November 2006
Monthly Archive
The Kaiwhakahaere cannot be removed by the TRoNT representatives.
A week ago I was looking through the Ngai Tahu Charter about another matter when I came across the clause about the removal of the Kaiwhakahaere.
This clause 6.13 (c) (ii) "The Members may by Ordinary Resolution determine: To remove any person from the office of Kaiwhakahaere or Deputy Kaiwhakahaere at any time before the end of the term for which that that person has been appointed."
"Members" ( in the definition section in The Charter) "means the 18 Papatipu Runanga, namely:"–and it goes on to name each Runanga (Marae) Runanga have the power not the Representatives.
So this means the coup mounted to oust Mark Solomon some months ago by Te Maire Tau was unconstitutional. This just reinforces my point that TRoNT are poorly advised by their executive, in particular, their Company Secretary, at the time, Andrew Harrison, on this issue.. In the Kaiwhakahaere elections in May, 14 of the 18 marae (Members) apparently pledged written support for Solomon. Yet the vote was tied 9-9.
These pledges were not mentioned and ignored by the Company Secretary, Andrew Harrison, who ran the election process. Clearly, 5 representatives ( 14 minus 9 ) did not vote the way they were instructed to.
The vote was in secret much to the annoyance of those watched the election process. Andrew Harrison is currently the acting Chief Operations Officer of NTHC.
Issues of Te Panui Runaka Te Panui Runaka May 06: (pdf format 1.1Mb)
NTHC- Why you lost your Board and CEO: Reasons and Future Implications
Beneficiaries have reason to be concerned about the rash of resignations in mid 2006, and further, the quality of information released to enable understanding of the changes in their organisation. The only information freely available to us as beneficiaries is contained in the May and June issues of Te Panui Runaka (here). The following is a personal account of how I saw events unfolding.
The Resignations:
The Chief Executive of NTHC Robin Pratt, resigned in early May 06. The NTHC Board consisted of 8 directors – 5 of whom were independents and 3 being Ngai Tahu. At the end of May two NTHC directors were asked to resign by the NTHC Board for breaking board confidentiality. On 14 June I resigned along with Jane Huria. Three other directors followed, Maika Mason, Sue Sheldon and Trevor King, leaving Ross Keenan as sole remaining director.
Two major factors have underpinned the success of NTHC. Firstly, ability to attract and retain professional directors and secondly, a good Chief Executive. Wayne Boyd, now Chairman Telecom New Zealand, sat on the Board for eleven years (four of these as chair) before resigning in July 2005 at the end of his tenure. Ngai Tahu was very fortunate to have a man of that calibre sitting on its Board.
TRoNT has a poor record in its dealings with its subsidiary boards and Chief Executives. The first CE of NTHC, Brian Kennedy left in 2001 over TRoNT’s intractable stance about his contract. The Ngai Tahu Development Corporation’s (the former development arm) CE and board were disestablished because Tront failed to provide any strategic direction.
The latest resignations occurred in an already sensitive period for Ngai Tahu with the triennial Kaiwhakahaere elections tensions and unauthorised leaks around these.
A governance review ( see here for a summary of the and the new struture being propsed) was also being undertaken at this time. Board members were aware of this, and had made individual contributions to it. In April we had been briefed on the review’s progress and further comments were being prepared. The reviewer, Garry Diake, had commented very favourably about the Board and management of NTHC.
The Governance review proposed changes to Ngai Tahu structures which were to change the CE’s role in the organisation. These changes were announced as a fait accompli to staff of the office of TRoNT when some of Robin’s own staff were present. His position was untenable, and on 11 May, Robin formally resigned as CE of NTHC. The NTHC Board, after seeking legal advice, had no option but to accept Robin’s resignation. While the Board set about finalising Robin’s departure and putting in place measures to cover his departure word leaked out about the resignation.
On 24 May an email was sent by Tahu Potiki to the Board seeking information about Robin’s resignation for Tront saying that he needed to get answers - “Otherwise I will have no option but to report, and make recommendations, on the basis of the information I currently have”. The Board’s response was that it was an employment matter and confidential to the Board.
