Inter-Organisational Collaboration: A Qualitative Study of Collaboration Arrangements in the Public and Community Housing Sector in New Zealand

Abstract

Complex problems are rarely solved on their own. One such problem facing Aotearoa New Zealand is the provision of affordable housing that enhances the wellbeing of tenants and local communities. Using qualitative methodology, this study examines the various ways in which public and community housing providers work together with external organisations to improve wellbeing. This research is the first of its kind in New Zealand to examine the different ways that housing providers collaborate with external organisations. It is also the first of its kind to explore the extent to which the Treaty of Waitangi (the founding document of New Zealand between Māori and the Crown) influences collaboration. To assist our understanding of collaboration typology, a focused literature review was undertaken, where a collaboration continuum was developed. The literature findings were utilised to strengthen our interrogation of the data by observing activities, rather than relying on commonly used terms. All housing providers were identified as investing heavily in collaboration. Those engaged in large complex projects exhibited higher levels of inter-organisational intensity. The Treaty of Waitangi was identified as influencing collaboration between housing providers and Māori, including non-Crown agencies. As the affordable housing sector undergoes changes, further research is recommended.

1. Introduction

Aotearoa New Zealand faces a number of complex challenges when it comes to housing. Emerging from decades of under-investment in housing, very high house prices [1] have led to reduced opportunities for first-time house buyers [2] and difficulties for families accessing affordable housing in the private rental market [3]. Over time, these effects, along with rising inequalities and poverty [4] have resulted in high rates of housing deprivation [5]. Defined in Aotearoa New Zealand as those living with no shelter, in temporary accommodation, sharing someone’s private dwelling, and living in uninhabitable housing, around 113,000 people, or 2.3 percent of the New Zealand 2023 Census’ usually resident population were indicated as being severely housing deprived [6]. Of this population, Māori and Pacific people were identified as experiencing the highest rates of severe housing deprivation, estimated at 394.0 per 10,000 and 657.3 per 10,000, respectively [6]. Women, children under the age of 15, disabled people, and the LGBT+ community were identified as experiencing the highest rates of homelessness.

It is against this backdrop that the demand for affordable housing continues to be high, with over 19,300 applicants on the Housing Register as of 31 March 2025 [7], with around 185,000 people housed by Aotearoa New Zealand’s public housing provider (Kāinga Ora) [8] and around 35,000 people housed in the community housing sector [9]. The constant demand for affordable housing over recent years, has led to greater diversity in the number of and types of housing organisations operating in the sector. Nowadays, Kāinga Ora (a Crown agency established under the Crown Entities Act 2004), which owns around 72,000 homes [10], is joined by 89 registered community organisations, which house approximately 35,000 people nationally across 19,300 homes [11]. These community housing providers include, among others, iwi (Māori tribes), Māori organisations, Pacific groups, housing trusts, and churches.

A growing body of evidence showing the link between housing and health in Aotearoa New Zealand has been informing the affordable housing sector [12,13,14]. These, and many other studies, here [15,16,17] and internationally [18,19,20,21] highlight the association between housing and physical and mental health and wellbeing. While many of these effects have centred on the physical environment of houses, such as the quality of building materials, heating, and ventilation, other influences are also being identified as impacting on the wellbeing of tenants. These include, among other things, policy settings, such as security of tenure, that impact feelings of security, placement, and belonging [22].

Despite this rich literature, from a governance perspective, we recognised that we knew very little about the behaviour and activities of housing providers, particularly as it relates to how they work together with external organisations to improve wellbeing outcomes. As part of research on the governance of public and community housing providers, this research is one of a number of projects undertaken as part of a five-year multidisciplinary research programme on public housing and urban regeneration (PH&UR) led by the University of Otago. It joins research in other areas including Māori wellbeing, organisational governance, community formation and urban design, housing quality, energy, transport, and climate change.

This study seeks to answer two key questions:

i.

What types of collaboration arrangements characterise the activities of public and community housing providers and how can they be supported?

ii.

To what extent does the Treaty of Waitangi (the founding document of New Zealand between Māori—the Indigenous people of New Zealand—and the Crown) influence collaboration between housing providers and Māori?

To answer these questions, this article is structured into six main sections. The first section examines the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi that guide the relationship between the Crown and Māori. This is followed by our findings from a focused literature review on inter-organisational collaboration types. Section Three sets out the materials and method. Section Four presents our results. Section Five discusses the results against our literature findings. Section Six presents our conclusion.

2. Treaty of Waitangi

Te Tiriti o Waitangi (in English, the Treaty of Waitangi), is the founding document of Aotearoa New Zealand, and is of great constitutional importance. Signed in 1840 by representatives of the British Crown and representatives of Māori tribes (iwi) and Māori sub-tribes (hapū), the Treaty provides a framework for the ongoing relationship between the Crown and Māori to this day and into the future. Although the Treaty is not incorporated into the general law of New Zealand nor entrenched as supreme law, broad administrative law requirements founded in the Treaty apply to the exercise of most public powers. Nowadays, principles derived from the Treaty are referred to in many New Zealand statutes which require the Crown to give effect to the principles that underlie the Treaty.

