for examining what it is that 
Māori managers do. These functions are planning, organising, leading and 
controlling, and suggests that there is a distinctively Māori approach to 
management with respect to these four functions. It would be useful to 
understand a similar Māori approach to the design of PSGEs, beyond the 
political, cultural, social and environmental influences of design which continue 
to permeate the literature. This would require claimant groups to go beyond 
the abstract application of management and consider the detailed practicalities 
involved in the design of PSGEs as per Fayol’s functions.  
 
There seems to be limited understanding and application of how management 
can contribute to both the literature and design of PSGEs. Although the four 
functions have been noted, perhaps a basic consideration of the principles of 
management should be used instead. Fells (2000) discusses the 14 principles 
of management which include division of work, authority and responsibility, 
discipline, command, direction, subordination of individual interest to general 
interest, remuneration, centralisation, span of control, order, equity, stability of 
personnel, initiative, and esprit de corps, in other words, a feeling of pride. 
 
The principles of division of work, subordination of individual interest to general 
interest and direction, emerge as distinctive principles that have been 
discussed in regard to the collective need and strategic direction of claimant 
groups when devising an appropriate structure for their PSGE. Gibbs (2015, 
p. 6) agrees and states that “the careful specification of functions and 
responsibilities across different components of the PSGE structure is an 
important aspect of designing an effective PSGE”. In particular, the 
relationship between the corporate entity and the PSGE needs careful 
consideration with respect to objectives, powers, reporting and management 
support. 
 
Again, considerations of PSGE design are not contemplated as management 
principles but are discussed in light of the social and cultural requirements for 
the PSGE model to reflect tribal imperatives. To shed light on the contribution 
of management to the design of PSGEs, requires concurrent discussion of 
governance and management in the design and functionality of PSGEs. 
Adaptive management has been applied to environmental management over 
many years (McLain & Lee, 1996). It is an approach to resource and 
ecosystem management that refers to functionally defined social-ecological 
systems with a regional scope (Voß & Bornemann, 2011).  
 



 18 

2.3.3 Management and governance 
 
With this in mind, PSGEs are established with a goal, amongst other things, 
of managing assets and resources on behalf of claimant groups. The potential 
for the consideration, use and application of adaptive management has merit 
for the design of PSGEs as it gives consideration to the role of management 
in the design process. Voß and Bornemann (2011) promote use of adaptive 
management for the effective integration of politics into the design of good 
governance. They draw attention to the pervasiveness of politics as often 
unruly and hidden attempts at shaping the set-up, process, and outcome of 
governance to further beliefs and interests of particular actors.  
 
Halbe, Pahl-Wostl, Sendzimir, and Adamowski’s (2013) paper on integrated 
water resource management aims at finding practical and sustainable 
solutions to water issues. They propose a new methodology for the integrated 
analysis of water resources management and governance systems, which 
allows for the examination of structures and processes. In their research, they 
link participatory modelling with research on complex management and 
governance systems. At the core of their research, is the importance of 
knowledge transfer between scientific, policy, engineering and local 
communities. Their view on adaptive management principles facilitates 
assessment and implementation of transformation processes between these 
groups for effective management of resources such as water.  
 
Tihanyi, Graffin, and George (2014) also talk about the role of management 
and the impact of governance. They agree that corporate governance is about 
what the board of a company does and how it sets the values of the company, 
but is distinct from the management of the company by full-time executives. 
Corporate governance stems predominantly from a financial perspective. 
Instead of adaptive management, Tihanyi et al. (2014) talk about agency 
conflict and explore governance problems at different levels of analysis by 
considering managers and their teams in leadership and other roles rather 
than as agents of the shareholders or inside members of the board of directors. 
 
Gibbs (2015) stresses the need for separation between governance and 
management, based on function and the expertise of those functions. The 
separation of governance of the parent entity from management of the assets 
is crucial for the effective management of settlement assets. This separation 
allows the right skills to be focused on the right tasks. Typically, the trustees 
who are elected to govern the parent body are experienced at political 
representation and do not necessarily have the business experience for 
effective management of commercial assets. A separate commercial arm 
enables PSGE trustees to appoint company directors with appropriate skills.  
 



 19 

Boje, Oswick, and Ford (2004) provide an interesting argument that 
organisations are phenomena in and of language. They argue that 
organisations can be understood as collaborative and contending discourses. 
As such, we can consider organisations as material practices of text and talk 
set in currents of political economy and sociohistoricity. From this point of view, 
what an organisation is and everything that happens in and to it can be seen 
as a phenomenon in and of language. This remains true given the legal and 
statutory requirements surrounding the design and implementation of PSGEs. 
This legal language could very well infiltrate the literature on PSGEs to the 
point that any acceptance of management is either absent or misunderstood.  
 