On the same day a copy of an email was NTHC from “The Press” asking for comment. The email (here) is from Tahu Potiki to his advisor, “Peter” It had also been sent to the “Otago Daily Times” and the “New Zealand Herald”. The Herald and the Press picked up on Tahu’s email and also the press release announcing Robin’s resignation. In it, Tahu was critical of Mark Solomon and made various other statements. The release of the email was not without timing, coming three days before the Kaiwhakahaere election. Tahu himself did not forward the email to the media. This was done by James Daniels, a candidate for the Kaiwhakahaere election who claimed, later, the email was sent by mistake. But it seems strange that if Tahu was genuinely seeking advice, that he should send his email to an election candidate. The role of CEO is to always act impartially in all matters.
What Tahu Potiki’s email revealed was that two NTHC Directors, Linda Constable and Mark Tume had spoken to Tahu about Robin’s resignation. This was a clear breach of board confidentiality. Constable and Tume between them hold a number of directorships, Constable; Orion NZ Ltd and New Zealand Railways Corporation Ltd. Tume; Transpower New Zealand Limited, and Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation. Both would have been fully aware of the need for confidentiality. The remainder of the NTHC Board therefore lost confidence in them and asked them to resign on 29th May,which they both agreed to do.
Whether TRoNT accepted their resignations is not known, because they were both reinstated as directors on the new NTHC Board. They joined Ross Keenan. Ross a highly experienced director with particular tourism expertise did not resign. His presence on the new Board will provide much needed continuity and wise council.
The Kaiwhakahaere elections had taken place on 27 th of May and Mark Solomon was re-elected although it was a 9-9 split vote. The factions within TRoNT were led by Mark Solomon on the one hand, and Te Marie Tau. But Mark, as the incumbent, retained his position. Prior to the election there were hopes expressed of putting factional differences aside and unity at TRoNT. These hopes were to be short lived.
Two weeks later, on the 6th of June directors received a letter from Mark Solomon containing a list of issues concerning Robin’s and the directors’ (Constable and Tume) resignations and expressing a wish to meet to meet directors individually. On the same day a media report illustrated that Tront were far from unified. I, and other directors, replied to Mark saying that we could not say anything because the two issues were Board confidentiality matters.
TRoNT met, in committee, on the weekend 9-11 June 2006 and in committee resolved to disestablish the NTHC board. Their reasons were twofold:
-First they were given a legal opinion that the NTHC Board should have told Tront the reasons for Robin’s resignation. This seems to me to be extraordinary advice. Standard commercial practice would recognise that these were human resource issues, and as such, confidential between an individual employee and a board.
-Second, they had lost confidence in the NTHC Chair Maika Mason. Apparently Maika had been failing to pass on instructions from Tront. Surely that could have been resolved, much earlier, simply by telling other board members that there such issues had arisen.
Mark Solomon and Maria Pera, representing the two factions within TRoNT, gave varying reasons as to why the Board was to be disestablished, and why all resignations were accepted. TRoNT did not believe the NTHC Board could return to a “collective unity”, TRoNT was “not confident in the leadership” and did not believe there was “stability”. TRoNT’s formal or public explanation for the resignations is explained to beneficiaries in the May and June issues of Te Panui Runaka (here), in a media statement and published in The Press (see here Press clippings). These contain more form than substance, and in my opinion give a distorted, albeit soothing, version of events to beneficiaries.
What happened, I believe, was that dealing with the NTHC issues galvanised and unified Tront for the first time in months. “Groupthink” is terminology used to describe the mode of thinking that people in teams or groups engage in when agreement-seeking becomes so powerful in a group that the group tends to perpetuate or reinforce factional ideas, discourage dissent and to suspend critical appraisal of possible alternative courses of action. I believe this is where TRoNT has been in recent times. The opposing factions within TRoNT, which has caused the group to become impotent, have accepted rumours and half-truths about many issues uncritically and without dissent.
A couple of weeks after the resignations TRoNT met only to realise their own problems in functioning as a unit remained and compounded with another set of problems.