So why is the Treaty of Waitangi relevant for this research? Its importance is two-fold. The first is that, as a Crown agency, the large public housing provider participating in this study is expected to discharge its obligations under the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. To that extent, we would expect the principles to guide the way that this provider collaborates with Māori and prioritises and enables the wellbeing of its tenants. The second is the potential for the Treaty to influence non-Crown agencies, such as community housing providers, as they go about developing relationships and working together with Māori to improve Māori wellbeing.

Derived from the Waitangi Tribunal (a legal process by which Māori Treaty claims can be investigated) and judicial judgements from the Court of Appeal and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, a number of principles have emerged that guide the relationship between the Crown and Māori. Three of the most long-standing and well-established of these principles in New Zealand legislation are:

• Principle of Partnership: the Treaty created a relationship between Māori and the Crown, and both parties must act in utmost good faith;
• Principle of Participation: the Crown will provide Māori with opportunities to engage with decision-making processes at all levels;
• Principle of Protection: active protection of Māori interests, rights, taonga (treasure possession), and rangatiratanga (self-determination).

Over time, as the relationship between the Crown and Māori has continued to evolve, a wider set of principles have emerged to further guide that relationship. These include principles pertaining to:

• Kāwanatanga: the Crown’s right to govern.
• Rangatiratanga: provides for Māori self-determination and mana Motuhake (autonomy, chiefly authority) over tikanga, resources, and people so that Māori are able to manage their own affairs in a way that aligns with their customs and values.
• Reciprocity: the equal status of the Treaty partners.
• Mutual Benefit: the Crown’s obligation to protect the properties of the Treaty partner, ensuring that Māori benefit equitably.
• Redress: the obligation on the Crown to remedy past breaches [23].

It is within the context of these Treaty principles that this study examines how collaboration between public and community housing providers and other agencies and organisations is influenced by the Treaty of Waitangi. This research is also guided by three wellbeing frameworks developed as part of the PH&UR research programme to guide our research. They include (1) an inclusive wellbeing framework that brings together various approaches to wellbeing [24]; (2) the Whakawhanaungatanga Māori wellbeing model, a framework for housing and urban environments based on Māori principles [25]; and (3) a Pacific framework that sets out the five commonly shared principles that underpin Pacific worldviews [26].

3. Literature Review

The purpose of this literature review is to explore the concept of collaboration and the different ways that organisations go about ‘working together’. The findings of the review are intended to garner a good understanding of collaboration types and the inter-organisational arrangements and activities that define them. The objective is to use these findings to strengthen our interrogation of the data by examining what organisations execute, rather than relying purely on their use of collaboration terminology.

Derived from the Latin ‘collabarare’, the term collaboration is made up of two distinct parts. The first is the Latin prefix ‘com’ or ‘col’, which means ‘together’ or ‘jointly’. The second is ‘laborare’, which means to labour [27]. Collectively, the word denotes the act of ‘working together’ or ‘joint working’. A number of reasons were distilled from the literature to explain why organisations may seek to collaborate with external agencies. They include, among other things, the desire of organisations to (a) reduce uncertainty and construct a more sustainable organisation [28]; (b) resolve complex and intractable problems that may be difficult to achieve on their own [29]; (c) achieve greater levels of innovation [30,31]; (d) gain or enhance legitimacy [31]; and (e) realise some form of collaborative advantage [32,33]. These justifications also apply to supply chains where parties need to collaborate with an entire supply chain to ensure that value is not lost due to downstream operations [34].

With our focus on collaboration forms, five distinct types of inter-organisational ways of ‘working together’ were identified, distinguishable by intensity of trust, shared resources, integrated decision-making, and organisational arrangements [35,36]. Placed along a continuum from lesser to higher concentrations of these attributes, a typology of inter-organisational ways of ‘working together’ emerged. They included networks/alliances, cooperation, coordination, collaboration, and integrated organisational arrangements, as set out in collaborative governance theory [37,38,39]. One question that arose throughout the review was the degree to which consultation could be considered as a type of collaboration. Usually considered as a process related to the one-way flow of information from one organisation to another, the lack of meaningful inter-organisational interactions suggests that consultation does not meet the requirements of collaboration. Among the most important aspects of those missing interactions include the absence of shared design of the consultation process and the ability of those being consulted to influence decisions. Some, such as Stolte [40] go further to suggest that in the case of First Nations peoples, consultation is actually “…a strategy of manipulation to create the illusion of participation and consideration…defined by those in power…” [40] (p. 436).

