Ko Ngāti Awa te toki

The meeting of the board of Te Runanga o Ngati Awa (TRONA) held in Whakatane this month was pegged as being the biggest show in town and it sure did deliver.

After failing to follow due process at the previous meeting the board was being asked to vote again on the removal of Graham Pryor from the tribe’s financial arm and the addition of Paul Quinn to Ngati Awa Group Holdings Ltd (NAGHL).

Prior to the meeting Nga Maihi representative Gina O’Brien had sent notice through the runanga’s chief executive Enid Rātahi-Pryor that her hapu wanted to attend the meeting. She conveyed that the hapu did not agree with the way the runanga had treated one of their members through the lack of process and they wanted to have their say.

Mrs O’Brien requested a speaking time for members of the hapu at the meeting.

And it was fireworks from the start.

At 9am the boardroom at Ngāti Awa house was full to capacity and Nga Maihi had turned up in force.  The room was crackling with tension.

After a slight skirmish around the agenda it was decided that the issue of Mr Pryor’s removal would be discussed at 10am.

It was then decided Mrs Rātahi-Pryor would speak to her chief executive report before the meeting discussed the issue of Mr Pryor. Mrs Rātahi-Pryoy pre-empted it with an explanation that it was an “off-reporting” month for the organisation and therefore her report was only an overview.

She then went on to outline that the board’s request for half of the Māori tax credits from NAGHL had been declined and the ramifications that had for the annual budget. She also made the recommendation that the Runanga should not appeal the commissioner’s decision from the district plan hearings into the 60 Bunyan Road and 77 Bunyan Road area.

She then spoke about the work that is happening with the carvings at Mataatua Marae and ended her report by congratulating Te Rua o Te Moko Ltd, who beat out the Runanga and Putauaki Trust to claim first spot in the Ahuwhenau awards.

The meeting then turned to the issue of Mr Pryor. TRONA chairman Joe Mason explained the previous vote had been rendered invalid because the board did not follow process and they would need to vote again.

Mrs O’Brien then requested time for discussion however Mr Mason said all of the delegates had previously had time to speak to their hapu and that they would go ahead with the vote.

He said there had also been plenty of emails shared between the board, management and others that there was no need to discuss it any further.

“No discussion, we have had enough of that and if we do we may start a war and we have had enough of that.”

Mrs O’Brien made her plea to the chairman, saying: “We have stuck to the process; we have not engaged in the emails or going to the media. We have stuck to making sure we did it the way the process says and we put our request in for our hapu to be here and speak about it.”

Her stance was supported by several members at the table and Mr Mason relented. However he said that only Mrs O’Brien could speak to the motion and no one else.

That was when the Tuteao koroua, Ngamaru Raerino, sitting behind Mrs O’Brien jumped up and addressed the chairman in te reo Māori.

I asked him afterwards to explain what he had said, to ensure that I had understood him properly, and he responded: “I said to them: You use the epigrammatic saying of Ngati Awa te Toki. However today you put a chip in it and if you don't take care I will come back and break it.”

His frustration at not being able to speak was evident.

The koroua then sat down and Mr Mason called for the vote which was received as 12 votes supporting the resolution to remove Mr Pryor and nine votes in opposition.

After the vote, Mr Mason called a recess to the meeting and that was when Mrs O’Brien and Nga Maihi left the meeting.

And I couldn’t help but feel for them.

Later when the meeting reconvened Mr Mason let several other members in the public gallery stand and have their say including one koroua who stood to protect Mr Ngaropo from a letter sent on behalf of Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau from individuals that called on the runanga to reprimand the Te Tawera representative for his recent stance in the newspaper.

However Nga Maihi went away, knowing they had followed process and done all the right things, but did not get their chance to speak.

So it was no real surprise when Sir Hirini Mead got up to give his Te Whakaruruhau report. He said that his job was to advise the board and the chief executive.

He then said he had gone outside to see Nga Maihi, who had been gathered in the carpark.