Questions
The questions we beneficiaries need to be asking are:
-Did TRoNT act reasonably and in the best interests of Ngai Tahu whanui, as all TRoNT representatives are required to do? See (Charter Extracts) - for extracts from the Ngai Tahu Charter. Did TRoNT act reasonably as they are required to? “Reasonable” is used and applied in law frequently.
Many laws employ the “Reasonable Man”* a fictitious person who -exercises care not to harm others. To the reasonable man some truths are self-evident. The reasonable man knows the difference between direct facts and imagined conjectures or speculation. — He acts responsibly to others and to himself. – he is required to act in a way that will not adversely affect the welfare of others. He exercises due diligence (*the care that a prudent person might be expected to exercise in the examination and evaluation of risks affecting a business transaction) to ensure that his acts (including his words both spoken and written) do not harm others.)
* Juris Dictionary **Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law
Do we, as beneficiaries believe that members of TRoNT have been acting ‘reasonably’?
Implications
-What advice was TRoNT given or sought on the risk of their actions towards the NTHC Board, and who gave it?
-What advice was TRoNT given or sought about the ongoing commercial implications of the resignations?
We as beneficiaries need to reflect on the implications of these actions. To match the questions above we must ask:
-Did Tront itself consider the implications of their decisions? Some of those that come to mind are:
1) The loss of credibility and ability to recruit and retain top quality independent directors and a high calibre Chief Executive? Who would put their hand up for any of these positions with the very real prospect of being ousted at the whim of the political council?
2) The lack of good commercial governance leading to the very real prospect of diminishing financial returns? NTHC was set up separately and structured the way it was to utilise the best commercial advice to increase dividends for beneficiaries and tribal development. Best commercial practice needs to be free from political interference.
3) Ngai Tahu has been perceived as an enduring, successful and stable South Island commercial force. What the NTHC Board and CE bring to the wider organisation are opportunities, contacts, partnerships and prospects with other significant organisations and people. Recent events have damaged this image. It will take a considerable time to retrieve this reputation.
So what can we do so this sort of event does not occur again? If you have not already done so have a look at my suggestion (here) on Tribal Democracy. This might be a start point.
Ngai Tahu Charter Extracts (pdf format 550 KB)
Please email me with comments or queries you may have
In an article in “The Press” 29 Oct entitled “Rumblings at Ngai Tahu”
“Sir Tipene O'Regan will be listening hard to the answers. He won't elaborate on his concerns about the "failure of management" surrounding the purchasing of Cook Strait Fishing, other than to say that while strategically sound it was "improperly conducted" and "appallingly executed". "I raised the question as to whether or not these things had been properly examined." He complains that the thorough investigation he was promised has still not arrived. Tront, he says, hasn't pushed hard enough for the answers. Yet the question O'Regan raised at last year's hui has reverberated all year.—“
Sir Tipene’s first made his allegations about the Cook Strait Fishing acquisition at the Hui a Tau in Invercargill in November last year. When he spoke he was flanked by Terry Nicholas and James Daniels both members of TRoNT. This pair continued throughout the year to add fuel to what they thought was a fire. But, always careful to do so in committee. Perpetuating these allegations had the effect of souring TRoNT’s relationship with NTHC.
An independent review, by a merchant bank, with comprehensive terms of reference was started in June.
The results of the enquiry were presented at a TRoNT meeting on the 29th of Oct
The report said the whole acquisition process was properly conducted and nothing untoward happened. Precisely the result expected.
I would hope the following:
- A fulsome apologee by those who made the allegations
- Copies of the banker’s report are given to all those involved the acquisition
This is a copy of an email from Tahu Potiki- CEO of TRoNT to an advisor of his “Peter” that was leaked to “The Press, “NZ Herald” and “Otago Daily Times” on the 24th May 06. The Press and the Herald ran reports on the leaked email.