The literature on the Treaty of Waitangi [41,42], similarly points to a history of inadequate consultation between the Crown and Māori as being the basis for the evolution of the Treaty principles, referred to previously. These include a duty to act reasonably and in good faith (interpreted as signifying ‘partnership’) and the need for the government to make informed decisions (in order to act reasonably and in good faith) [41]. It is against these principles of the Treaty that consultation based solely on the basis of information sharing, with limited or no capacity to receive feedback and engage in dialogue with Māori to inform decision-making, does not meet the standard of the duty to consult. This clarification, along with research on how to engage with Māori, by considering te ao Māori (the Māori world), such as the Whakawhanaungatanga Māori Wellbeing Model [25], highlights the importance of collaboration with Māori being based on core tenets of cooperation, trust, respect, and empowerment within a te ao Māori framework.

As a Pacific nation, a recent literature review on Pacific worldviews [26], also underpinned the connections between people, and also between people and the wider world, as being central to enduring relationships. These were also found to be based on aspects of cooperation, trust, respect, and enablement over time and space. As such, we considered it appropriate that the notion of ‘collaborative consultation’ [43,44] be included within a collaboration typology used to examine the behaviour of housing providers with Māori and Pacific peoples in Aotearoa New Zealand. For the purposes of this study, the notion of ‘collaborative consultation’ is, therefore, distinguished from consultation by the ability of inter-organisational relationships to be formed, the capacity of external parties to participate within the consultation process, and critically, the power to influence decision-making.

Moving along the continuum of inter-organisational collaboration intensity are the collaboration types referred to as networks and alliances. While both types are used to create value that organisations cannot achieve alone, they differ in scope and purpose. For example, unlike networks that are ordinarily fluid, allowing organisations to participate as they see fit, with no offer of immediate deliverables, inter-organisational alliances typically involve a small number of institutions with a strategic goal in sight [45]. This might include, among other things, enhancing the competitive position, market power, and organisational knowledge of alliance members to expedite strategic outcomes.

Looking more closely at inter-organisational networks, Raab [46] identifies four classes of networks that characterise these types of relationships. These include (a) engineered networks (networks that are knowingly created and have common goals, such as alliances and consortia); (b) formal relation networks (organisations connected by contracts or formal arrangements); (c) informal relation networks (organisations connected by personal relationships, involving the exchange of information without a formal connection); and (d) inter-organisational relation (dyadic connection between two organisations characterised by the exchange of information and knowledge, sharing of resources, including collaborative governance structures).

One of the most common kinds of inter-organisational networks are those where like-type organisations work together by becoming members of a group where they can share their experiences, exchange ideas and advocate for change. According to Head [47], these types of networks can also include multi-sectoral connections designed to bring together a greater diversity of “…expertise, knowledge and resources that enables new thinking about complex issues—for both understanding problems and formulating solutions” [47] (p. 734). Durugbo [48] goes further to suggest that such networks can also function as sustaining competitive advantage through the acquisition of knowledge and innovation. This finding serves as an important reminder of the different forms of benefits that can be realised by organisations choosing to work together in this way.

Moving on from networks and alliances is the concept of inter-organisational cooperation (IOC). In the face of burgeoning literature on the topic and lack of a universally accepted definition, our approach was to identify common attributes to assist our interrogation of the data. Three such recurring traits are the notions of reciprocity, mutuality, and interdependence, set within a boundary of organisational autonomy [49,50,51,52,53]. As argued by Schermerhorn [53], this suggests forms of deliberate relations between otherwise autonomous organisations for the joint realisation of independent operating goals. This definition departs from some of the more popular discourse on the subject that imply (purposefully or inadvertently) that shared project objectives as meaning shared organisational goals.

One of the most important determining aspects of IOCs is trust. According to Tubin and Levin-Rozalis [54], while trust may not be the aim of an IOC, the establishment of trust is key for the stability of these types of relations, and ultimately the accomplishment of intended goals. A review of the literature on trust and inter-organisational cooperation reveals that not only is trust important for reducing risk and assisting organisations to cope with uncertainty but also enables the formation of expectations [55]. Ibrahim and Ribbers [56] hypothesise that, over time, these forms of trusted relations lead to greater knowledge transfer, resulting in shared value creation and improved performance. Trust, however, cannot be taken for granted. The consensus is that trust needs to be nurtured and that open forms of communication are key for that to ensue.

That being said, none of the common aspects of IOCs are intended to imply that organisations have to have the same intentions for wanting to work together, or for that matter, power differences do not exist. In his seminal work on cooperation and competition Deutsch [49] reminds us that there are probably very few ‘real-life’ situations which are purely cooperative or competitive, noting that “Most situations of everyday life involve a complex set of goals and sub-goals” [48] (p. 132). Rather, Deutsch advances the theory that it is possible for parties to be cooperative (promotively interdependent’) with respect to one goal and be in a competitive situation (contriently interdependent’) in relation to another goal. Using the example of a basketball team, Deutsch advises that members “…may be co-operatively interrelated with respect to winning the game but competitively interrelated with respect to being the “star” of the team”. [48] (p. 132).