There is no broad agreement that management and governance functions 
should be isolated. There is support though for better understanding on how 
the two functions can work together in the establishment of PSGEs. That is, 
how management and governance can be used in designing appropriate 
structures for claimant groups. Currently, we only use and understand 
managerial concepts in the abstract but lack a distinctive application of Māori 
organisational design and functionality. Because of this, there remains minimal 
literature on PSGEs and management.  
 
Irrespective of whether or not PSGEs are portrayed as a management issue, 
the discussions within the organisational design activity of treaty settlements 
continue to be framed within a political, legal, environmental, cultural, 
economic and governance lens. When structural issues of time, cost and 
flexibility to meet both statutory and collective needs are present, 
organisational design is not fully appreciated for its contribution to settlement 
challenges (Te Puni Kokiri, 2004). 
 
If governance as defined by Te Puni Kokiri (2004), is merely one feature of an 
organisation, the reason for the preponderance of the literature on governance 
in PSGEs is not apparent. Perhaps it is because there needs to be a better 
understanding of organisational design and management. That is, beyond 
thinking about managing assets, or contrasting management and governance 
and operational activity. In fact, strategic thinking needs to take into 
consideration a Māori approach to planning, organising, leading and 
controlling (Mika & O'Sullivan, 2014).  
 
Ngā Tipu Whakaritorito was completed from a governance perspective (Te 
Puni Kokiri, 2004) and He Waka Umanga was completed from a legal 
perspective (New Zealand Law Commission, 2006). These reports have been 
reviewed from a legal perspective (McKay, 2012) and an economic 
perspective (Meade, 2004). This will contribute to the literature and policy, and 
allow managerial concepts to be considered prior to establishment of PSGEs. 
 



 20 

2.4 Māori management, design and function 
 
“Analysis of organisation design literature shows there is a complete absence 
of literature concerning the nature of indigenous organisations and their 
design” (Prendergast-Tarena, 2015, p. 33). This remains true for PSGEs as 
the literature so far has shown that management has only been discussed in 
light of management and co-management of resources and assets, current 
structures not being suitable, and the multiple purposes ascribed to PSGEs. 
These are not necessarily issues of management or design and for this 
reason, this literature review’s scope considers Māori management. 
 
Prendergast-Tarena (2015) identified that the commonality of contemporary 
indigenous organisations is in their contexts and challenges rather than their 
mechanics. This confirms two things. First, that management has a place in 
contributing to the development of these mechanics, and secondly that the 
commonalities of contexts and challenges amongst indigenous organisations 
including Māori, are more evident. This coincides with the idea presented 
earlier that factors of design could be more important than design itself. These 
factors, or contexts and challenges, are presented next and identify which of 
those factors that Māori consider important when establishing organisations. 
 
2.4.1 Māori organisations and the role of values 
 
Values and the important role of values remains critical in the establishment 
and practices of Māori organisations and Māori businesses at large (Spiller, 
Erakovic, Henare, & Pio, 2011; Tinirau, 2017; Wolfgramm, Spiller, Henry, & 
Pouwhare, 2019). Tinirau (2017) argues that “though Māori have endured 
discrimination, and their business reflect either Pākeha business models, 
Māori models of business or a composite of both, Māori values tend to 
manifest in different ways, even though they may not be defined or formalised” 
(p. 120). This will become true for PSGEs particularly because the people they 
represent are Māori, iwi, hapū and whānau who hold a high regard for tikanga 
and values as a first consideration as to what PSGEs must have.  
 
Knox (2005) discusses values and their role in the way Māori organisations 
have evolved. His thesis investigates traditional ways in which Māori society 
was organised prior to the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi and the impact of 
the arrival of Europeans on the Māori economy. Knox argues that the Pākeha 
(European) organisational model under which most Māori activities have been 
conducted since the mid twentieth century remains inadequate. While Knox 
focuses on Māori land, a new approach to Māori organisations is also needed 
which will result in better outcomes for Māori landowners. Knox’s approach 
encourages the use and important role of Māori values. 
 



 21 

Such values can be seen as providing an advantage to Māori businesses and 
Māori in business. For instance Best and Love (2010) discuss the role of 
cultural capital in indigenous organisations. The argument is that cultural 
capital can be the reason for economic growth; in other words, turning cultural 
capital into economic capital. Best and Love also state that Māori 
organisations have different ways of management and leadership to that of 
European organisations because of values such as tikanga and kawa 
(custom). Although the theory applies to Māori businesses, the same can be 
said for PSGEs, especially since PSGEs include Māori people, assets and 
values as define by Best and Love (2010). 
 
A similar view is held by Spiller et al. (2011) in their article on Māori values in 
tourism business. They look at business as catalysts for well-being, as 
opposed to being profit and wealth driven. In particular, they argue that Māori 
values such as tikanga, manaakitanga (hospitality) and pono (truth) are part 
of Māori organisational realities which inform Māori business practices and 
facilitate well-being. Māori models of business are considerations for design 
as Spiller et al. (2011) put it and organisational realities that PSGEs assume. 
 
