Ngai Tahu Shareholders

 

[ I posted this article to Tront, Marae and other recipients last week 10-12 March ] 

Ngai Tahu Electoral Review – A Personal Perspective
1. Introduction
1.1  In 2006 Tront set up an Electoral Review Committee ( ERC ). The reason, Tront said, was that across the 18 Runanga there were different electoral processes to elect the Runanga Representative and Alternate; and there was a need to have consistency and certainty in processes and to ensure all eligible shareholders have “an equal and fair opportunity to nominate their Runanga Representatives.” While there is a legal requirement for all Runanga to hold elections, in fact some have not been doing so. Others have altered their voter base or have not incorporated elections into their individual Runanga constitutions thus not complying with the Ngai Tahu Act of 1996 [Act] or The Ngai Tahu Charter [Charter]). Yet Tront has allowed this position to remain in status quo since the Act was passed, essentially disenfranchising what I believe to be the majority of shareholders for over ten years.

1.2. I have mentioned in a number of articles on my web site that the root cause of the tribe’s recent troubles with leadership is the lack of a transparency and failure to encourage active participation in the electoral system.

1.3. In 2007 the ERC sent out a four page leaflet providing two options for electoral reform. This was followed by a road show in 18 centres around the country where the total attendance was 390 plus 240 written submissions.  The options proposed were based on the Electoral College system which was the same as what should have been operating through the years as specified in the Act and Charter.

1.4. But the ERC did not present any reason, analysis or argument for in favour of either of the two options.

1.5. The Tront- proposed electoral reform is analogous to the 1993 move to change  the New Zealand parliamentary electoral system  from the First Past the Post system  to the present MMP system- New Zealand was awash with information   upon which we, the electorate could make decisions. In contrast, Ngai Tahu shareholders have had nothing approaching this level of information in what is an important and complex proposal.  Yet while the scale is different – in terms of national vs Ngai Tahu electorate numbers- the Ngai Tahu voting structure is much more complicated than national or local body elections and therefore needs much more rigorous thought than is currently being provided before shareholders can make a rational and considered decision.

1.6. Should we have an Electoral Commission followed by a tribal referendum?

1.7. Tront say they want to hurry up the election process because some Runanga want to have elections but cannot do so claiming that elections were suspended in 2006. Tront cannot lawfully suspend elections. The Act and Charter says elections must be held every three years. Andrew Harrison, secretary to Tront, in 2006 simply sent out an edict saying elections were suspended. Nobody at the Tront table bothered to question this action.

1.8. A second road show at only 7 centres began on 4 Feb 2008 after the publication of a second leaflet that proposes only minor changes to the original two, status quo proposals in the ERC pamphlet.

1.9. Tront appears to have ignored the protests in March 07 over the Mark Solomon sacking issue where there were demands for Tront to resign. A compromise was put forward whereby an separate Independent Electoral Review Committee was to be formed to oversee the ERC – I proposed  this myself. Subsequently, this committee, Whanau Awhina (WA)-it’s called – was formed.

1.10. However, WA’s inception was not the process that I envisaged. The selection of committee members was made by the ERC the very body who were to be under review. While I have no issue about the people on WA  – those I know are splendid people, it is the lack of a broad based, transparent appointment process that I disapprove of and and also believe does best serve the interests of shareholders.

1.11. What follows is a series of notes and observations interspersed with comments about issues that should have been considered by the ERC and Tront. A paper should have been provided to Tront by the Office – lead at the time by Tahu Potiki – offering well researched options for electoral reform to advise and guide the ERC

 
2. Conditions  
2.1 The following are a set of conditions or obligatory requirements I propose, and some questions I ask that should under-pin a Ngai Tahu electoral system

a. The Ngai Tahu settlement was for all beneficiaries in perpetuity.
 
b. All Ngai Tahu eligible voters have equal voting rights regardless of where they reside or whether or not they are actively involved Ngai Tahu.

c. Recognition of ahi ka – keeping the home fires burning- is of great importance for the preservation of Ngai Tahu culture.

d. Ngai Tahu are a dynamic people who have embraced change, sometimes unwillingly, but always for pragmatic reasons, but have always recognised where they came from and their values.        

e. Whakapapa binds us as people.

d. Best electoral systems are based on shareholder needs.