“And it is the first time in my memory that a hapu has threatened to pull away from the Runanga… And I must say that we must be very careful about how we treat ourselves. Part of the threat was if they pull out they want their share of the settlement and the answer to that is that if you pull out then go but you will go with nothing.”

Then later still, when the board were asked to vote on whether to instil Mr Quinn as a director of NAGHL until the end of the year, Pahipoto representative Tuwhakairiora (Conn) O’Brien asked him about his role at Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau.

Mr Quinn replied that he was the chief executive of Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau.

Mr O’Brien asked whether that was a conflict of interest however Mr Quinn replied that he had enough sense to avoid being part of discussions when there was going to be a conflict of interest.

Now this has bearing on the whole Nga Maihi situation. Mr Pryor was not removed because he had done anything wrong but because he was the chairman of Ngati Rangitihi, an iwi opposing Ngati Awa’s claim in Matāta.

As far as I know it Tuwharetoa ki Kawerau also dispute Ngati Awa’s claim in Kawerau and perhaps that is why we do not have any interest in the geothermal area even though Putauaki is our cultural mountain.

Now, today is another day and people have had some time to digest what has happened but I ask that when you read this you take the time out to really think about it. The threat that Nga Maihi may pull out of the collective is concerning and has wide implications.

Most at the Runanga seem to think that Mr Mason will go out to Tuteao and make amends but I am concerned about affects that this situation will have on us as an iwi.

I am proud Ngati Awa and so I hope Mr Mason will be able to smooth the waters and convince Nga Maihi to stay part of the collective but the issue is bigger than that.

Now is the time for our leaders to step up because games are being played where there are no rules and the stakes are way too high.

Meanwhile, Mr Ngaropo has raised his displeasure about the existence of this blog at several meetings including yesterday’s board meeting. I haven’t been able to respond to Mr Ngaropo in these meetings however if you agree with him then please let me know by leaving a comment. But if you don’t agree with him and you appreciate the job it takes to bring you this information then please take this post and share it wide.

Tu mai te toki, hara mai te toki, haumi e, hui e, tāiki e!

And the knives came out

It was all on yesterday as the knives came out at the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa (TRONA) board meeting.

After sending an email to the chairman of the tribe’s financial arm and copying in his fellow board members, Pouroto Ngaropo was out for blood and his first move was to ask for the formal resignation of Sir Wira Gardiner.

The former civil servant had tended his resignation at the previous meeting of the TRONA board and decreed that Graham Pryor would take over from him as the chairman of Ngati Awa Group Holdings (NAGHL).

Normally, any movements on NAGHL would be done at the company’s annual general meeting at the end of the year but Mr Ngaropo said he wanted the TRONA board to pass a resolution that it “formerly accepts Sir Wira’s resignation today”.

It was then that it was raised that Sir Wira had sent an email to the TRONA chairman, Joe Mason, saying he would formerly stand down on June 30. The email also asked the TRONA board to consider appointing Ngai Tamapare representative Paul Quinn to replace him as a director.

The email had been sent the night before and Mr Ngaropo opposed the introduction of the email because it had not been included in the board papers, however Mr Mason said that it was relevant to the discussion and shared it with the board.

Mr Mason then asked them to vote on whether they would accept Mr Quinn’s appointment as an interim NAGHL director.

The move was seconded by Ngāti Hokopū ki Hokowhitū representative Maanu Paul. Ngāti Hokopū ki Wairaka delegate Dayle Hunia objected to the lack of process and suggested the director position be advertised with the outlook of an appointment being made at the next meeting.

Chief executive Enid Ratahi-Pryour said the appointment would be only for the interim because the position would be up for rotation at the tribe’s annual general meeting and Mr Quinn would only be filling in for five months.

Mr Quinn has made no secret that he has wants to be a director of the financial arm and he took the position with eight board members voting in favour of him replacing Sir Wira, five against and Aubrey Kohunui from Warahoe choosing to abstain.

Mr Ngaropo then went for the jugular and called for the removal of Mr Pryor as a NAGHL director. He said he could not support Sir Wira’s assertion that Mr Pryor would take over as chair of the financial arm.