The email was leaked three days before the triennial Kaiwhakahaere elections on the 27th of May.
a. Potiki is critical Mark Solomon his boss. It is therefore of some surprise that Potiki did not have the mana and take the honourable course of resigning when Solomon was re-elected.
b. Potiki reveals two Directors of NTHC, Linda Constable and Mark Tume, told him the circumstances around Robin’s Pratt’s resignation a confidential matter between Robin and the NTHC Board. The balance of the NTHC Board later asked Constable and Tume to resign for breaking Board confidentiality. TRoNT subsequently reinstated the pair to a new NTHC Board when the other Board members resigned.
c. The email was actually leaked by James Daniels a TRoNT representative and a candidate for the Kaiwhakaere position. Daniels apparently said it was a mistake and he sent the wrong document.
d. It stretches credibility, that Potiki, seeking advise, would send such a document to anyone other than his advisor and certainly not a potential candidate in an upcoming election. But the email is full unnecessary and unforgiving comments that it is difficult to believe it was not written for a wider audience.
“Tena Koe Peter
Thanks for taking the time to consider this so swiftly. Sorry I didn’t come back to you sooner but my wife had a baby on Thursday and I underestimated the demands on me yesterday. Silly really. I should have known. Any way have a look at this and either e-mail me back at this address or ring me on 021 900 003. I will attempt to get as much other information through to you as you require. I can also put you in touch with the head of our legal team, Martha Gray, who intends to be in Wellington this Monday.
The basic issue is that in my position as CEO of Te Runanga I have informally become aware of a situation that has been apparently mismanaged and I need advice as to my duty.
1. Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu is the sole shareholder of the Ngai Tahu Holdings Corporation (NTHC). There are currently eight directors, all of whom are appointed by the shareholder. We can get you a copy of the constitutional and charter documentation that outlines the legal nature of the relationship between Te Runanga and NTHC. NTHC operates as a company in its own right. I have a right to attend board meetings as does the Chair of NTHC.
2. NTHC appoints their own CE and they are his employer.
3. NTHC and its Board is monitored by the Office of Te Runanga. I am the CEO of the Office and Te Runanga
4. The relationship between Te Runanga and NTHC has always been difficult and quite politically tense.
5. Recently there has been increased pressure on NTHC from the shareholder around poor communications, non-adherence to policy and perceived performance. This has been driven primarily from shareholder reps at the Te Runanga table.
6. Recently Te Runanga decided to review its governance structures and appointed Garry Diack to conduct the review.
7. Garry has reported back to Te Runanga and has recommended some major changes including some recommendations that will impact upon NTHC if adopted.
8. Te Runanga agreed in principle to the changes but wish to talk with their constituencies first and allow for a period of internal consultation - particularly with NTHC
9. Garry gave a presentation to the NTHC Board and CE on April 28 explaining his change proposal and outlining the recommendations. (We can get a report from Garry regarding details)
10. Te Runanga allowed the information to go public to runanga and staff from May 5 on.
11. My senior managers gave a presentation to staff on May 8.
12. Meanwhile there is a tribal election underway where the Chair position for Te Runanga is being contested.
13. Part of the tension between NTHC and Te Runanga is NTHC refusal to adhere to the media policies of the Ngai Tahu Group. Recently NTHC released a statement of their 6 month result. It was an inaccurate release and reasonably provocative considering the political environment. I responded to NTHC and my letter was leaked to the Auckland Herald and quoted in a story. This ‘leak’ is more likely tied to the election than anything else.
14. As things were getting a little messy with letters, media reports and breach of policy I decided to contact a couple of the board members to let them know where things were at.
15. Last Friday May 12 I contacted board member Linda Constable. I started to explain what was behind the media stuff and she blurted out to me that the CE of NTHC, Robin Pratt, had resigned and was looking for a settlement.
16. Linda explained that Pratt claimed to have been a victim of constructive dismissal as a result of the proposed change process and that Te Runanga staff members, who had been at the May 8 staff meeting, had informed him that we had shown structural diagrams that impacted upon him and that we had stated the NTHC Board had agreed to all of this. This report was incorrect.
17. Linda stated that Pratt had called a teleconference board meeting on Tuesday the 9th and the situation was discussed. It appears the board members all left that meeting with different understanding as to what was going on and who was going to do what.
18. I contacted another board member Mark Tume and he confirmed everything that Linda had said. He stated he was very concerned about the proposed settlement and he was intending to seek independent legal advice. He also requested that there be a second legal opinion as the advice being received from Pratt’s lawyer and the board’s lawyer did not sit right with him. The message was that in the staff presentation it was clearly a fait accompli that NTHC would be altered and Pratt would be out of a job. Mark could get no reply from the Chair of NTHC Maika.