2.4.2 Organisational realities and being multipurpose 
 
Organisational realities is also alluded to by Henry (1997), who suggests that 
influences such as capitalism have led to the development of a new economic 
infrastructure that has allowed Māori to operate in their commercial reality, 
whilst also blending aspects of Māori culture. The infrastructure, from which 
Māori businesses have developed, results from Māori needs and constraints 
imposed by paternalistic, inflexible, and discriminatory legal frameworks Māori 
businesses must operates within (Henry, 1997).  
 
Earlier this review spoke of settlements being multi-purpose, which remains 
true for Māori organisations generally. Harmsworth et al. (2002) discuss 
sustainable development and holistic Māori approaches to improve well-being, 
health, capacity, identity, environmental management, and economic growth. 
Their framework can help organisations set goals that go beyond economics. 
They argue that with any organisation’s movement into a new phase, a review 
of the organisational structure and processes is essential, however it falls short 
of considering what appropriate structures meet all these requirements.  
 
It begs to ask, what then are appropriate designs or models that meet the 
breadth of values, cultural needs, commercial realities and functions of not 
only PSGEs but Māori organisations and businesses at large. This poses a 
more critical question: are there any? In returning to Prendergast-Tarena 
(2015), addressing these questions requires reference to indigenous contexts. 
Although he looks at the relationship between organisational design and 
success and how they are influenced by culture, his insights are useful here.  
 



 22 

2.5 Indigenous and tribal design and function 
 
“Finding the structure that will best meet the unique governance requirements 
of Māori collectives has challenged Māori incorporations and trusts for quite 
some decades” (Prendergast-Tarena, 2015, p. 12). Prendergast-Tarena 
argues that the traditional forms of iwi organisation were insufficient to 
progress claims through the tribunal process. Together with the need to form 
a structure that met the prerequisites and conditions set out by the Crown, a 
new model of tribal structuring was created—the iwi corporate. The ratification 
of a new form of iwi organisation to manage post-settlement assets has 
become an unintended consequence of the settlement process. 
 
This review of how PSGEs are created, does not confirm if claimant groups in 
fact had meaningful input into the design of their PSGEs. Instead it asks if such 
structures were merely replicas of western models. It also does not confirm, 
whether managerial concepts were part of those models. Prendergast-Tarena 
(2015) argues that the adoption of western models suited political motives for 
the transfer of assets but did so at the expense of a more considered approach 
whereby cultural values could have been better translated into organisation 
design principles. And although this thesis is not about values as such, values 
remain critical for Māori organisations. 
 
Martin (2003) urges conceptualisation of indigenous organisations within the 
complex domains in which they are located. This rarely occurs in the 
development of PSGEs. Martin (2003) also believes that the essence of 
developing effective indigenous institutions is not about solving conflicting 
values but rather working toward a robust system that can engage diversity 
and the technical capability to operate the institutions. This is consistent with 
PSGEs not only being multi-purpose but products of organisational realities. 
 
2.5.1 Indigenous governance and management from the United States 
 
Although PSGEs explicitly incorporate the term governance, little is known 
about the relevance of management or managerial concepts. The next section 
reviews nation-building theory from indigenous experience of the United 
States of America (US). It highlights challenges similar to those of PSGEs. 
 
Tribal governance is something that has been seriously considered in the US. 
Cornell and Kalt (2006) talk about two approaches to reservation economic 
development, one of which is the nation building approach. While nation 
building is about self-determination and tribal development, for Indian nations, 
it is about backing up sovereignty with effective governing institutions. 
Effective governing institutions is about ensuring Indian nations are in the 
driver’s seat, it is about understanding the rules of the game, it is about 
separating politics from day-to-day business and program management, it is 
about matching indigenous political culture and legitimacy in the eyes of the 
people. 
 



 23 

However, “one of the problems that Indian nations have had is their 
dependence on institutions that they did not design and that reflect another 
society’s ideas about how authority ought to be organized and exercised” 
(Cornell & Kalt, 2006, p. 16). This argument was shared earlier by 
Prendergast-Tarena (2015) in the adoption of western models. Cornell and 
Kalt (1994) continue to argue that instead, governments should have a 
resourcing role as opposed to a decision making one. How then can 
sovereignty be achieved if indigenous institutions continue to work within the 
confines of western models? Cornell and Kalt (1994) indicate that for 
institutional success relies on their ability to turn their legal conditions into a 
practical tool for nation-building. 
 
The same can be said of PSGEs, particularly in light of the importance of 
values and the multiple purposes prescribed to PSGEs. Cornell and Kalt 
(1994) define this as institutions being able to pass the test of not only being 
designed to work in the abstract, but they have to fit the informal institutions 
as well, that is, the culturally derived norms and preferred ways of doing things. 
Further, Cornell and Kalt (1994) argue that these institutions of self-
governance have to work both at the level of policy and group action and at 
the level of day-to-day bureaucratic functions. This may seem problematic 
because the execution of self-governance is not always successful. 
 