This easily understood portrayal of innate internal influences of teams is a useful reminder of the subtle interplay between cooperation and competition occurring in the real world. While in the case of inter-organisational relations, much of the emphasis has traditionally been on competition, an increasing number of studies in recent years have emerged on how cooperation and competition interrelate [57,58,59]. In exploring the intricate relationship between the two concepts, Chen [58] puts forward three models of competition–cooperation relationships. These include (i) independent opposites, where competition and cooperation are viewed as independent and even irreconcilable opposites; (ii) interrelated opposites, where through their actions, relationships have both competitive and cooperative components; and (iii) all-inclusive interdependent opposites, where some actions and relationships are competitive in nature and others are cooperative [58] (p. 299). For the purposes of this study, this classification serves as an important prompt for researchers to go beyond the traditional notion of the juxtaposition of competition and cooperation and recognise the existence of more “…complicated webs of competitive and cooperative interrelationships” [58] (p. 302).

Following on from inter-organisational cooperation is inter-organisational coordination. While its position after cooperation may be arguable, its placement seeks to convey that some degree of cooperation must already exist for organisations to agree to align their planning and activities with other organisations for the purpose of achieving a goal [59,60,61,62]. An important characteristic of inter-organisational coordination identified in the literature is the high collaborative intensity required by organisations working together to achieve their intended goals. On this, Van de Ven and Walker [63] argue that “While many interorganizational relationships (IRs) consist of formally structured arrangements for coordination, an even larger amount of coordination occurs in the form of short-term, ad hoc efforts at coordination between pairs of organizations” [63] (p. 698). These efforts may include organisational changes, high levels of resource sharing, and the formation of structured decision-making processes. For the purposes of this study, our focus is on the procedural form of coordination, as opposed to contractual coordination, as shown as the mutual exchange of rights among parties.

The next two concepts on the continuum are collaboration and collaborative governance, respectively. While both types of ‘working together’ share many common features (e.g., mutual goals, high levels of trust, resource sharing, collective actions, and shared responsibilities and rewards), they are differentiated by the concentration of integrated decision-making. For us, the point of distinction, established in collaborative governance theory, is the emphasis on governance [37,38,39,64,65,66,67]. For example, whereas under collaboration respective organisational decision makers come together in some form to undertake collective decisions, the ‘collective’ aspect under collaborative governance is more akin to a merger where two or more organisations agree to the establishment of one decision-making body for the purpose of a specific goal. We contend that this type of integrated decision-making differs from organisations coming together to make informed decisions through a process of ‘principled engagement’, where organisations work together for a shared goal. While power relationships may not entirely be avoided, this merger-like relationship under collaborative governance also indicates high levels of transparency and power-sharing observed through the expectation of consensus decision-making. These distinguishing properties enabled us to examine the data for evidence of merger-like qualities and, in particular, evidence of integrated decision-making between housing providers and external organisations.

4. Materials and Methods

This study uses qualitative methodology (both deductive and inductive methods) to analyse data collected from a variety of sources. The first of these was the collection of publicly available information published by each of the housing providers. These sources of information included documents such as annual plans, communication strategies, and accountability documents. NVivo was used to categorise themes in relation to key governance topics. Terms such as Te Tirit o Waitangi, Treaty of Waitangi, principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, collaboration, cooperation, consultation, and decision-making were used to interrogate the data.

The second data set comprised internal documents from each of the housing providers that could provide us with insights as to their strategic intent, future intentions, collaborative approaches with key stakeholders, such as local communities, local government, and infrastructure organisations. Six research liaison positions were established for the PH&UR to act as points of contact and to manage relationships with each of the providers. Through this process, each of the providers was asked to supply internal documentation that would assist our research team. Each provider decided what they were willing to share, with commercially sensitive information excluded from the process. In one case, the request for internal information was conducted through the Official Information Act. With a manageable number of documents collected, those working in particular research areas used the information gathered through this process manually.

The final process of data collection was the interview of senior representatives from each of the housing providers, who had the authority to make decisions. These included board members, chief executives, and senior managers. A request for interviews was made with each of the providers, with them deciding who could be interviewed. A key aspect of both the interviews and the collection of internal documents was confidentiality and anonymity. Prior to the data collection and interviews, an information sheet was prepared setting out how the data would be stored and who would have access to the information. Ethical approval was obtained from the University of Ethics Committee (D22/043). Those agreeing to be interviewed were asked to sign a consent form, which set out key aspects of the process, including anonymity, confidentiality, storage of information, and their ability to withdraw their participation at any time with no consequences to them.

In total 18 people were interviewed (15 representing one public, and 5 community housing providers and a further three representing an urban Māori case study, a mayor of a city council and a chief executive of an iwi. The housing providers ranged in size by the number of tenancies administered, resulting in two large (LHP), two medium (MHP), and two small (SHP). All of the providers were governed by boards. The one public housing provider was a Crown agency, operating under statutory authority. The six community housing providers were all registered with the Community Housing Regulatory Authority (CHRA) as charitable trusts or incorporated societies.