19. It is now clear that Pratt had already settled with the board on Friday afternoon and the Chair had delegated authority to the deputy chair, who had managed the entire exit agreement without the other board members. This is a bone of contention within the board as some board members do not believe that the deputy had the authority and that the final decision was to be taken at meeting of the board on Tuesday May 16.
20. During this time I, as the CEO of Te Runanga, was not formally contacted at any time and there was never any effort to corroborate facts.
21. As it transpires I understand that the settlement agreement has a pre-amble that outlines the reasons for his departure and it states that the proposed change process amounted to constructive dismissal. I have not seen a copy of the agreement. I have not yet been notified formally by any board members of the resignation.
22. It is possible that the chair of my board Mark Solomon has been told but he has not contacted me and he is also not the right person for formal communications.
23. Mark Solomon adds further confusion to the picture as I believe (no proof) that he has shared information with Pratt regarding my concerns. I know for a fact that Mark Solomon met with Pratt after I had made available the memo of May 14, attached.
24. On Monday May 15 Garry Diack met with Sue Sheldon and Jane Huria to discuss his change plan. He was challenged by them as to why the report was a fait accompli. The Te Runanga staff meeting issue was raised and Garry asked the Deputy Chair and Chair to have a meeting with me.
25. I contacted the Deputy Chair and had a 40 minute discussion. At no time during the discussion did the Deputy Chair inform me of Pratt’s resignation. I made available the the presentation and notes that were used during the Te Runanga staff meeting.
26. The Deputy Chair disclosed to me that they have major communication problems with their Chair. 27. The senior managers in NTHC have now been told but noone else has. There are five senior managers that report directly to Pratt. They have openly discussed with me their collective lack of trust and respect for Pratt. 28. Pratt has been asked to stay on for three months until the end of July.
29. Pratt has resigned, there has been a pay out of some sort and that he has been asked to stay on for three months.
30. He has used constructive dismissal as the argument.
31. The agreement will be confidential between the board and Pratt
32. I am concerned that:
a. Pratt is staying on for three months considering he has appeared to settle based on a break down in trust and the relationship.
b. That the board have appeared to make their decisions based on erroneous information
c. That there is a significant lack of trust amongst board members
d. There is huge trust and confidence issues within the Senior Management Team of NTHC so long as Pratt remains
f. There are trust issues between the NTHC board and Te Runanga staff and representatives (Maika has stated to staff and board members of NTHC that the Te Runanga CFO is a liar) g. Maika openly criticises the major distribution policies of Te Runanga and he, and other board members, are heavily critical of Te Runanga staff and representatives
33. All of this amounts to a rather dysfunctional environment and to confuse thins further there is the politics of the Te Runanga election
34. Linda Constable told me that have decided to delay an announcement about the resignation until after the election for the chair of Te Runanga (May 26) as it may have an adverse effect on the incumbent
35. I am convinced, although I can not substantiate this, that Pratt and Mark Solomon have discussed these events and that my Chair has deliberately kept this information from me.
36. So with all of this information at my disposal, as the CEO of Te Runanga, what is my duty?
37. Even though I have received most of this information as hearsay or through back doors surely I cannot ignore it as I believe the organisation is at risk
38. Anxiety and tension during a change process is inevitable so some of this can be put down to that but considering the trust and confidence and dishonesty issues outlined above it seems I have a duty to act on this information
At the moment I am not after the remedies going forward I am interested in what I must do with this information considering my position.
Tahu Potik”
No Democracy in Ngai Tahu Leads To Poor Governance and Lack of Accountability To IWI
Tront, over the last four years, has not been functioning as it was planned it should do. The symptom and cause of TRoNT’s malaise in my view are poor communication with beneficiaries due to a lack of democratic process. This lies at the heart of the current tribal problems, and needs to be solved if the tribe is to go forward with the success New Zealanders, and our selves have come to expect from us
In “The Press article dated 17 Oct 2006, I said the following:
“The process by which the 18 representatives are appointed to Tront is not democratic. Few of the 37,000 eligible beneficiaries have the opportunity to vote directly for a person to represent them.