“I believe that Graham Pryor has a conflict of interest. I have strong opposition to Graham Pryor standing a chairman (of NAGHL) or any committee for that matter.”

Cast you minds back to March when it was outlined that Mr Pryor had approved a $3.8 million contract with a carbon management company that he was a member of without gaining the NAGHL board’s approval first.

The report revealed that, crucially, Mr Pryor had not passed on legal advice to the other NAGHL directors that warned against the contract despite it being addressed to the board of the financial arm.

Sir Wira posthumously rubberstamped it and so the deal was pushed through. That was when a long-serving member of the Ngati Awa Farm committee, Jim Davies, approached The Whakatane Beacon about his concerns.

Eventually Mr Davies was forced to resign and Sir Wira attended a TRONA board meeting to smooth the situation with the previous board submitting to his aggressive assertions that neither he nor Mr Pryor had done anything wrong.

Now apply to that to Mr Pryor’s removal yesterday and consider this: Mr Pryor was not removed because he had failed to pass on crucial advice or because he had personally benefitted from a deal between NAGHL and a company that he had been a director of but because he is also the chairman of Ngati Rangitihi, a group that is opposing Ngati Awa’s claim to a Matata urupa and other tribal boundaries.

A resolution was made by Mr Ngaropo and seconded by Mr Paul to remove Mr Pryor as a director of NAGHL.

The vote was undertaken by secret ballot with two independent people counting the ballots. Mr Mason refused to announce the numbers in favour and against because he believed that was part of the method of a secret ballot vote and simply said that the resolution to remove Mr Pryor from NAGHL had been successful.

While there is some sense in removing Mr Pryor because it could be difficult for him to remain objective while he was also the chairman of Ngati Rangitihi, there is a question of creating an unfair precedent and also the lack of due process.

Mate Heitia, who was standing in for Te Kei Merito to represent Ngāti Rangataua, raised her concerns about the precendent it would set by excluding a whanau because of their ties to another iwi.

Mrs Hunia, again, warned about the lack of due process and highlighted a section of the NAGHL constitution that required the TRONA board to advise that they intended to vote on the future of a director at the meeting before it took place.

Māori Land Court judge Layne Harvey, who happened to be in the gallery, stood and claimed that the NAGHL constitution allowed for a director to be removed at any stage. He had to reclaim his assertion when Mrs Hunia presented him with the constitution.

Mrs Ratahi-Pryor said she had sought legal advice about removing a director. She said the runanga’s lawyer believed TRONA could vote remove Mr Pryor and that two members of the board had to sign the notification.

While, personally, I do not oppose the removal of Mr Pryor the fact that the board are still not following process concerns me. There is a thin line between believing you are doing the right thing and, then, just making up the rules.

Yesterday, there was robust debate around important areas but it will be tarnished if the board cannot follow the rules that have been laid out.

It is obvious that there has been a call for change from the people but what is the point of making the changes if everything just stays the same? The key is acting in a way that shows integrity and respect – there is nothing respectful in not respecting the rules that have been set.

It has been awhile since my last post to Tu Mai Te Toki as I have not attended the previous two meetings. I have considered writing other posts before now however I have been reluctant because without observing firsthand I am left to rely on other people for information.

This always poses two problems: firstly, I must ask people for the information. Often this proves difficult because even though I am an uri of Ngāti Awa and therefore, I believe, entitled to it there is always the concern that those people will be held responsible if they give me the information.

And the threat has already been made by the management of TRONA if this happens.

This obviously places the representatives of my own hāpu in precarious situations so I choose not to put them in uncomfortable positions by not asking. Also, I do not want to make my own hāpu feel as though they cannot talk openly at our marae meetings and I have chosen not to use information that is discussed in this forum.

Secondly, I am reliant on those people giving me a fair and balanced view of what happened and this is not always the case. We all have our interpretations and beliefs and these can often colour our recall.

I have asked management on several occassions for information and more often than not I have been ignored. The chief executive of TRONA has also taken the extraordinary step of not allowing those sitting in the public gallery to have a copy of the agenda.