2.2. This paper is divided into three parts:

– Part One: Current Situation
– Part Two: Proposed Electoral Changes
-Part Three: Discussion

So where are we now?

3.Part One: Current Situation

3.1. The Act and the Charter guides the current voting system. The electoral part of this Act states para 16  Charter (1) (c):
“Shall contain, on or after the 31st – Dec 1996 provisions requiring the members of each Papatipu Runanga to elect, from time to time in a democratic manner by postal ballot, the members of Papatipu Runanga who are to be charged with appointing to Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu from time to time the members of that Papatipu Runanga who are to act as the representatives of that Papatipu Runanga”

3.2. The Charter para 7 Election of Runanga Representatve 7.1
“The members of each Papatipu Runanga will elect every three years, in a democratic manner by postal vote, members of that Papatipu Runanga who are to be charged with the duty of appointing to Te Runanga members of that Papatipu Runanga who are to act as Runanga Representative and Alternate Runanga Representative of that Papatipu Runanga.”

Comments:
-What is prescribed in the Act and Charter is an Electoral College system of voting whereby voters vote for a panel of people who in turn select the candidate. This was not the original or preferred system put forward at the select committee phase. The original proposal by MP’s at the time Whetu Tirikatene- Sullivan and Sandra Lee – Ngai Tahu shareholders – was a to “elect from time to time in a democratic manner by postal vote–”. This seemed simple and clear to me at the time when I sat at the Tront table. It gave marae flexibility as to whether the shareholders had a direct vote- voting for a particular candidate to be the representative- OR to adopt the Electoral College option.

-My minutes of the Tront meeting that could verify or other otherwise the decision to endorse the Electoral College are in a lock-up and difficult to get at. But there is a real need for shareholders to be given transparency as to what was originally proposed in the Act and what is now there.

-The Office need to be tasked to search files, the Ngai Tahu files plus parliamentary files to show the processes and the decisions. I will be active on this front and will be seeking answers.

– Shareholders also need to know that the Charter, para 7 above, was amended on 19 July 2003. This amendment, I am told, was in response to Te Ohu Kaimoana- The Maori Fisheries Commission, responsible for fisheries allocation who did not believe we did not have a proper electoral system.          
 -See below about changing the Act.

Shareholders of Papatipu Runanga- Qualification Criteria

3.3. The Act para 13 (1) “Members of Papatipu Ngai Tahu Whanui
“ Each member (shareholder) of Ngai Tahu Whanui is entitled to be a member of each Papatipu Runanga of Ngai Tahu Whanui to which he or she can establish entitlement by descent.”

3.4. A paper from Tront, 18 Dec 06 – in a report from ECR expands on what is said in the Act, namely:
“- membership  may be derived from whakapapa (bloodline) descent from one or more of the following –
–    a 1848 Kaumatua who was resident within the takiwa
–    an original land guarantee in the Native Reserves within the takiwa
–    OR
–    hapu  ascription (giving) based on descent from an eponymous (giving ones name to a tribe) pre-1840 ancestor”

Explanation of the “Native Reserves” Clause.
NT shareholders derive their right of membership through the “Blue Book”, that lists all Kaumatua alive in 1848.  But it was found that many descendants from the 1848 list could not be found “a home” – if that is the right expression  – at the 18 Runanga/Marae, adopted in the Act. This was particularly so in the south. The whakapapa unit was set the task of finding a solution and came up with the Native Reserves allocation of 1848 and onwards. This land allocation ascribed land to individuals. For contemporary purposes-based Act, if that land was within the takiwa of one of the 18 Runanga/Marae this was the basis of an individual’s right to vote at a particular marae.Comments: -The detail of entitlement in the Native Reserves is not in the Act or Charter or in any other legal document. -This was a pragmatic solution for people where a “home” could not be found. But it is analogous to a local or national electoral roll where the there are people are entitled to vote but have no “address”. How does the ERC propose to address this issue? Shareholders need to know how they derive their membership.Role of the Runanga Representative3.5. A Runanga Representative has two distinct roles. The first is to represent the interests of his/her marae. Secondly to represent what he/she sees are in the best interests of Ngai Tahu whanui as a whole.

