Ngai Tahu Shareholders

Rumblings at Ngai Tahu head office
THE PRESS – 28 October 2006

Political infighting at Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu has shattered its image as one of the most successful of New Zealand's iwi organisations. MATT PHILP investigates.

It's the great irony of Mark Solomon's life: the man anointed to lead Ngai Tahu in the post-settlement "peace" finds himself besieged by antagonists from his own tribe.

Over the past two years, occasional insights into the palace politics have emerged from the tribe's Hereford Street headquarters, like torchlight flashed out of thick fog.

The cumulative impression gained has been of the tribal parliament, Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu (Tront), split exactly down the middle by a seemingly relentless campaign to unseat Solomon from his role as kaiwhakahaere, or chairman, with strong hints that Solomon is also being undermined by outside forces and by his putative right-hand man, Tront chief executive Tahu Potiki.

The saving grace for Ngai Tahu's 37,000-odd beneficiaries was that the fighting didn't seem to be hurting business. But their confidence has been shaken.

First, the chief executive and board of Ngai Tahu Holdings Corporation walked out, citing concerns about creeping political interference; their exit was followed by news of a $22 million writedown of the fisheries assets and a $2m loss in tourism. One former director went into print to express the view that NTHC "is now being used as a pawn by rival factions in a dysfunctional Tront".

At the centre of it all is Mark Solomon, with a face that could have been carved from granite and a stoney line in public comment. But on the eve of the big hui a tau (annual general meeting), the kaiwhakahaere has clearly had enough of taking the hits in silence.

Solomon agrees that the faction working against him appears implacable – the last leadership tilt in May ended in stalemate, with the board split between Solomon and Ngai Tuahuriri runanga representative and Canterbury academic Te Maire Tau.

"But I won," Solomon says. "Get over it, boys. I'm here for three more years."

Solomon argues that the moves to unseat him aren't supported by the iwi's grassroots. "Ngai Tahu is not asking me to step down – quite the opposite. I believe I've got very widespread support among the people."

Solomon denies Tront has become paralysed by infighting, but he is palpably angry that some of the tactics being used are damaging Ngai Tahu's wider interests.

Have the politics started to interfere with business?

"Possibly, possibly. There are some areas where we have a difference of opinion – that's healthy debate. But the leaking of information to the media is not healthy in any shape or form."

That last comment is presumably a reference to the leaking of a draft annual report. But it could equally apply to an email written by Tahu Potiki to his lawyer and leaked to this newspaper. But not by Potiki, who has been silent throughout the dramas. In it, Potiki expressed a belief that Solomon didn't keep him or Tront in the loop about resignations at the holdings corporation. The overriding impression was of a power struggle brewing between Solomon and his chief executive.

How can Solomon continue to work with Potiki?

"He's denying that he acted against me. I don't have proof positive. We're both in a position where we have to get on with our job, simple as that."

* * *

Why is a faction at Tront so hellbent on removing Solomon? And what role does the infighting play in the iwi's wider troubles?

Any attempt to decipher the politics at Ngai Tahu has to acknowledge all sorts of cross-currents. Some former insiders highlight the motivation of ambition and ego. Sid Ashton, a Pakeha whose involvement with Ngai Tahu dates back to the early 1960s and who served as chief executive for Tront until 2001, says rivalries between individual runanga and families also play a part.

"The rules say that when they come to the table they are to forget all that . . . but geography comes into it, family relationships, feuds, God knows what. All those tensions are there."

But the obvious, public explanation for the rift is dissatisfaction with the chairman's leadership style, particularly in regard to "dealing with" the holding corporation. Poor commercial results have racked up the tension.

It's fair to say that there was surprise among some in Ngai Tahu when Solomon took over the leadership from Sir Tipene O'Regan eight years ago. He was a foundry supervisor from Kaikoura with limited te reo and an aversion to public appearances. But he was seen as having humility, integrity and an instinct for taking people with him that suited the times – the leader for the "peace".

But Solomon's bent for consensus-building is now being cast by his opponents as indecisiveness. They believe the business arm has been given far too much latitude.

Some on Tront have been pushing hard for answers from the holding corporation's board about the underperformance of fisheries and details of the settlement package that it agreed with its departing chief executive, Robin Pratt, who resigned in May.

In regard to the latter, the board and Tront have conflicting legal advice about what information needs to be divulged.

More controversially, Tront members have been seeking answers to questions raised by O'Regan at Ngai Tahu's last hui a tau, about the purchase of a Wellington-based fishing company. According to a source at the hui, O'Regan dropped a bombshell, suggesting the deal was improperly conducted.

Solomon denies he is indecisive. He says people have promulgated myths about his power. "I don't have the right to dictate to management or to the board. I have a governance position."

He says he has been working by the book, and without rushing to judgment, to get to the bottom of what has happened in the fisheries business.

But communication has been dysfunctional. "Tront has been trying to ascertain some answers, and there has been resistance in supplying the answers (by the former board of the holding corporation). In some areas the board flatly refused to respond," says Solomon.

Leaks to the media have only made it more difficult to get information from the board, he says.

Solomon casts himself as the meat in the sandwich. "Some believe the holdings corporation hasn't been performing in the way it should. My view is that I'm not the chairman of a kangaroo court."

He says the result of a merchant banker's investigation of the fisheries issues will be made available at next month's hui a tau.

* * *

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.

But O'Regan, the "war leader" of the claims process and ex-chairman of the holdings corporation, downplays his ongoing influence in Ngai Tahu affairs.

"I'm not a member of Tront," he points out. "I am the upoko of one of the constituent runanga, upoko o Awarua, based in Bluff. I'm just one of the troops."

