"Kia ora ra koe, Richard,
You've written a very good paper and you are to be congratulated on it.
As you have shown, the whole things a pretty tangled web but you've
picked your way through it in a way that makes things a lot plainer to
the likes of myself whose knowledge and understanding of the issues
isn't all that extensive. Also, living outside the takiwa virtually
since 1959, it's always been hard to get a grip on things so that they
make sense. I was part of the Ngai Tahu Ki Tainui roopu that attempted
to get a better recognition for what are the numerically large number
of the whanui living outside the takiwa. We didn't make much of an
impact on the shape of the Bill as it was then, but we tried. We kept
having the ahi ka argument thrown in our faces and I for one felt how
that was done, left a bit of a sour taste in the mouth – I think many
others felt the same way and that the same feeling still exists on a
widespread basis. I would think, too, that Moke Couch, who was to the
forefront of the issue, when he died – as he did not that long ago –
went to his maker thinking just that.
I was really pleased that you covered the point that there was a danger
inherent in getting changes made to the Act. I'm sure that if people
understood it to be the minimal risk you've identified it as, our local
roopu, Ngai Tahu Ki Tauranga Moana, would have swung in behind it as
the the most favoured option. It was certainly mine.
I agree – indeed how could anyone not – about what you say on the
multiple marae affiliations and it's implications for voting. Being a
bit of history nut, I was interested, too,in the various Blue Book
kaumatua numbers that pertain to the various marae, noting that the
ones my grandfather George Loper and great grandfather John Loper, had
much to do with – Arowhenua, Waihao and Moeraki – comprised a large
proportion of the total. All of wwhich adds to my sense of connection,
as kids growing up we never heard anything of this from our father,
Bill, I guess he didn't know too much himself.
Those were the only points I feel I can make comment on. Bringing
practices born of a different culture and era into line with modern day
"democratic" practices will always be a fraught process, one with which
each iwi will have to grapple. We are fortunate that we have your
analysis to go on, i just hope it's not too much after the fact.
I hope that this tautoko of mine is some little recognition for the
time and effort you have put into your paper. —-"
"I had received a copy of your discussion document on the electoral review
yesterday- via Koukou runanga office
I had a quick read- and firstly i want to say good on you. I know from my
own experience, that the time, thought and energy that goes into a document
like yours is significant. Doing it voluntarily also indicates a commitment
driven by a passion for justice. I hope it gets the wider circulation it
deserves – to get the whanau whanui thinking, talking and debating.
All the points you have raised are really important. I only read it quickly.
So will give it more thought.
One concern i have- is the gate keeping that goes on at Runanga level and
the often extremely small pool of eligible candidates who can or want to
stand to be Runanga Directors. This and the small uniformed voter turn out
etc etc etc means ..and here is the point i want to make……
> We end up with 18 Runanga Directors who collectively and
individually are unlikely to have the mix and range of added-value skills
(experience, qualifications, knowledge, personal characteristics etc)
required to provide the level of governance now required. Hence it is
increasingly looking like the Ngai Tahu Holdings Corp directors are just
getting on and doing it ….and potentially making the TRONT table
irrelevant.
I will give it some more thought……whilst trying not get overwhelmed with
how hopeless it all seems to find a way or ways to get it right. You know
and i know that the very people tasked to put it right have an invested
interest in the status quo. Must say that is probably the same the world
over.
Kia kaha Richard"
You have summed it all up very well and lots of food for thought"
"Kia ora Richard
Its a complex issue as you have said. It seems to me that Ngai Tahu should have two governance groups. One for Papatipu Runanga (Marae); those who can participate- attend meetings. And a Council that represents the majority who live outside the rohe and/or shareholders that cannot participate in Marae activities. Perhaps the old NT Trust Board model based on regional representation might be the answer.