4. Part Two: Proposed Electoral Changes
 
Proposed Electoral Changes
4.1. The following are relevant extracts of electoral change options sent to shareholders. The first was sent in May 07 followed by a road show. The second was sent in Jan 08 incorporating amendments as a result of the first road show.

4.2. Proposed Election Options 2007
“Option 1. Retain the status quo (electoral College) whereby the Appointment Committee, once elected by postal vote of all eligible members of the Papatipu Runanga, appoints the Papatipu Runanga Representative, or
Option 2. To elect the Appointment Committee by postal vote of all eligible members of the Papatipu Runanga and also, on a separate voting paper, indicate to the Appointment Committee your preferred Papatipu Runanga Representative and Alternate . The result of the vote for your preferred Representative will be made known to the appointment Committee and the Appointment Committee will put significant weight on that when appointing your Representative.”

Regardless of the option preferred, each Papatipu Runanga Appointment Committee will be made up of five people who are elected democratically by postal vote from a pool of all eligible Papatipu Runanga members.”

4.3. Proposed Election Options 2008

After the road show, the second proposal – dated Jan 08 retained the two options with the following variants.

“Option 1 Variant Number 1.  Following the election of the Appointment Committee be subject to a standard set of criteria to all Papatipu Appointment Committees. It was thought that a standard set of criteria would ensure a consistent process and enable all representatives to take the Table on an equal footing.”

Comment:
-It is acknowledged by Tront that Marae constitutions (trusts, incorporated societies etc) vary considerably across the 18 Runanga. These legal entities need to be standardised and tested to see if they are comparable in law to any electoral system. No elections can take place until uniform compliance is verified in every Runanga.
 
 
“Option 1. Variant  Number 2.  There was a variation to the above  
which favoured a set of criteria that could differ between Papatipu Runanga”.

Comment:
-Surely, election processes should be consistent across the tribe if democracy is to be achieved?

“Option 2 Variant Number 1.  It was thought those candidates not successful in their quest for election to the Appointment Committees might want to stand for appointments to be Papatipu Runanga representative —–So it was proposed that a time gap be introduced between the voting of the Appointment Committee and the indicative vote for the Papatipu Runanga representative.”

Comment:
-Good, but, why was this not thought through before?

4.4. Other Options
“During the consultation Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu was asked to allow for fully democratic elections of the Papatipu Runanga Representatives. This was also a sentiment expressed in the postal feedback we received.”

Comments:
-It is not clear what this means. But I assume it means shareholders having a direct vote. But the sentiment for  “democratic elections “ is clear. This begs the question –What is democracy? Following are some definitions of democracy courtesy of various references on the internet:
 
-“pure democracy  in which the power is exercised directly by the people rather than through representatives.” This is the direct vote.
    
    -“Government by the people; a form of government in which the     supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by     them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system”
    This method introduces the Electoral College as an option.

4.5. Changing the Act
“There is some risk to changing our Act. The first risk is one of timing. Parliament’s legislative agenda for 2008 is full and it would take considerable lobbying to get it on to Parliament’s schedule. Secondly, Parliament is gearing up for elections in 2008 and this will also considerably impact that schedule.

We also need to consider that retaining our Act, in an unchanged form, is itself important protection for the Act and opposition it guarantees Ngai Tahu in its unchanged state.”

Comment:
-It is unclear what is meant in the last para, that it is important that the Act remains unchanged. What do the ERC mean? See below about changing the Act.

 

5. Part Three: Discussion

The intention of part three is to bring together elements of parts one and two and to expand and introduce material that I consider to be relevant. I am not attempting to be prescriptive but rather to open the issues to wider debate.

5.1 Statistics
 The following are some facts and figures from Tront in the leaflet prior to the first election road show in 2007:

Enrolment Statistics
 Of the total enrolled (40,291):
45.1%- live outside the Ngai Tahu rohe
38.2%- live within the rohe
16.7%- registered but ‘gone no address’.

a. It also says that the expected votes will exceed 100, 000 on the basis that many voters have multiple votes- based on whakapapa. There are 23,125 eligible voters (20 yrs and over – the ERC have now lowered the voting age to 18 so the voting base is greater but I assume that the percentages are the same for those eligible to vote). On average every eligible voter has 4.3 votes (100,000/23,125).