A major problem is that voting is marae-based and sometimes through an electoral college. Only some marae allow fully democratic postal voting. All beneficiaries can trace their whakapapa to more than one marae and by right can vote on multiple marae, and therefore the system allows multiple votes. But implementing a full multiple-vote system would produce more problems than it would solve.
It does not help in seeking the participation of beneficiaries that 55 per cent live outside the tribal area, in the North Island and overseas. Lack of democracy means that Tront is not truly accountable to the people.”
In other words what I was saying was that, in general, Ngai Tahu beneficiaries have little idea of what is going on within TRoNT and many cannot participate fully in marae matters. This is not democracy. The gateway for communication exists, through marae. Detail, often commercially sensitive, is not required, but communication from the TRoNT table on important matters, is. The current lack of accurate information being available to all has nothing to do with a lack of beneficiary databases. There are full databases available.
TRoNT has had about eight years to sort out this communication channel but has done little to engage beneficiaries. Without an involved and dynamic electoral base to report to and be accountable to, representatives’ jobs are much simpler.
That said, some representatives report very well on the information given. My own representative, Matt Ellison, provides excellent reports, with his email reports taking on a sort of “blog” status; required reading to others, even outside his marae base, people eager to have news. But even Matt is increasingly limited to what he can report because so much of TRoNT’s deliberations are in committee.
How often does your local body council go into committee? Rarely. It is a tool to be used for the most sensitive of commercial discussions, not to cloak dissent. Formal communication with beneficiaries is left to the monthly Te Panui Runaka and the quarterly Te Karaka.
There is often scant detail on major tribal issues eg the demise of Ngai Tahu Development Corporation, and often, what there is, comes after the event. Obviously, not every beneficiary needs to, or would want to, make submissions on important tribal matters, but notification with or without the facility for input surely is part of democratic process.
The tribe has a communications unit (which I was instrumental in setting up) with very skilled people but my current view is that TRoNT management has controlled the information outflow for political purposes.
Recently, for example, two important events were, in my view, inadequately addressed- the Governance Review and its implications of which the first information was sent to marae 19 May 2006- and the midyear resignations of the NTHC CEO and Board. Further, there is the information TRoNT do not explain at all. (See the annual accounts). TRoNT spent nearly $5 ml over their budget in the current year 2005/06. Their budget was $15ml and they spent $19.9ml, that is, a third more than should have been spent.
When I asked for an explanation, the answer I got was that TRoNT were anticipating making up the difference in the next financial year. At a basic level, would even a small household budget in this way? Who will bail TRoNT out if their optimism is misplaced?
A personal history of the current electoral system.
When the Ngai Tahu Bill was going through parliament in the 90’s, the select committee insisted that any voting system must contain a postal vote. There were no requirements as to how the postal vote should be used. So ‘voting’ was very flexible in interpretation and implementation.
A second issue was about who could vote on which marae for the purposes of voting a representative on TRoNT. Virtually all Ngai Tahu can claim, correctly, they can vote (have a say) on any marae to which they have whakapapa connections. It seemed to me manifestly unfair that a person who for say, three generations, had had no affiliation to my marae, could have such an important vote in electing my representative. It was like a family who had lived in Auckland for two generations claiming a voting right in a local body election in Dunedin just because grandfather had lived there. I recall sitting at the Tront table putting forward the proposal that each eligible beneficiary (over the age of 18) should have one vote in the triennial election of a TRoNT representative. This was agreed by TRoNT. The Whakapapa Unit was tasked to find a solution. Theirs was to refer to the 1852 land allocations; each Kaumatua having been allocated land at that time. Descendent beneficiaries were allocated a “primary” marae where they could vote based on the 1852 allocations. This proposal was approved on legal advice from the law firm Bell Gully. My marae, Kati Huirapa, for example, near Karitane were allocated approx 7,000 beneficiaries.