She has used my absence in previous meetings to villify myself and this blog. It is not the first time that criticisms have been made but I am still resolute in my belief that, in the interest of accountability and transparency, the people of Ngāti Awa deserve to know what is going on with our Runanga.

And so I will keep writing this blog in my way and therefore I have made the choice to write about things when I either witness them myself or I have documentation that can back up what I am saying.

Yesterday’s meeting was a full one and so as I leave you to digest the news that Mr Pryor has been removed from NAGHL, I will pen another post about the review of TRONA’s commitees that has been conducted over the past couple of months.

Ma te wa.

Get up, stand up

This weekend is the Annual General Meeting of Te Runanga o Ngati Awa and I want to encourage you all to go.

It is our only chance to hear first-hand what TRONA has to say and be able to ask our own questions. Well at least this is what I’ve been taught to believe.

Last year’s meeting was my first TRONA AGM.

I went with a group from Wairaka determined to ask questions. We knew answers would be limited and, at some stage, we would be label radicals, activists, haters, wreckers, negative or nuances. But here’s the thing, we knew we had to go and do what we did.

We had all heard the stories about failing internet companies, luxury golf courses up north only that had crumbled at the first hurdles, castles being built in the name of men and a dysfunctional culture.

Some of our questions were answered, many were not.

It was this event that inspired this blog.

And as I look over the past 12 months I realise nothing much has really changed. I don’t expect to get too many answers out of this weekend and people are still labelling this blog as a part of a group of “negative nuances”.

But ten new faces on the TRONA board is a sign of what can be done by the people and I urge you to stand up and demand a change.

As always I begin with the warning that this is the information that I have collected, take from it what you will and make your own decisions about it. But always remember you can always go to this year’s AGM at Wairaka on Sunday if you want to ask our management and governors for yourself.

This week I picked up a TRONA annual report. After attending most of the board meetings this year I wasn’t expecting the bottom to have fallen out, but I still wanted to take a read before this weekend and on the first look things seemed good.

The document is sleek-looking with glossy pages and sharp images. It pumps up the Runanga and notches achievements from the past year including cutting costs “to bring the Runanga back into near positive cash neutral” and the restructuring of Development Ngati Awa.

But upon reading it again there are some glaring mistakes and concerning themes.

However rather than concentrating on spelling errors and minor details I wanted to start this post by reminding you of Jim Davies and the $3.8 million contract with the CO2 New Zealand Management company.

Mr Davies is a good, honest man who has worked in the area of forestry and farming for more than four decades. Up until July he was the chairman of the Ngati Awa Farm Committee.

However he was forced to resign after he received a letter from runanga chief executive Enid Ratahi-Pryor explaining the financial arm, Ngati Awa Group Holdings Ltd, had voted to remove him because he spoke to the media about concerns around the tribe’s carbon credit investment.

Since then NAGHL chairman Wira Gardiner has made himself Ngati Awa Farm committee chairman and Wilhelm Studer has been selected for the remaining spot.

And perhaps you agree that Mr Davies shouldn’t have spoken to the media but his forced resignation was quick, so quick he that he did not have time to give his last report.
But I wanted to share what Mr Davies had written in his report.

In it he said the report’s purpose was to state the “Farm Committee’s” position on the “CO2 Ngati Awa Farm Land Management Agreement”.

“Subsequent investigation by the Farm Committee revealed that a conflict in fact did arise because Graham Pryor was a NAGHL director as well as being General Manager at the Ngati Awa office. He was also an Iwi director at Tukia , plus having a vested interest and directorship at CO2 New Zealand Ltd, an Australian carbon trading company.”

As already outlined in previous posts Graham Pryor is one of five people on the board of Ngati Awa Group Holdings Limited (NAGHL).  The other members are Waaka Vercoe, Joe Mason, Brian Tunui and Sir Gardiner.

“In 2010, Mr Pryor, with NAGHL chairman Wira Gardiner, executed a $3.8 million contract with the CO2 New Zealand Management Company.

At the time Mr Pryor was a director of the CO2 New Zealand Management Company.