5. Results

Collaboration was identified as a core feature of the operational business of each of the housing providers who participated in this study. We found this to be irrespective of institutional type, the number of tenancies they administered, or the size of their organisations. Although variously expressed, all of those interviewed recognised the importance of collaboration in helping solve the complex housing issues facing Aotearoa New Zealand. Underpinning these efforts, all of the participants emphasised the link between housing and wellbeing, noting that the provision of affordable housing was much more than providing “a roof over someone’s head”. Instead, housing was acknowledged to influence many aspects of people’s lives, including physical and mental health, feelings of belonging, security, social participation, and empowerment. Housing was also viewed as a critical feature of community regeneration and neighbourhood placement. When undertaking new housing developments, it was important for providers to consider how the relationship(s) between the housing and the wider neighbourhood elements impacted resident’s wellbeing. It was here that collaboration was identified as being a necessary process for community acceptance and support. Indeed, many providers emphasised the importance of collaborative consultation and cooperation especially in relation to working together with community organisations.

The Treaty of Waitangi emerged as a major influencer of how providers went about working together with Māori to improve wellbeing. This was evidenced by the significant levels of cooperation between providers and Māori, often expressed in detailed formal agreements setting out shared procedural and outcome expectations. One of the more surprising aspects of these findings was the voluntary upholding of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi by non-Crown organisations, that is, the community housing providers. This is discussed further in this section.

5.1. Collaboration Arrangements

Housing providers were identified as participating in a variety of types of collaboration. These ranged in form from collaborative consultation, at the lower end of inter-organisational collaboration intensity, to highly concentrated coordination and shared decision-making. The one exception was collaborative governance, typified by integrated forms of decision-making, which we found no evidence of. The only approximate type of integrated decision-making identified was the establishment of a collaborative arrangement involving one housing provider and two external organisations. While this example included broad agreement between the organisations as to strategic and operational activities, the organisations were still behaving as three entities rather than a single body. In addition, we found no evidence of decision-making consensus, other than intent to align activities.

Examining the data across the six housing providers we discovered a direct association between the size of a provider (previously defined in terms of the number of tenancies administered) and their propensity for engagement in higher intensity inter-organisational collaboration. A key reason for this was the scale and complexity of the housing projects. Unlike smaller-scale housing developments, where collaboration with external organisations was more straightforward, large housing developments required providers to enter into a diverse number of collaborative arrangements, involving many diverse organisations over multiple sites. It is for this reason that larger providers were associated with a wider range of collaborative arrangements, with a greater emphasis on collaborative consultation, cooperation, and coordination.

We identified the management of institutional risk as another factor influencing the collaborative arrangements of providers and external organisations. This was linked to competing demands from stakeholders as to what a project could provide for them and the potential for community dissonance arising from the development of affordable housing in existing communities. This required considerable investment from larger providers in connecting with community groups and entering into collaborative consultation processes that were identified as being highly necessary, but costly and very time-consuming. We found collaborative arrangements were both enhancers of relationships and mitigators of risk. In most cases, they served both purposes, and this was most clearly evident in the undertaking of collaborative consultation, where failure to adequately consult was associated with reputational ramifications. One of these ramifications could be the failure to secure new funding opportunities if community discord rose high enough to interrupt the normal business operations of housing providers.

One strategy employed to manage these types of risks was the building of collaboration capacity within each of the provider organisations. We found different strategies worked for different types of providers. Once again, the size of the provider was identified as influencing the different ways providers secured the types of skills and expertise needed to negotiate and enter into different collaborative arrangements. Large housing providers with a larger pool of resources often had collaboration capacity built into their organisation, typified by intra-organisational groups with the expertise to connect and build relationships with a diverse range of communities. Medium-sized providers also sought to build their capacity for collaboration, commonly utilising opportunities for secondments from external organisations, such as iwi, Pacific organisations, and other community groups. By way of contrast, smaller housing providers, which were more financially constrained relied more heavily on the role of board members, the chief executive, and senior managers to reach out and form working relationships with external organisations.

5.2. The Treaty of Waitangi and Collaboration with Māori

Other than the size and scale of projects, one of the most significant influences of collaboration identified from the data was the Treaty of Waitangi. The Treaty was identified by all providers as shaping how they conducted business with Māori. Although this had been anticipated in relation to the Crown agency participating in this study, it was surprising to see the extent to which community housing providers sought to give effect to the principles of the Treaty. Two explanations were distilled from those who were interviewed. The first was the widespread recognition of the Treaty of Waitangi as the founding document of Aotearoa New Zealand. The second was what many respondents expressed as the high level of housing deprivation being experienced by Māori. All of the respondents, in one way or another, brought both explanations together, interpreting the housing difficulties faced by Māori as going against the spirit and intent of the Treaty.