This is confirmed by Miller (2018), who tries to apply the nation-building theory 
to the problem of how to develop private sector economies on reservations. 
This gets to the heart of the practicalities, or as Cornell and Kalt (1994) put it, 
the day-to-day bureaucratic functions. At the heart of Miller’s argument is that 
if sovereign institutions are the goal, Indian peoples and governments are well 
overdue to revive their traditional institutions that once promoted and protected 
private economic activities. Getting to that stage will be a matter of one of two 
things, or both. Needing a strong management theory to complement the 
stable governance theory of nation-building or as previously discussed, being 
able to turn their legal conditions into a practical tool for nation-building.  
 
Despite attempts to understand organisational design and management and 
their relevance to PSGEs, understanding if and how design and function are 
determined prior to the establishment of any PSGE remains elusive. Widening 
the scope of literature to consider governance, Māori management, 
indigenous design and tribal governance, has provided other ways to view 
PSGEs. Yet, PSGE design and operation are confounded by the complexities 
of context, organisational realities, governance, values and cultural needs, 
adaptation of western models and achieving sovereignty. 
 
Prendergast-Tarena (2015) states that “there has been no analysis of the 
characteristics of current indigenous organisations to determine if there are 
uniquely indigenous features or if they merely mimic Western corporate 
structures” (p. 15). He argues that new knowledge generated in this area 
would assist indigenous groups in designing their organisations to best 
achieve success as defined by their own realities. 
 



 
 

24 

Mika and O'Sullivan (2014) share a similar argument and aim to renew interest 
in Māori management as a distinctive form of management within Aotearoa 
New Zealand. They agree with the argument so far that what is written about 
Māori organisations tends to concentrate on governance, structure and 
leadership and not so much on management. They also argue that Māori 
management is locked into a post-colonial struggle to correct the imbalances 
of unequal systems of economic exchange. Therefore, it is important to 
understand if and how management can contribute to the body of knowledge 
within treaty settlements.  
 
2.6 Designing the PSGE 
 
The literature so far has built up a theoretical understanding of the place of 
organisational design and management in PSGEs. And although the 
comments above stress the need for a distinctive management point of view, 
it is now timely to consider the practicalities and the processes involved when 
PSGEs arrive at the stage of development, or better known as the ratification 
of the governance entity (see Figure 1). Next, the literature review examines 
the process to establish PSGEs. It seeks to understand if claimant groups are 
provided with advice to establish their PSGEs and if so, what type of advice 
this is. 
 
2.6.1 Crown design 
 
It is appropriate that we start this section with advice provided by the Crown 
(Office of Treaty Settlements, 2018). Healing the past, building a future: A 
Guide to Treaty of Waitangi Claims and Negotiations with the Crown, popularly 
known as the ‘Red Book,’ is a summary of the settlement process. The Crown 
Forestry Rental Trust (2008) have also produced information guidelines for 
claimant groups, which mirrors the information from the Crown but with a 
claimant-centred approach. Development of settlement policy and structures 
is the first section of the Red Book that is relevant to this thesis. 
 
Following a review of the settlement process and policy in 2000 (Office of 
Treaty Settlements, 2018), six key principles were established to guide the 
Crown in settlement of historical treaty claims. The principles are intended to 
ensure settlements are fair, durable, final and occur in a timely manner. The 
principles include good faith, restoration of relationship, just redress, fairness 
between claims, transparency and government negotiated. These principles 
are high level, but it would be interesting to know whether management or 
organisational design were contemplated in their development. 
 



 25 

Another possible factor influencing design is multi stakeholder collaboration 
necessary to not only the settlement process, but to the design of PSGEs. This 
literature review has already discussed PSGEs needing to be multi-purpose, 
now they are also tasked with ensuring their design takes into consideration 
the various groups who may or may not have an influence or involvement in 
their PSGE. The first is the Office of Treaty Settlements (OTS). They negotiate 
settlements of historical claims directly with claimant groups on behalf of the 
Crown. They provide policy advice, coordinate the government departments 
that are involved, oversee implementation and administer protection 
mechanisms of Crown-owned land for settlement purposes. 
 
Other groups involved are the Crown Law Office who provide advice to OTS 
on legal issues and drafting on settlements. Treasury, the lead advisor to the 
government on economic and financial policy, is responsible for fiscal 
management. Te Puni Kokiri, the Ministry of Māori Development provide 
advice on mandating and governance issues. The Department of 
Conservation deal with issues relating to land, plants and animals. The 
Ministry of Primary Industries provide advice on non-commercial fisheries 
issues. The Ministry for the Environment provide advice on Crown landholding 
issues. Land Information New Zealand provide advice on land issues including 
the Public Works Act 1981. And finally, the Parliamentary Counsel Office 
prepare the drafting of settlement legislation. 
 