Sir Gardiner says Pryor did not become a director of NAGHL until after the contract with CO2 New Zealand Management Company was instigated. However a report from the NAGHL Audit committee says Mr Pryor was the one who received crucial legal advice about the deal before it had been signed on behalf of the tribal company.

Also identified in the audit committee report was that Mr Pryor had failed to disclose the potential conflict of interest and, more seriously, there was no policy to demand it.

Mr Pryor and Sir Gardiner had also executed the contract without prior approval from the rest of the NAGHL board.

At a meeting earlier this year Sir Gardiner said he had required Mr Pryor to resign as a director of the CO2 New Zealand Management Company when he became aware of the potential conflict of interest”.

Mr Pryor did so but he still remains within a stone’s throw of the deal as a director of a company called Tukia Group.

Set up by the six iwi involved in the Central North Island (CNI) forestry settlement, Tukia Group included Ngai Tuhoe, Ngati Tuwharetoa, Ngati Raukawa, Ngati Whare, Ngati Rangitihi and Ngati Whakaue.

In his report Mr Davies says Tukia Group is also tied up with two other companies, CO2 New Zealand Ltd and Carbon Energy.

 “This arrangement effectively places CO2 New Zealand and Carbon Enery in control of the group. In other words, a collection shell companies comprising a mere handful of principals. All names are readily available on the register, with one in particularly featuring throughout.

“CO2 New Zealand was designed to benefit from carbon opportunities that may arise from the Treelords deal, or any other Iwi management opportunities that may occur.”

And then there was also story in this week’s Beacon focussing on Mr Pryor and the Tukia Group.

For details sake the Companies Office lists CO2 New Zealand as having a 45 per cent shareholding in CO2 New Zealand Management Ltd company. The two companies have the same two Australian-based directors, Andrew William Thorold Grant and Harley Ronald Whitcombe but Mr Pryor is not listed as a director.

The story in the Beacon goes on to describe Mr Pryor as being the Tukia Group chairman and says the company continued to trade until June 30 2013, at which time shareholders agreed to cease operations and hand some assets back to the CNI iwi holdings.

It explains the settlement with the six central north Island iwi was worth $418 million and the story explains that Tukia Group was meant to be a joint venture that invested in natural resources. Each tribe advanced $550,000 to develop a geothermal opportunity at Tauhara. It does not mention the CO2 New Zealand Management company or its owner CO2 New Zealand Ltd.

But it does describe the failure of the Tukia Group and concerns from the other Iwi about its performance.

“Tuhoe Te Uru Taumatura chairman Tamati Kruger said Tuhoe advised other directors last year Tuhoe was no longer supportive of Tukia and advocated its early wind up,” the Beacon reports.

The story points to the company’s financial collapse as the reason for the concerns.

“Ngati Rangitihi is recorded as having a paid a further $85,000 according to its annual reports, but it is not clear why.

“Tuwharetoa paid an additional $1.25 million to bail out Tukia in 2011. Today Tukia still exists, but it is hard to determine in what form… Auckland firm Johnstone Associates is Tukia’s accountant but staff member Rupit Kshatriya will not comment on the state of the company, referring the Beacon to chairman Graham Pryor.

“Mr Pryor, also chairman of CNI signatory Te Mana o Ngati Rangitihi Trust, has not responded to questions from the Beacon.”

 A side bar said that according to an annual report that Te Mana o Ngati Rangitihi trust, which is part of the CNI deal and the organisation that Mr Pryor leads, Tukia had sold its 45 per cent in CO2 New Zealand Management Ltd.

Now, let’s not forget Mr Pryor was the man who facilitated the $3.8m deal between NAGHL and the CO2 New Zealand Management company. Described as “re-afforestation project" in the TRONA annual report, the contract was negotiated by Mr Pryor while he was still a director of CO2 New Zealand New Zealand Management and at least involved with the NAGHL board.

The TRONA annual report outlines that an agreement with “CO2 New Zealand Limited Partnership” was entered into on 20 October 2011.