This pragmatic solution was a good shot at the time but the problem of beneficiaries being eligible to vote but maybe having little direct or indirect connection with the local marae, remained. Never-the-less marae were required to implement this system. For various reasons, to date only 6 of the 18 Ngai Tahu marae have done so. One of those who have not, is my own marae who, for example, communicate with only 375 beneficiaries, thus depriving 6625 of a vote.
In hindsight the 1852 model- a marae based arrangement- had little chance of providing a democratic system and never will. This is because firstly, Marae constitutions limit the pool of possible candidates by requiring, for example, that a candidate must be on the executive committee, must attend monthly meetings, must report back verbally, must live within a certain distance of the marae, come from a particular village etc. These conditions restrict full beneficiary participation because mainly for economic reasons, the majority of beneficiaries no longer live near marae.
Secondly, the postal vote at marae– mentioned above – if used at all, is a form of Electoral College. Marae use the postal vote to vote on a ‘selection committee’ who then selects the marae representative. For the same geographic reason as above, this limits those who can stand for the selection committee.
Early this year the 1852 model was scrapped on legal advice by the same law firm that provided the original advice. Later Tront announced that it was suspending further marae representative elections pending a review. Apparently this review is likely to standardise the Electoral College model across all marae. This will do nothing to improve beneficiary voting rights- it will simply perpetuate the current flawed system.
An Opportunity presents
An opportunity to rethink marae representation has therefore arisen at this time. My analysis of this begins:
*TRoNT representatives have three primary roles
- Represent their marae
- Act in the best interests of Ngai Tahu beneficiaries
- Act as Trustees of the tribal assets
The Governance Review said that representatives were not comfortable in the Trustee role and recommended that a separate Ngai Tahu Group Board be formed to take on the trustee of tribal assets role. This Board would sit between TRoNT and NTHC. The Board would consist of an Independent Chair, Kaiwhakahaere, two TRoNT Reps and two Independent Trustees. This Board has already been put in place –rushed in after the resignations of NTHC- and consists of Wally Stone (also Chair of NTHC), Andy Pearce (independent), and Mark Solomon and Te Maire Tau (representing the two factions in TRoNT), from TRoNT.
*There is an opportunity here to manifest full representation for beneficiaries by them voting for the election of the Ngai Tahu Group Board to the above formula, hopefully attracting highly qualified and experienced candidates.
* Selection of Ngai Tahu Group Board Candidates would be on a regional rather than marae basis.
* Electing a separate asset trustee board takes pressure off Marae/Runanga who, under the current system are not representing all beneficiaries adequately. A major example of this deficiency was the demise of the NTHC Board where decisions were taken in committee. The implications of this demise are, I believe, far reaching not only in terms of democracy, transparency and accountability, but also in our commercial endeavours.
1992 - 1998
• Alternate and subsequently Runaka Representative for Kati Huirapa Runaka on Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu. Chairperson Ngai Tahu Group Management: The then executive arm of Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu Former Delegate/Director to Te Runaganui Ngai Tahu (The Ngai Tahu Ruling Council) the ruling body prior to the new structure, representing Kati Huirapa Runaka
• The following additional positions were held between 1992 - 1998
Former Chairperson of the Ngai Tahu Transition Committee formed to oversee the transition of the tribe’s assets and liabilities from the Trust Board status to the new corporate structure when the Ngai Tahu Bill was gazetted. Chair of a committee that successfully negotiated a settlement with the tribe’s economic advisors CS First Boston to the satisfaction of Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu Ngai Tahu Maori Law Centre: Former member of the Board of Management
Former Executive Committee Member of Kati Huirapa Runaka: During this time I lead the Runaka in what was to be the first Taiapure application in the country.
Oct 2000- June 2006
Appointed Director of Ngai Tahu Holding Corporation Ltd: The umbrella arm that incorporates all the commercial interests of Ngai Tahu, currently; property, tourism, fishing, equities/investments, tribal services – includes Ngai Tahu Finance Ltd. Appointed Chair and Director of Ngai Tahu Finance Company
Career: Fourteen years as an officer in the British Army follow by a spell at the London Business School, director, general management and market positions both in New Zealand and abroad.