The relevance of the Treaty was also manifested in the use of terms used by providers to explain their collaborative approaches with Māori. One of the most evident was widely used term of ‘partnership’ to denote collaboration. Using the word of one of the principles of the Treaty, all of the providers used the term predominantly when referring to collaborative activities with Māori, rather than with other external organisations. One of the manifestations of this concept was the greater level of collaboration formality used to give effect to working with Māori. Collaborative agreements with Māori were typically in the form of written agreements setting out the process of the relationship and shared objectives. These agreements set out the importance of trust, mutual respect and reciprocity expected by each of the parties. Many respondents viewed this type of cooperation as fostering ongoing relationships, beyond the completion of a project. The one iwi representative who was interviewed emphasised that collaboration did not mean agreeing on all things but rather having a strong enough form of relationship where differences could be aired and discussed in a mutually beneficial manner.

A more interesting aspect of the Treaty and collaboration was wide respect for the desire of Māori to forge their own pathway. None of the respondents considered tino rangatiratanga as being antithetical to collaboration. Rather, all of the participants expressed support for their organisations working together with Māori to deliver on their aspirations for self-determination. Many providers spoke of collaborative initiatives to assist a range of Māori organisations to provide papakāinga housing that meets the needs of their people. One iwi leader cautioned that collaboration did not mean support for power sharing when it came to decisions relating to his people. When questioned further about this, the argument against collaborative governance was couched in terms of joint or integrated governance being at odds with the principle of tino rangatiratanga, under the Treaty of Waitangi. He went on to establish:

“…we’re paddling our own waka—top to bottom. Whether it’s our own housing or our own development company, our land… So, then when we are engaging with our kawanatanga partner, we’re not just coming to the table “we’ve got some people that want to sit on the Board with you”. We’re saying ‘Right what are we wanting to achieve together. We can do that bit, and we can do that. So, we’re bringing all our capabilities into the partnered endeavour, and so it’s not a demand of entitlement or anything. It’s a genuine offer of partnered work.”

(Iwi CEO)

5.3. Collaboration Types Summary Findings (See

Table 1. Collaborative Consultation.

Consultation was widely viewed as the entry point for the development of collaboration. Consultation was considered as more than simply a process of “ticking the boxes”. In the absence of collaboration, consultation observed as being nothing more than the exchange of information. The ability to influence decisions was a critical aspect of collaborative consultation. Consultation is not a relationship…That used to be the way of the past, housing providers have to be part of the community…”…if you don’t make yourself part of the Community and join in they’ll all going to see you taking their land and not looking out for them…Don’t come and see us and give us a PowerPoint that you’ve haven’t read and read it to us. I want to hear verbally…if you don’t make yourself part of the Community and join in, they’ll all going to see you taking their land and not looking out for them…it’s a matter of us all connecting.” (Local Government) This form of collaboration was intense, time-consuming, and costly. Collaborative consultation was vital for those housing providers responsible for large, complex projects that require community acceptance and support. Large projects accepted as likely to attract opposition and community discord. Collaborative consultation required a wide range of activities, including community meetings, face-to-face meetings with key stakeholders, web-based information portals, and structured events. This form of collaboration required investment in skills and negotiating capabilities. This was hard for smaller providers who often did not have the staff and budget for intense forms of collaboration. An important aspect of collaborative consultation was the management of expectations. “It’s a little bit hard because the public often wants to do stuff that you don’t have a mandate to do. And it’s a bit of a challenge. We’re new to this broader consultation, so we try to work out how we do that in a way that is—these are the things we can do, and this is the way we want to go about it or do we want to prioritise getting engagement that way…” (HP1L) The lack of adequate consultation had the ability to impact on organisational reputation. An example was a provider having to redo their consultation process with the Pacific community even after the housing development project had started. This required significant investment in the rebuilding of that relationship, requiring significant time and effort.

,

Table 2. Networking.

Like-type organisational networks were important for community housing providers, the most significant of which was Community Housing Aotearoa (CHA). CHA includes community housing providers and other partner members, including developers, consultants, and local councils. Respondents considered CHA as not only facilitating the exchange of ideas, but as an important advocate for the community housing sector. “For this board it was important that we have a national voice as well as being local, so we are part of Community Housing Aotearoa…So, we’re there talking about the need to invest in Community Housing across New Zealand, talking about it publicly, talking about it in different forums.” (HP3M) All community housing providers were also members of regional community housing networks, e.g., Auckland Community Housing Providers’ Network, Wellington Community Housing Provider Network, and Te Waiponamu Community Housing Network. These were viewed as enabling providers to discuss issues pertaining to a region’s specific housing environment. Other more informal networks included those with social service delivery organisations, aimed at improving the wellbeing of their tenants, networks with Māori in relation to development of Papakāinga (Māori housing) and networks with social and ethnic groups, including those representing the disabled community, older persons, LGBT, refugees, and Pacific people. This wider set of networks was viewed as enabling providers to understand the varying housing needs of members, informing development plans, access to safe housing, and networks with mana whenua and iwi for the provision of cultural services to providers and their tenants. None of the respondents raised any issues relating to the exchange of information as providing providers with any competitive edge.

,

Table 3. Cooperation.

