The rāhui, the livestream and the council's koha
A district council invites a kura rōpū of 24 to perform at a civic event in three weeks. The council offers $2,000, wants the whole performance livestreamed on its Facebook page, and wants a 60-second highlight clip for social media. The rōpū's set includes a haka composed for a rangatira who died 14 months ago; the whānau asked that the haka not be performed again until the hura kōhatu, and that restriction has not been lifted. The council has also asked the rōpū to run the pōwhiri for the visiting delegation, though no kaumātua from the marae has been confirmed as available. The rōpū has been invited to a national festival and needs $4,000 for travel; the council's offer covers half of it. The kaiako is away and the decision falls to the rōpū's whānau group and its two student leaders.
1. Advise the rōpū on the performance itself: the haka under rāhui, and the council's request that the rōpū run the pōwhiri.
Read the worked answer
On the haka. A whānau request not to perform until the hura kōhatu is not a preference to be weighed against the value of the performance. It is a restriction on the item's use, and it belongs to the whānau, not the rōpū. So: the haka is not performed, full stop, and the fee does not enter that reasoning. Two follow-ups matter. First, check the scope of the restriction - does it cover only that haka, or other items composed in the same period? Do not assume; ask the whānau. Second, choose a substitute of comparable weight so the set is not hollowed out, and rehearse it now.
On managing the council. Tell them this week, in writing, which items the rōpū will and will not perform, and that an item has been replaced. Do not disclose the whānau's business beyond what is needed - 'this item is under rāhui; we will perform X instead' is enough. A surprise on the day is worse for the council and worse for the rōpū's reputation.
On running the pōwhiri. A school rōpū cannot carry a pōwhiri by itself. The karanga and the whaikōrero require people with the mandate to speak on that marae, and the rōpū's involvement should be as supporters - waiata tautoko, haka pōwhiri - under a kaumātua confirmed by the marae. If no kaumātua is available, the honest answer to the council is that the pōwhiri needs a different arrangement, or a marae-led one. Accepting the role without that mandate would put ākonga in a position they cannot legitimately fill.
2. Advise on the recording requests. What questions must be answered, who decides, and what conditions should be attached?
Read the worked answer
Why recording is a separate decision from performing. A live performance is given once, to the people in the room. A livestream is permanent, searchable, downloadable and re-editable, and it reaches people with no connection to the kaupapa. That difference is the whole basis of kaitiakitanga here.
Questions to answer before agreeing:
- Which items will be filmed, and which are excluded?
- Who decides for each item - the composer, the whānau, or the rōpū as performer?
- Who appears identifiably, and are the ākonga minors whose whānau must consent?
- Where will the footage sit, for how long, and can it be downloaded or reused?
- Will the council use it in advertising or in political content?
- Will the council profit from it beyond the event itself?
Conditions to attach: no filming of any item under restriction; acknowledgement of the rōpū and of each composer; final cut approved by the rōpū before publication; no use in advertising or campaign material; the rōpū may require removal at any time.
On the 60-second clip specifically. Refuse it unless the rōpū supplies its own clip with a caption explaining the kaupapa. A highlight clip is precisely the format that strips a haka from its context and lets it travel as spectacle - the risk is not hypothetical for a school rōpū that will be judged on what goes viral. A livestream of the whole event, by contrast, can be acceptable because it shows the item inside its setting.
3. Should the $4,000 travel shortfall affect the decision? Discuss how the rōpū should frame the money in its answer to the council.
Read the worked answer
What the money may not change. The rāhui stands whatever the fee. The recording decision is not for sale, and a rōpū that trades either for $2,000 has taught its ākonga that mana has a price. The whānau group should say this explicitly in its own discussion, because the shortfall creates pressure to find reasons rather than reasons to decide.
What the money does change. It makes the negotiation worth doing properly. A written agreement, costs covered, and the rōpū's conditions recorded turn a one-off favour into a relationship. The shortfall also makes it worth asking whether the council can support travel directly, or whether other funders should be approached before the event rather than after.
Frame it as koha or as fee? They are different instruments. A koha is a reciprocal gift; it does not purchase rights over the performance or the footage, and it is offered, not invoiced. A fee is a contract with deliverables, and a council paying a fee may reasonably expect to use the footage as it wishes. The rōpū should choose deliberately: perform for a koha and keep control of the recordings, or contract for a fee and price the rights separately. What it should not do is accept a fee and then behave as though only a koha was given.
The strategic point. A council relationship can be worth more than one payment - but only if the first encounter is handled with clear boundaries. Say no to the two things that must be refused, and ask for the travel support anyway; that combination is credible, and it is the one the kaumātua will back.