b. A breakdown of the Kaumatua from the 1848 list, plus the Reserves allocation forms the basis for voting (Dec 2006 Tront paper) on a particular marae. Thirteen Runanga are listed, the other five were missing from the documents I have. This shows the number of Kaumatua at each marae: Arowhenua 48, Awarua 84, Hokonui 56, Kaikoura 29, Koukourarata 33, Makaawhio 14, Moeraki 130, Onuku 44, Aparima 99, Otakou 69, Puketeraki 70, Rapaki 45, Taumutu 79

 c. The range in the number of Kaumatua to each marae is very wide from Moeraki- 130, to Makaawhio- 14. Let’s assume a normal distribution  curve by population. Today’s descendents from the Moeraki list are going to be in greater number than those on the Makaawhio list and therefore proportionately have more votes.
 
d. In the 5 to 8 generations since 1848 there have been marriages between Ngai Tahu families on the 1848 list giving the right to vote on multiple marae. I know of a family who can claim votes on 17 marae.

 Comments:
-What is the relevance today in modern Ngai Tahu of electoral process of whakapapa? The phrase “ democratic manner” appears in the Act and The Charter regarding the manner of voting and indicating that voting system should be democratic.  How do you reconcile a desire to have a democratic voting system while using multiple voting when clearly some shareholders have more votes than others. The two positions appear to be mutually exclusive. Are multiple votes appropriate or democratic in a Ngai Tahu contemporary society?  

-There are those who are ardent in their right to vote on marae to which they whakapapa. I concur and support the right of whakapapa but not the right to vote for Representatives on multiple marae because it could be unfair on individual marae. It is quite possible for a determined group with multiple marae “rights” to organise a voting block to completely disrupt a marae.

 -An arbitrary line was drawn in the sand at 1848 by the Act, that precludes me from my voting at Kaikoura Marae, where my family have ancestral links. I am proud of the whakapapa link but I would never take up a vote there should a redrawn line in 2008 entitle me to do so. It is not my turangawaewae- my rights of residence are at Puketeraki
 
-There seems to be a degree of confusion between whakapapa and ahi ka (residency). Traditionally you lose ahi ka status if you are absent for three generations; you can apply to be accepted back. Whakapapa is   genealogical relationships with tipuna. For those who have a preference for multiple voting, I ask the question- “Where will you be buried?” There is seldom any hesitation in the reply. Shareholders know where their turangawaewae is.

5.2. Marae Constitutions and Representative Selection
 a. It is acknowledged by Tront that Marae constitutions (trusts, incorporated societies etc) vary considerably across the 18 Runanga.
Comments:
-These legal entities need to be standardised and tested to see if they are compatible in law to any electoral system. No elections can take place until this compliance is verified in every Runanga.
 
b. Currently Runanga can set criteria that severely narrow the pool of potential representative candidates. These can include the need to sit on marae committees, to hold particular positions, to come from a particular family and or, in a case I know of, to live in a particular village. But the main restriction is the necessity to be within normal travelling distance of a marae; two Runanga have Representatives based in Wellington but this is certainly not the norm.

Comments:
-The restrictive requirements in effect “narrows the pool” of potential participants in marae decisions and rules out many, candidates in representative elections; there could be many others willing and able to serve.

 -Eligibility criteria needs to be standardised across marae and understood and approved by all shareholders.           

   
5.3. How Can Shareholders be Properly Represented?

 a. As mentioned previously 45% of shareholders live outside the tribal rohe and therefore physically cannot be involved in marae activities. 38% live within the rohe and therefore have a better opportunity to engage with marae.

 b. Anecdotal evidence suggests that less than approximately8% of all shareholders have any involvement in their marae activities. Involvement can mean as little as being on a marae mailing list. There are even fewer shareholders actively involved in an ahi ka role. For example at my marae at Puketeraki we are in contact with approx 380 whereas our base of potential voters or participants under the current voting criteria is approximately 7,000. Active members I would generously estimate as being 50. I would these expect figures to be similar other Marae.

c. As a rough guide I have taken up to 50km as a reasonable distance a shareholder might live from his/her marae and participate. It is quite possible with post codes to map the distance shareholders live from any given marae. To date Tront has not done this exercise. There is a very real need to study the tribal demographics. There is no easily obtained information to link where a shareholder lives to relevant marae. However Anake Goodall has told me that shortly with the introduction of postcodes nationwide mapping software will be available to provide linkages between people and marae.