Cooperation was the most generalised term found throughout the data—though not widely used, it was not always easy to decipher. The greater use of terms was partnership and relationship. Focusing on collaborative activities rather than terms alone, many forms of cooperation emerged from the data. These included formal and informal agreements about how providers and external organisations would work together. Significant investment in open forms of communications, based on “trust’ and “mutual respect”. These collaborative efforts were typically based on face-to-face discourse. Cooperation with Māori organisations were indicated as being among the most formalised with agreements in place. These relationships were identified as transcending the time-bound properties of projects. Meetings with Māori were found to occur on a more regular basis than with other organisation, with the formalised use of agendas and minutes. Formalised cooperation ranged from one-on-one agreements between two organisations to the involvement of larger groups or organisations. Cooperation between housing providers and Māori often characterised by way of recruitment and secondments into provider organisations. Another method was the establishment of specific committees that advised providers, involving iwi, mana whenua, urban Māori groups, and Māori social service delivery agencies. “So, we have formal arrangements with mana whenua, and we will have formal arrangements with some community groups and interests in a location if such community group exists and wants it and warrants it. And, we will have formal arrangements with local council and asset owners.” (HP1L) “…we have two mana whenua reps on the board that they chose themselves.” (HP4M) Smaller providers recognised their limitations and the need to prioritise the breadth and depth of key relationships. For them, the onus was found to fall heavily on a small number of key people, namely board members, the chief executive, or housing manager, and a handful of staff. “We’re going to be recruiting a staff member. So, we would be reaching out to (an iwi) to see whether they have any recommendations of people. And the whole tenancy side of it, I’m assuming…that they would also have a seat at the table.” (HP5S) “…instead of recruiting straight from the market, can we go to, you know, partners and is there anyone they would like to potentially put forward to us and we’ve done that not only just with Māori, but with immigrant communities as well and especially refugee communities because we have a lot of refugees living in our homes.” (HP3M) Larger providers had the capacity to structure themselves in a way that provided additional focus for research, policy development and service delivery to particular communities of interest. “…we’ve got the structure of our organisation our Committees, our Board, and our Sub-Committees…we do have specialists in that sort of stakeholder management. We have specialists in that iwi space for certain. But, also in our project teams, our delivery teams –we have what we call our…manager—their skill set needs to include the ability to engage with stakeholders and community. (HP1L) One example of cooperation between a housing provider, a mayor of a city council and the chief executive of an iwi was identified as functioning more as collaboration with some aspects of shared decision-making. Cooperation was a key feature of collaboration in the affordable housing sector but varied greatly in terms of organisational arrangements and formality.

,

Table 4. Coordination.

Two predominant forms of coordination emerged from the data. The first involved the coordination of activities between a provider and an external organisation for purposes of fulfilling a contractual obligation. An example of this was a provider working together with an iwi to coordinate the design and construction of papakāinga (Māori housing) that met the needs of the community. This type of coordination was typified by a mix of regular and ad hoc meetings between the parties, enabling the provider to make informed decisions on the sequencing and nature of activities within a cultural context. The second type involved the establishment of a working group comprising a provider and multiple external organisations involved in the development of one or more large-scale housing development projects. “…we’ve got five big projects being delivered as brownfield projects in my part of the business…we have recently…put in a formal arrangement with…council, CCOs of transport, water care, and council’s park’s department and healthy waters department, and us and government ministers. We’re a formal governance arrangement for how we will manage and coordinate our collective effort to the benefit of the five projects, but also the impacts that they have on Auckland and its infrastructure and Council. That’s new. We would have historically tended to do it on a case-by-case relationship basis, whereas this one is the first one I’ve really gone: Hey, this is really big, way better if we do it together and we need to be properly organised.” (HP1L). “You can’t delegate it out every other week to somebody else. There’s a person, you come to the meeting, and you represent your part of Auckland and sure you won’t know all the answers necessarily fine. So, we’ve narrowed it, so that we don’t have this ‘not actually responsible for anything’. In a way, making each of us accountable then on behalf of our organisations. We haven’t done it before, and we’ve been able to get the parties to want to be involved and the people that are involved are committed to making it work.” (HP1L) Another variation was smaller coordination structures, focused more on the alignment of coordinated strategies and implementation of activities relating to a particular region. This type of coordination took a long time to develop. “For the first three or four years, I would have said no…they just sat in their office, and, in my point of view, they turned their back on the community. They tried old-fashioned consultation, which was a bit like council—oh we’ll have a meeting, and no one turned up. This year, they got it right.” (Mayor) “We are as truly, genuinely joined at the hip…I have regular meetings with the CEO, periodic meetings with the tier two executives regionally, we have a formal strategic partnership agreement…We are part of a formal governance, operations, as well as management re…So, all of the governance and operational mechanisms that are needed for us to be truly partnering—they’re in place now.” (Iwi CEO)

and

Table 5. The Treaty of Waitangi and collaboration with Māori.

