Tront got a terrible drubbing at the Hui a Tau in Nov last year from beneficiaries about their performance. The message was clear- ‘Get your act together’.
But Tront have not got the message?
At their first meeting of the year (Jan 2007) Tront granted themselves a 25% pay rise.
This (and also the previous remuneration) is based on the flawed assumption that Tront marae representatives have the same skills and commercial experience as Directors of NTHC and NTDC. This has never been the case.
The only dissenting voice to this was Mark Solomon.
Tront meets once a month for two days (weekends; one for formal Tront meetings the other for wanaga.) But time is not the main issue. Rather what value do Tront bring to the tribe? Is it comparable to that of the directors and how does the value of marae reps compare in the setting of the wider New Zealand economy?
The rise under discussion was from $24,000 per annum to $30,000.
The median (i.e. midpoint) annual income for New Zealanders is $21,900 and for us Maori is $20,900 –(Statistics NZ 2006). Do you think Tront rep remuneration represents appropriate value?
The background to my unease over this matter is that in the 1990’s a decision needed to be made about payment of Directors of the newly formed NTHC and NTDC. The discussion was widened to the question as to how much the marae reps on Tront should be paid. It was decided by a majority vote that reps should be paid the same as those Directors. I was strongly against this proposal and said so at the time. We had little money in the late nineties but as the wealth has grown Directors have been rewarded with increases in an attempt to mirror what they would be paid in similar organizations with a wholly commercial base. Tront rep remuneration increases have followed each of these increments.
I believe there is a fundamental difference in skill base and responsibilities of the two groups. Directors are appointed for their expertise -commercial expertise in the case of NTHC- built up through their varied careers. Tront reps, on the other hand, are elected political reps whose role is represent their marae and beneficiaries, and to act as trustees. TRONT’s role is manifestly different and lesser to that of the Directors’ and that differential should be reflected by relative rates of reward.
Research I have done on this matter reveals the pay band for a similar position is between $5,000 -$15,000 per annum. Further, there is the question of whether beneficiaries feel that their own representative reflects their views adequately or not- do we know how satisfied Runanga are with performance? Do we know how many of our beneficiaries feel they are getting value for money?
Should Runanga introduce performance-based pay? Or simply pay their representative what they think he or she is worth!
The big question remains: What processes underlie the apparent ability of Tront to peg their level of remuneration to that of directors? Does this behaviour reflect the level of transparency and democracy we need for Ngai Tahu?