Comment
-There is no disguising the current reality that marae, because of the physical distance from their shareholders have real difficulty representing them.
– Does the internet provide a solution?  

5.4. Role of Runanga and Representatives

 The Ngai Tahu 2025 vision document outlines a number of goals for Runanga namely that Runanga
“-are the main entry point for whanau wishing to access benefits from the Ngai Tahu settlement
-are the main entry point for Ngai Tahu whanui wishing to engage with the iwi”

 As I mentioned previously Runanga Representatives have two distinct roles. The first is to represent the interests of his/her marae. Secondly to represent what he/she sees are in the best interests of Ngai Tahu whanui as a whole.    

Comments
– In my view shareholders are not served well by Runanga particularly those outside the rohe. This is not a criticism of Runanga rather it has to do with widespread population distribution as already mentioned, and Runanga themselves being busy, as charged to do, with their local activities.

-Runanga are not the entry point for benefits or whanui engaging with iwi. Tront, and the Office in Christchurch administer education grants, the Whai Rawa fund, whakapapa, leadership programme etc and publishes the tribal magazines. We might have been closer to the original distribution model if Tahu Potiki had not decided to disband Development Corporation. Activities have been gradually centralised in Christchurch. This is not necessarily bad as there are economies of scale operating e.g. we do not need to replicate 18 education grant committees.
 

 -Could we look at a two-tier structure? Retain the individual Runanga looking after ahi ka and specific Runanga/Marae activities. And a second tier of area representatives to look after the wider shareholder interests on a regional model – just as the Ngai Tahu Maori Trust Board did.

 

Change The Act?
 5.5. An option mentioned above and opposed by the ERC and Tront is to change the Act to allow a direct vote; the original intention of the law makers in my view, and more democratic.  The reasoning behind the opposition is that Tront have a least two legal options that if one clause in the Act was changed MP’s would then propose amendments to other parts of the Act.

Comments:
-I disagree with this view. The lawyers may have a good legal point. But this is a political issue. I have it on very good authority from Whetu Tirikatene-Sullivan with a record of nearly 30 years in parliament that the process would be easy and not complicated. We could seek agreement in writing from the leaders of all political parties, for the change/s proposed. On the day of the hearing if an MP decides to put forward other changes the original change/s are withdrawn.

-What I do not think Tront have not grasped is that all political parties do not want Ngai Tahu to fail. If Ngai Tahu begins to falter culturally or commercially, which ever parties are in government will have to pick up the pieces and sort out another grievance. I have discussed this issue with two sitting MPs and both said that if Ngai Tahu wanted changes they felt sure there would be cross party support.

Voting Process
5.6. There is no information for shareholders about how any elections will take place and what the process is.
 
Comment:
 Shareholders need the process clarified and be able to judge how robust it is before any electoral decisions are made.

Kaiwhakahaere

5.7. There is no mention of the issue of the position and election process for the Kaiwhakahaere.

Comments:
Should this position be treated in the same way as a local authority Mayor where he/she is elected by all shareholders? This takes the political aspect that has dogged the tribe recently, out of the hands of Tront. This is now a highly significant and pivotal, global – diplomatic role with other indigenous groups around the world, as well as other tribal groups in NZ, far exceeding the role of Board Chairman.

In disputes the fate of the Kaiwhakahaere should be in the hands of people not Tront.  
 
6.Conclusions:
6.1 The issues I have raised, leads me to the conclusion that it would be unsafe and unwise to continue this electoral process in its current form.

6.2 Tront, it appears, wanted an “Electoral Review” that was very limited whereby Ngai Tahu Whanui had -“ an equal and fair opportunity to nominate their Runanga Representatives” – rather than a full review. Why did they take this approach and propose options based on an Electoral College system, which in my view, has clearly failed?

6.3 Multiple voting is unfair on marae and not democratic.

6.4 The issues I have highlighted are far more complex than I originally thought and need to be examined.

6.5 I have no confidence that the current electoral options will provide democracy for the 45% who live outside the rohe and those who live within the rohe but cannot or are not able to have direct contact with their marae.

6.6 There is an opportunity to change the legislation to provide a direct vote and other amendments that are appropriate.

6.7 The way forward is to have an Electoral Commission followed by a tribal referendum.