It is uncertain whether the Crown Law Office or the Parliamentary Counsel 
Office secure management advice on the design of PSGEs. Perhaps it is left 
for Te Puni Kokiri to source expertise on the interplay of these groups. Perhaps 
the input of these groups is confined to satisfying legal requirements. There 
appears to be a need for departmental advice on the implementation and 
function of PSGEs. 
 
Earlier, six key principles were identified that guide the Crown with treaty 
settlements. The Red Book (Office of Treaty Settlements, 2018) also highlights 
Crown principles for the development of PSGE structures. Claimant groups 
must ensure that the structure adequately represents all members of the 
claimant group, has transparent decision-making and dispute resolution 
procedures, is fully accountable to the whole claimant group, ensures the 
beneficiaries of the settlement and the beneficiaries of the governance entity 
are identical when transferring assets and that the structure has been ratified 
by the claimant community. There is no particular reasoning for these 
principles and on the surface, it might seem that they are minimal. 
 
However what is most astounding is that following the presentation of what my 
seem like flexible principles, OTS also “urges claimant groups to seek 
appropriate professional advice when considering their options for a 
governance entity” (Office of Treaty Settlements, 2018, p. 67). And although 
OTS stress the need for claimant groups to seek professional advice, 
assuming claimant groups have options in their structure is in fact misleading. 
This becomes problematic because should the Crown have considered the 
practicalities or managerial concepts at the outset, claimant groups will not be 
challenged with finding an appropriate design for their PSGEs.  



 
 

26 

2.6.2 Financial and legal input 
 
For this reason, accountants and lawyers have set up post-settlement entities 
(Wineti, 2015). Despite there being a need for better structures to meet the 
ongoing demands of legislation, stakeholder expectations and asset 
management and responsibility, PSGEs are constrained in what they can do. 
While management can improve how PSGEs are designed, the advice 
continues to come from economic, legal and corporate models. Include the 
influence of political drivers such as inter- and intra-tribal challenges and 
mandating pressures, there is little room left for managerial considerations to 
impact the establishment of PSGEs. 
 
The Crown asks 20 questions on governance as part of the disclosure material 
when designing post-settlement entities (Office of Treaty Settlements, 2018). 
Of the 20 questions, three are generic and ask about the proposed structure 
and bodies accountable to it, how was it developed, and the relationship 
between the proposed structure and existing entities (if any). Three questions 
are on representation. Twelve are on accountability, that is, decision making, 
distributing benefits, rules and changes. Of these, one asks about the activities 
and another ask about management of assets and funds. The last two are on 
transparency specifically auditing and distribution of information. It is evident 
that little is asked of the functionality and execution of PSGEs.  
 
“Ngāi Tahu’s lead negotiators were advised by Rogernomics exponents” 
(Highman, 1997 as cited in Prendergast-Tarena, 2015). At the time, there was 
continued pressure for post-settled iwi to become corporate and as such was 
confirmed through the legal recognition and institutionalisation via the 
Waitangi Tribunal, though not intentional (Prendergast-Tarena, 2015). Even 
today with many small to medium sized settlements, the likelihood of PSGEs 
being governance heavy and light on operations is high. This will mean that 
between the expectations and aspirations from claimant groups, PSGEs will 
lack capacity to deliver without partnerships and collaboration from other 
stakeholders (SmartGrowth, 2013).  
 
Sanderson et al. (2007), in their report to the Crown Forestry Rental Trust look 
at the functions and costs of operating a PSGE. The report is a fair 
representation of their expertise and considers both the business aspect of 
operating a PSGE and the costs associated with such functions, particularly 
during the establishment phase. This is perhaps one of the most relevant 
documents in regard to the design of PSGEs and management, due to the 
business lens applied. The report is an attempt to discuss functions of a PSGE 
as well as the costs associated with these roles. The recommendations are 
illustrative rather than exhaustive, but nonetheless present a management 
point of view. 
 



 27 

“Benchmarking and best practice principles are critical to inform the 
establishment of PSGEs, and to successfully grow iwi-owned assets. 
However, an iwi needs to consider their goals post-settlement, establish and 
run their PSGE within this context, and choose the functions and types of 
activities that best fit their situation post settlement” (Sanderson et al., 2007, 
p. 3). The attention to benchmarking and best practice principles have not 
been previously discussed and this review contributes considerably to the lack 
of literature in the PSGE and management space. It also supports the notion 
that this type of advice should be part of the Crown’s processes when 
negotiating with claimant groups the design and establishment of their PSGEs. 
 
Sanderson et al. (2007) outline four key functions necessary to support the 
operation of an economically sustainable PSGE. These are business 
functions, representational functions, statutory functions and treaty partner 
functions. The functions of individual PSGEs will also be dependent on 
settlement redress. Each PSGE is created for a purpose and to fulfil that 
purpose they must function as a business, represent an iwi, and work closely 
with government. It highlights the need to question, why then PSGEs are not 
designed around this framework, especially from the Crown’s perspective?  
 