The purpose of this website is twofold:
- to inform Ngai Tahu shareholders, (beneficiaries) , about what has been happening in the tribe
- To provide a forum for information, discussion and debate
Suspending this website/blog but will be opening a new one, the name of which, and access to, will be here.
(————?)
When I set up this site it was early days for blogs and Word Press was not as sophisticated, intuitive or as easy to manage as it is today. So the new blog will be easier to manage.
You can still contact me on paratas(@)xtra.co.nz- just exclude the ()
This "blog" is not a daily one, like many blogs. The articles I write will be occasional and I hope considered before I publish them.
Updates: A couple of recent blogs Oct 09- see the right sidebar- Election update and what has been really happening in NT
Election of Tront Representatives Sept 2009
I have recently received changes to the Ngai Tahu Charter vis election of Tront representatives. The process has taken about three years and the cost has been about $500,000. The result is not much different from what we had before but the changes are significant because the changes devolve all power to individual Runanga who could include or exclude shareholders. A couple of Runanga have begun the the lead up to electoral process Hokonui and Oraka Aparima. So far there has been limited information about these elections or any others that might be coming.
A Bit of History
After the attempts to oust Mark Solomon in 07 - see blog - Some Tront Representatives have been replaced and a sort of calm has been restored. Anake Goodall is the new CEO. An excellent appointment. Anake is busily appointing new staff for the Office depleted by the last CEO Tahu Potiki. On the surface things might appear harmonious but there are those both on and off the Tront table seeking power. These people, in my view are not interested in the betterment of shareholders. Rather - a clique, who have held powerful positions at various levels within the current and past Ngai Tahu structures, who wish to reassert their authority- for reasons that are not altruistic .
Background
For five years now there have been various attempts to ousted the Kaiwhakahaere (Chair) of Tront - the tribal council- Mark Solomon. The group behind these coup attempts are 9 of the 18 Tront representatives who are least accountable to their electorate - but read on—- The order of posts. will in the next few days, be ordered in the most recent posts first. So if you are a late reader start at the blog start at the bottom to get a feel for the issues. Will also be posting more media reports because, as I say below, Tront management, "The Office", have control of the tribal media output.
Of course there is a diversity of views from the media, much of it not true, simply because, Tront is not being up-front about what has been happening.
If you wish to know who Ngai Tahu are go to the tribal website: www.ngaitahu.iwi.nz
Kia ora,
My name is Richard Parata and responsible for setting up this website.. In June 2006 I resigned as a Director Ngai Tahu Holdings Corporation (NTHC), the commercial arm of the tribe, along with other Directors and the Chief Executive; my six year as a Director was due to end on 31 July but I resigned in June 06 so that I could speak out. There is a little more about me and my involvement in Ngai Tahu here
I had become increasingly concerned about Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu (TRoNT)- the elected, political, tribal council and its executive office. I sat at the TRoNT table from 1991- 98 representing my marae, Kati Huirapa at Puketeraki. I was involved, with others, in developing the structure that was put in place post the tribal settlement with the government. I think I can speak with a reasonable authority about how the organisation should have operated and how it appears to have failed. Apart from Maika Mason, I am the only person to have served on both entities.
As a Director of NTHC I could not speak about my concerns. But I can now.
My aim is see better democracy and accountability in the tribe. Your views are very important on these issues. Let me know what you think.
A place to start is a summary of my views in “ Urgent Changes Needed in Ngai Tahu Representation” published in “The Press” 17 Oct 06. The article is condensed. But there are threads that I expand on. “ Ngai Tahu Democracy” and “Resignations and Implications”
The Press followed up with two other pieces on 28 Oct 06 “Solomon Hits Out at Ngai Tahu Rift” and “ Rumblings at Ngai Tahu head office”
Some people have asked why I could not resolve issues, internally, within the tribe. There are two reasons
- There is no satisfactory forum. There is the annual Hui a Tau (annual general meeting) but this attended by relatively few and you learn or can contribute little.
- The tribe has a very skilled and sophisticated communications unit initially set up with the purpose of in forming tribal members and the general public about Ngai Tahu activities; I had a direct responsibility initiating its set up. Unfortunately the skills have been captured by TRoNT executive management and used to “spin” what they think people should know.
— Next Page »