Yet the question O'Regan raised at last year's hui has reverberated all year. Two head office insiders who spoke to The Press believe that O'Regan has been a key behind-the-scenes player at Tront and is keen to get back in power.

Mark Solomon: "Would I say he is the active participant out there trying to pull me down? Maybe. Maybe not . . . You can't expect a man who has dedicated his life to working for his people just to disappear into the sunset."

O'Regan: "I have not been directly involved in the so-called power play . . . My interests are now more in South Australia than in Hereford Street."

Does he want back in? "I'm not going to answer that.

"In respect of Solomon, on occasion, when required, I've paraded in his support . . . The idea that I'm drinking coffee with him and plotting his downfall is typical of the rather silly obsessions that these things engender – and it's not true."

Rather, O'Regan says, he is motivated by a concern about corporate performance which extends well beyond a poor fisheries result.

Ngai Tahu, he says, has grown its net worth “almost entirely” on the back of companies such as Whale Watch which aren’t controlled by the holding corporation, and some early property investments.

“The value of the treaty settlement has grown considerably. But in my view it hasn’t grown anything like it should have.”

The problem is not too much political control of the commercial apparatus but too little, he argues. The holdings corporation’s directors have effectively been freed of the duty of taking direct instruction from the shareholder, Tront – “they’ve been able to ignore attempts to review their actions”.

“The principle dysfunction of the politics is that it has permitted a failure in governance of the economic elements of Ngai Tahu.”

* * *

Unsurprisingly, former holdings corporation directors diagnose a different problem. Writing in The Press, Richard Parata has said that the corporation’s traditional autonomy has been a constant source of tension with Tront, and has put much of the blame for the breakdown in relationships on Tahu Potiki – the go-between the tribal council and the commercial wing – and unnamed Tront members.

“Ngai Tahu Holdings Corporation has been used as a pawn between rival factions in a dysfunctional Tront,” Parata wrote. “Lack of unbiased advice to the Tront board about Ngai Tahu Holdings Corporation’s activities has led to a cabal of commercially inexperienced representatives on the Tront board making their own commercial judgments.”

Another ex-director, who did not want to be identified, says contrary to the impression that the board has been stonewalling Tront, a lot more information than is commercially normal was given to the shareholders. But the leaks haven’t helped. “As a director of holdings you had to be careful about what information you made available because that information could be (leaked). You can’t make commercial decisions with information suddenly hitting the public arena.”

The board was constantly questioned and undermined by some members of Tront. “You have to bear in mind that members of the shareholder body (Tront) have no commercial competence. But they get feedback from people around the country, and they all know people in seafood or tourism. A small ground-level criticism would come back as `the holdings corporation can’t be doing things right’. It was a no win.”

The ex-director warns that a new structure, including a slimmed-down holdings board, is only going to make it worse. “We had a model of best-practice corporate governance at Ngai Tahu . . . now the politics are mixed up with the commercial operation.”

What are the ordinary beneficiaries of the Ngai Tahu settlement to make of all this?
Not much, says Rik Tau, upoko of the traditionally powerful Ngai Tuahuriri runanga, who argues that underlying all the problems at Ngai Tahu is a lack of democracy and transparency.

“The ordinary beneficiaries have been totally ignored.”

Twenty years ago, Tau helped put together the Waitangi claim – it was filed under his name. But ever since, he has been one of the most outspoken of tribal critics. He is the somewhat maverick voice of the old guard, taking potshots at the post-settlement leadership from sleepy Tuahiwi.

Solomon doubts he has much sway. But others say that, while sometimes light on detail, Tau’s arguments show up the faultlines running through Ngai Tahu – “he’s good at pricking consciences” is one summation.

Intriguingly, Tau’s son, academic Te Maire Tau, who represents Ngai Tuahuriri at Tront, has emerged as Solomon’s arch-rival.

So, is Rik Tau’s agenda to lay the ground for Te Maire Tau?

“No, no,” he says. “One thing I have always taught my sons is to own their voice.”
Tau says he speaks out because he is convinced the iwi’s assets are being mismanaged – “squandered” – by an increasingly distant iwi HQ.

“They’re a corporate. That was never intended. It’s all about pursuit of personal power.

“You have a flash building, a lot of flash, educated people – mostly non-Ngai Tahu – managing our assets. Am I better off now than before the claim and the settlement? No. And neither are my people.”

The poor fisheries result was entirely predictable – “they got too big for their boots”, he says of the holdings corp. “They worked with consultants who don’t know anything about how to fish.”

As for Tront: “The people we are electing don’t understand economics, budgets or the reality of industries.”

Tau is arguing to change the system by which members of Tront are appointed, from nomination by marae committees to direct vote. He concedes it is fraught with complexities – many Ngai Tahu can trace their whakapapa to multiple marae – but it will widen the pool of talent, reduce the potential for nepotism and “create a feeling of belonging” for Ngai Tahu’s far-flung tribal base.

Richard Parata takes a similar line. Tront is trying to do too much; its roles have become confused; the politics will continue to kill the business. “Tront should relinquish its role as trustee and custodian of the tribal assets and hand over the role to trustees elected directly by beneficiaries. Otherwise Solomon will continue to try to govern the ungovernable.”

Mark Solomon rejects the suggestion. Look at how big the settlement has grown, he says.
“We have our problems – and you will always have divisions at the table. But I challenge anyone to show that this structure hasn’t delivered for the people.”

But he agrees that more democracy is needed and the process of figuring out how to deliver it is in train. Contrary to the muttering of some of his opponents, he supports it. “Right from day dot I’ve argued for a fully democratic, open vote.”

Despite all the angst, who knows, he may even want to throw his hat in the ring again. “I love what I’m doing, I love the relationships I have out there with the people . . . It’s been an amazing journey.”