“Many iwi initially struggle developing the business functions of their PSGE. 
They have received their quantum from the Crown and have their PSGE in 
place, but grapple with the costs associated with setting up a business and 
lack the skills to take their trust and move it to be a commercially viable 
business. For many iwi it is difficult to move from being a claimant group to a 
commercial entity” (Sanderson et al., 2007, p. 20). Coupled this with the 
increased expectations on PSGEs to be instantly successful and what 
Sanderson et al. (2007) label other critical responsibilities, referred to earlier 
as being multi-purpose, bringing in managerial or in this case business factors 
earlier in the design phase can minimise the work needed come 
implementation. 
 
A more recent report was prepared for the Crown Forestry Rental Trust (Hayes 
& Johnston, 2012), which provided tax information to claimant groups. In 
providing tax information, it was necessary to understand the key business 
and management functions of PSGEs. The functions informed the type of 
structure available to iwi, which ranged from minimal to complex and 
considered the transition of existing structures. The report concluded with a 
comprehensive overview of the structuring needs for iwi and how this informs 
which model PSGEs decide on. Given the need to decide how tax is treated, 
it was necessary to understand the intricate details of the various functions. 
The report has more detail than the one previously noted and as a result, has 
more opportunity to analyse from an organisational design perspective.  
 



 28 

Current Māori organisations are designed around risk aversion and safety, 
which make it less likely to accommodate change and innovation (Wineti, 
2015). Wineti asserts that the traditional way of building a business is to get 
an asset or workforce and put a legal boundary around it, particularly those 
Māori organisations that have been set up under legislation. Not only is it about 
risk aversion and safety, but claimant groups should also be thinking of the 
practicalities as outlined by Sanderson et al. (2007). These are, the cost of 
governance and compliance, the process of transition, plans, policies and 
personnel, the components of redress that impact on function and the 
administration and establishment of companies. 
 
The framing of PSGEs is very much about tax and legalities (Chapman Tripp, 
2012). The commonly used structure is where the PSGE is usually a tax 
charity with elected trustees, under which it has a social services trust and an 
asset holding company. The decisions are around the relevance of being a 
registered tax charity or not, personal liability for trustees, charities making 
non-charitable distributions, making distributions to members living overseas, 
stability around delegated authority, sudden changes of control, policy and 
direction and claimant groups lacking expertise around companies. Chapman 
Tripp (2012) recommend structures which build on those currently being 
implemented and moving away from the largely charitable model. 
 
Perhaps the framing of PSGEs is not so much about its intended or actual 
form and function, but relies heavily on the type of organisation it is. “A PSGE 
is not a traditional Māori structure. It is a relatively new type of entity 
established under a set of Crown requirements for a very specific purpose” 
(Gibbs, 2015, p. 3). This specific purpose has been bound by legislative and 
tax requirements as outlined by the Crown. The need for clarification of the 
type of organisation PSGEs are, could determine how best to involve 
management principles and concepts to the design process of PSGE 
structures. 
 
Rindova and Kotha (2001) go beyond the conventional thinking about 
organisational form as relatively fixed and inertial, whereby structural changes 
traditionally meant adding or removing a unit or a level of the hierarchy. The 
contemporary view regard organisational form as a distinct entity and provider 
of certain services and classified as part of a group. As distinct entities, many 
PSGEs choose the private trust model which has the parent body with 
subsidiary trusts or companies set up underneath. As such, PSGEs can be 
considered as unique legal constitutions who operate like iwi-specific 
monopolies, a single organisation, or as oligopolies, such as those of the 
Central North Island treaty settlement which consist of multiple groupings. 
 



 29 

2.7 Ratifying the PSGE  
 
This section reviews a selection of ratification booklets. Ratification booklets 
are what is distributed to members of the claimant group prior to their PSGE 
being ratified. The selected booklets are ones that are publicly available. The 
ratification booklets illustrate information shared with iwi members on 
organisational design and management of the PSGE. Publicly available 
booklets may not include all the information that has been distributed to 
members, as many meet and plan prior to the publication of the information. 
 
Iwi have various ratification booklets. Some looking at the full settlement and 
some ratification books just for the establishment of the PSGE. At the outset, 
some settlements chose to inform claimant group members in depth and in 
detail (Gibbs, 2015; Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa-Tāmaki-Nui-Ā-Rua 
Settlement Trust, 2016; Te Runanga o Ngāti Maru (Taranaki) Trust, 2018a), 
while others chose to provide a summarised version in light of the full 
settlement and redress package (Ngaati Whanaunga Incorporated Society, 
2017; Ngāi Te Rangi Settlement Trust, 2013; Ngāti Paoa Iwi Trust, 2013; Te 
Mana o Ngāti Rangitihi Trust, 2019).  
 