The Treaty was identified as having a profound effect on how housing providers went about seeking to establish meaningful relationships, based on a foundation of cooperation, coordination, and, in one case, shared decision-making. Although not required to do so, all the community housing providers identified themselves as being guided by the principles of the Treaty. Additionally, all providers were cognisant of the high level of housing deprivation being experienced by Māori. Collaboration with Māori was most often denoted in terms of partnership, with the predominant use of formal agreements. “…so, everything, including Papakāinga…everything that we would look at establishing or providing up to our whānau has always got aspects of tikanga, the values of our manaakitanga—the values of our Whānau Ora, whānau-centred approaches so that’s really important for us when we consider how we set up something. We always look, reflect back to ensure that the values, that the core values that are part of our marae are actually reflected in the services we deliver and also reflected back to the whānau we look after as well. So, very much our key values are the manaakitanga, aroha ki te tangata so just that love and caring for other people, the Whānau Ora, whānau-centred approach.” (CS1) “…so, I suppose we’re really clear on what we consider our whānau wellbeing is, so it’s not just it’s wellbeing, for us it’s the whole holistic approach to making sure that they’re physically well, their mental health is well, the whānau around them are also well.” (CS1)

Below)

6. Discussion

This study is intended to be a starting point for understanding how public and community housing providers in Aotearoa New Zealand collaborate with external organisations and community groups to improve wellbeing. The provision and management of affordable housing is an example of a complex problem that, as Franco [29] argues, goes beyond the ability of one organisation to resolve. A key aspect of this intricacy is the role of housing in people’s lives. To understand the need for collaboration requires us to recognise that housing is not simply about accommodation but significantly impacts people’s present and future lives, social outcomes and life satisfaction. Housing providers are well aware of these inter-linkages, having to consider issues such as the standard of housing they are prepared to offer, the placement of new housing developments, and the infrastructure needs of urban regions. Our research shows these are just the “tip of the iceberg” of the raft of matters housing providers are required to manage.

It is therefore not surprising that housing providers are investing in a diverse range of collaborative arrangements as part of their business operations. The move towards collaborative consultation signals the desire of local communities to have a voice and to be heard. In Aotearoa New Zealand, the Treaty of Waitangi has been used by community housing providers as a catalyst to develop genuine relationships and the duty to consult in good faith. We argue that the emergence of the principles of the Treaty has been paramount in setting the standard for collaborative consultation and cooperation. This is not to say that it is all perfect, but gone are the days when organisations can get away with the one-way provision of information without listening to the voices of communities. We would argue that the situation in Aotearoa New Zealand is markedly improved from the observations provided by Stolte [40] of consultation being undertaken simply for the manipulation and control of Indigenous peoples.

We consider the emergence of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi as being paramount in the formation of collaboration between housing providers and Māori. The question which arises now is how can this standard of collaboration be replicated with other groups? This is particularly the case for Pacific people who are identified as having the highest rate of housing deprivation in Aotearoa New Zealand, but which all providers had very little to say about. The solitary example of one provider having to redo their consultation with the Pacific community, even after the housing development had started, was extremely worrying and a reminder that not all collaboration efforts are equal.

We contend that the quality of cooperation, denoted by notions of reciprocity, mutuality, and interdependence [49,50,51,52,53,54] found in the cooperation efforts of providers with Māori is another standard of collaboration worthy of expanded involvement. Where our findings differ from previous studies on collaboration is that enduring relationships may be more important than the attainment of project objectives. This is the viewpoint explained to us of how Māori and Pacific people view the world [25,26]. Put another way, projects come and go, but trusted relationships are enduring. This requires relationships to be nurtured, and it is the maintenance of this on-going intensity without a shared project that is more challenging for less well-resourced housing providers to achieve. As policy changes move resources away from the large Crown agency responsible for public housing towards community housing providers, it will be important for these providers to be adequately funded and resourced for them to engage in on-going collaborative arrangements that make a difference to the communities they serve.

Overall, we argue collaboration in the affordable housing sector covers a wide suite of types, with much of it centred on collaborative consultation, cooperation, and coordination. It will be important to see how and if these collaboration types change as the sector changes. On the second question we posed, we unequivocally find the Treaty of Waitangi as greatly influencing collaboration between housing providers and Māori. With more Māori providers expected to emerge in coming years, we would expect these types of collaboration to deepen and for them to pave the way for greater intensity collaboration with other groups.

7. Conclusions

Collaboration offers organisations the ability to solve complex problems and to manage risks. Public and community housing providers have shown a willingness to invest in collaborative arrangements that add value to their business operations and to improve societal outcomes, such as the wellbeing of tenants and local communities. While not perfect, the Treaty of Waitangi has become the default driver of collaboration with Māori for housing providers, and through the principles, provided a guide around which to develop collaborative actions that benefit Māori. More importantly, the range and depth of collaborative arrangements with Māori provide a standard of collaboration which housing providers can replicate with other tenant groups. As the affordable housing sector changes away from the Crown agency to community housing providers, it will be important to ascertain how these changes impact ongoing collaborative efforts.