The Ngaati Whanaunga ratification book (Ngaati Whanaunga Incorporated 
Society, 2017), sought independent advice to develop their PSGE and a 
section was dedicated to the PSGE itself. This included how the PSGE meets 
the Crown’s criteria of representation, accountability and transparency and 
gives examples of what that means for them. The Ngāi Te Rangi booklet (Ngāi 
Te Rangi Settlement Trust, 2013) goes over the Crown’s requirements but 
stresses the need for the PSGE to be ratified. A strong presence in all 
ratification booklets to vote yes for the resolutions is evident with Te Mana o 
Ngāti Rangitihi Trust (2019) stating that if the PSGE is not ratified, it will delay 
the journey to full settlement and the PSGE cannot receive the assets. 
 
Another distinctive feature of the information booklets has been the 
clarification of claimant groups. Te Mana o Ngāti Rangitihi Trust (2019) had to 
go through a significant process to establish a PSGE for its own claims even 
though a similar entity had existed for the Central North Island claim. A new 
entity was required before transfer of assets could take place because the 
entity did not meet the requirements of the Crown. Ngāi Te Rangi Settlement 
Trust (2013) had a section on the groups and the difference between the 
claimant groups and the name of the PSGE. Many of the booklets also had to 
outline a timeline of the settlement process and remind the group representing 
the claimant group is not the same entity that will receive the settlement 
assets. 
 



 30 

Some of the claimant groups like Ngāti Paoa Iwi Trust (2013), are yet to reach 
settlement of their treaty claims but have chosen to establish their PSGE so it 
can be positioned to participate in the shared redress of other settlements they 
have an interest in. They too undertook extensive work and sought expert 
advice and had meetings to help develop their PSGE. They summarise the 
two key roles of their PSGE as receiving settlement redress and fostering, 
developing and representing the interests of their members. They also identify 
the role of trustees, how the PSGE will be accountable and that the PSGE will 
have the option to establish subsidiary bodies to meet the different functions 
and goals of the PSGE. 
 
Gibbs (2015) produced a preliminary analysis document on the options for 
ratifying the Ngātiwai PSGE. They also held workshops with their members to 
discuss options. At the outset they go in to detail on the wide range of electoral 
models. The electoral models, sometimes referred to as representative 
models, form a small part of the full structure options available for PSGEs. The 
electoral models or representative structure, look at how trustees are elected. 
Ideally, trustees are elected according to the varying attributes and 
circumstances of the claimant groups. The five basic types of PSGE electoral 
models are based on voting as marae (Māori communal village), hapū, 
individuals, groupings or a combination of these. 
 
In addition to representing the iwi in a democratic sense, the PSGE needs to 
be able to function as a commercial business, deliver services and other 
benefits to iwi members and work closely with central and local government 
(Gibbs, 2015). Ngātiwai went into considerable negotiations with their claimant 
group to develop their PSGE. Some of the issues they raised included 
providing their voice, overlapping claims and being involved in other 
settlements, consistency with values and protocols, accountability and 
transparency. Furthermore, “the design of the PSGE should be strongly 
influenced by its anticipated functions” (Gibbs, 2015, p. 11). 
 
Te Runanga o Ngāti Maru (Taranaki) Trust (2018a) went through extensive 
work to develop their PSGE and sought expert advice. They stressed the need 
to ensure that the roles and functions of Te Kahui Maru (the name of their 
PSGE) are clearly defined and understood. They decided that a “private trust 
structure has been used in a number of settlements and it represents the most 
simple and cost effective structure with both commercial flexibility and 
flexibility in relation to distributions to its beneficiaries” (Te Runanga o Ngāti 
Maru (Taranaki) Trust, 2018a, p. 7). The structure was preferred because it 
was proven, people are familiar with it and it is suitable for looking after assets 
and money for a large number of beneficial members. They also chose the 
structure because of its optimal tax position and flexibility for the future. 
 



 31 

Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa-Tāmaki-Nui-Ā-Rua Settlement Trust (2016) 
ran a series of consultation meetings including asking members their views on 
key features of a PSGE, the representation model and then the proposed 
structure. They too identified key messages that came out of the consultation 
process, including the importance of reconnecting the people to the lands, the 
revitalisation and restoration of marae and protecting the culturally important 
lands received in settlement from being lost again. They also identified the 
importance and reliance on competent people arguing that functionality is 
relied within the people, so in the book it says trustees should appoint people 
who have proven business experience.  
 
In the Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa-Tāmaki-Nui-Ā-Rua information booklet, 
they also discuss the Crown principles when assessing any proposed PSGE 
structure. They also developed their own principles to guide the development 
of a PSGE. These principles include:  

• consistency with tikanga 
• affordability 
• ensuring the PSGE can operate in relation to the size of the settlement 

package 
• simplicity so its members can understand it 
• the structure should ensure that all members are represented 
• accountability 
• flexibility 
• the ability to reflect changing circumstances and  
• to enable the trustees to achieve the trust’s purposes 
• that the structure is able to generate income and can return benefits to 

members. 
 
A paper was prepared to assist Ngāpuhi (a tribe in the North Island) in their 
attempt to work towards settlement (Sadler & Mackinnon, 2014). The principle 
aim of the project was to set out what a PSGE is, what available structures 
there are and the advantages and disadvantages of each, in order to ascertain 
what PSGE is appropriate for Ngāpuhi to progress to post-settlement. The 
paper, however, includes outdated information such as pre-settlement 
structures some of which are no longer acceptable. The paper also included 
examples of the structures used by other iwi. While there maybe merit in doing 
this, structure selection should not be based on what other iwi do. 
 
“PSGEs are predicated on an organisational structure identical to a 
corporation. PSGEs consist of a Trustee Board with reporting lines to it from 
within the organisation structure, with charitable and commercial arms as 
subsidiaries” (Sadler & Mackinnon, 2014, p. 760). The authors continue to 
argue that the settlement process is fraught with impediments and obstacles 
placed by Crown constraints that Ngāpuhi must participate in if it wishes to 
complete a settlement. Rather than consider what other claimant groups have 
done, it would be ideal if Ngāpuhi looked at these important factors to 
determine possible options for their PSGE. If anything, it may also help inform 
some of the principles that could guide the development of their design.  
 



 32 

2.8 Summary  
 
This literature review has attempted to look at first, how PSGEs are discussed 
in the literature, secondly, what factors influence the design of PSGEs and 
finally, whether management or organisational design inform PSGE formation. 
In regard to the first aim, the literature on PSGEs is heavily based on Māori 
organisations, Māori businesses, institutions, iwi corporations, and 
governance. Despite PSGEs making up 63% of the $15b Māori collective 
assets (Chapman Tripp, 2017), there is no distinctive body of literature purely 
dedicated to PSGEs and its relationship to management. 
 
The literature on PSGEs is written in light of the treaty settlement process and 
as such PSGEs are a minor component of the settlement journey. Because of 
this, the literature includes viewpoints from many subjects including politics, 
law, environmental studies, mana whenua, income and health inequalities with 
minimal mention of management. This holistic viewpoint of the settlement 
process, results in an overwhelming discussion on the challenges and factors 
that impact design, rather than specific design or managerial concepts. 
 
In regard to the factors influencing the design of PSGE structures, again, these 
are influenced in large part by the learnings from the settlement journey, 
including the challenges, contexts, values, cultural needs and high-level 
factors. Because of this, the current structures do not work and that there is 
currently no one model that meets the multi-purpose requirements of PSGEs. 
The literature review asks whether it was best to adapt to western models of 
design and structure or focus instead on transforming our current legal 
arrangements to achieve the purposes as set out by the claimant groups.  
 
Although the scope of the review was widened to include governance, Māori 
management and indigenous organisations, it is still unclear exactly what 
influences the design of PSGEs. The review though ascertains that important 
factors for Māori in considering the design and structure of their PSGE can be 
categorised into three main groups: the management and protection of assets; 
cultural values; and meeting the needs of the claimant group. 
 
In response to the factors influencing design being management or 
organisational design informed, this is still uncertain. There is literature on 
PSGEs and management if considered from a governance perspective. 
Governance has been considered by government departments and includes 
sections on management without it being labelled as management.  
 
The review examined the relationship between governance and management. 
It concluded that management is understood in the abstract and lacks detail 
in how it can inform design at a development level. However, advice on PSGEs 
needs to consider the practicalities involved when PSGEs are formed. 
 



 33 

According to the ratification booklets, a lot of planning and negotiation goes 
into the design of the structure. While some claimants received advice, it is 
unclear exactly what type of advice this was or what type of planning and 
negotiation went into the design of the structure. While management can 
improve how PSGEs are designed and function, the literature continues to 
come from economic, legal and corporate models. The thesis will benefit 
hugely from getting an insight to not only the intention of the chosen structure 
of PSGEs, but how it operates according to the many functions outlined in this 
review and how that structure helps the PSGE achieve its goals and purposes 
as prescribed by the claimant group.  
  



 
 

34 

3 Methodology 
 
This chapter outlines the methodological approaches and ethical 
considerations for this thesis which looks to understand design and operation 
in PSGEs. This chapter will first describe the overall research paradigm used 
throughout this thesis, including Kaupapa Māori philosophy and an interpretive 
approach. A small section is included discussing positionality, based on the 
researcher’s rationale, interest and experience in the topic. The second part 
of this chapter then looks at the research methods applied including theoretical 
and practical techniques. The final part of this chapter discusses ethical 
considerations for the thesis.  
 
3.1 Research paradigm  
 
This study is qualitative in nature and uses aspects of both a Kaupapa Māori 
philosophy and an interpretive approach. A key feature of qualitative research 
applicable to this thesis is an inductive view of the relationship between theory 
and research, with theories emerging from the data (Bell, Bryman, & Harley, 
2019). This is particularly important because whilst the thesis intends to view 
the topic as per the definitions and features of management, it will do so only 
to provide the parameters of the topic. The thesis does not intend to assess 
the data as it pertains to meeting the definition of organisational design. Thi