“As part of this agreement along with the subsequent Carbon Sequestration Management services agreement entered into in July 2012 and variation agreement in January 2013, the group committed capital expenditure of establishment fees of $3, 186,177 through to 2017 and ongoing annual mangment fees of $164,749 per year for 2018-2020, $198,835 per year for 2021, $87,360 per year for 2022-2031 and $70,980 per year for 2032-2062.”

In other words, Ngati Awa will pay $6.6m ($6,630,150) to CO2 New Zealand Limited Partnership over the 50-year life of the project.  As at 30 June 2013 a payment of $1,912,527 has been made, despite a memo on 17 October, 2012, from NAGHL and Trona chief executive Mrs Ratahi-Pryor to Sir Gardiner that warned of conflict of interest concerning Mr Pryor.

The memo from Mrs Ratahi-Pryor also said that there was a “get-out-jail” clause because of the conflict of interest that could be enacted before December 2012.

Obviously the TRONA board did not remove Mr Pryor nor was he reprimanded for holding back crucial information at the time of the deal. In fact he was made chairman of the Investments Committee and Mr Vercoe, who wrote the first report to signal concerns in this area, was replaced as Audit Committee chairman by Brian Tunui.

So what I really want to know in this entire murky saga is: What exactly does Ngati Awa get from the $6.6 million contract with CO2 New Zealand Ltd?

Other questions on my mind are also:

- Why did the Runanga decide to write-off $181,000 owed by Ngati Awa Development Trust and $188,000 owed by Ngati Awa Research and Archives?

- Was the decision to pay the members of the new Ngati Awa Development Trust, that now includes members from Te Whare Wananga o Awanuiarangi, Ngati Awa Social and Health Services (NASH), Te Reo Irirangi o Te Manuka Tutahi and Ngat Awa Tertiary Training Organisation, to attend meetings included in the budgets?

- What do amounts do the NAGHL board members receive in fees or honorarium including the chairman and deputy chairman?

- Ngati Awa have committeed to a $6m ($6,281,000) mortgage from ANZ to pay for the Tumurau farm, which was bought last year - have any other partners been found for the 49 per cent, that NAGHL has identified that it does not want to own, apart from Rotoehu Forest Trust and Kiwinui?

- What services do Mataatua Quota ACE Holdings Ltd provide Ngat Awa?

However, do you reckon I will get to ask all of these questions at the AGM? And even if I do, do you reckon I will get any answers?

I don’t hold out much hope, so this weekend I am going determined to get an answer for one question: How is Te Runanga o Ngati Awa going to help with the fight against the proposed marina and protecting Opihi Whanaunga-Kore?

Ma te wa

Asking the hard questions

The man who forced Te Runanga o Ngati Awa (TRONA) to develop a policy to deal with conflicts of interest could stand to personally benefit from another contract between the tribal organisation and a private company.

Despite his role in the carbon credit contract debacle, Graham Pryor remains a director of the tribe’s financial arm, Ngati Awa Group Holdings Ltd (NAGHL).

In 2010, Mr Pryor, with NAGHL chairman Wira Gardiner, executed a $3.8 million contract with the CO2 New Zealand Management Company.

At the time Mr Pryor was a director of the CO2 New Zealand Management Company.

Sir Gardiner says Pryor did not become a director of NAGHL until after the contract with CO2 New Zealand Management Company was instigated. However a report from the NAGHL Audit committee says Mr Pryor was the one who received crucial legal advice on behalf of the tribal company.

Also identified in the audit committee report was that Mr Pryor had failed to disclose the potential conflict of interest and, more seriously, there was no policy to demand it.

Mr Pryor and Sir Gardiner had also executed the contract without prior approval from the rest of the NAGHL board.

At a meeting earlier this year Sir Gardiner said he had required Mr Pryor to resign as a director of the CO2 New Zealand Management Company when he became aware of the potential conflict of interest.
 

The TRONA board accepted Sir Gardiner’s explanation and no disciplinary action was taken but a conflict of interest policy was implemented.

Now a strategic document presented by NAGHL at the TRONA board meeting in August shows that once again Mr Pryor is a director of a company that has a contract with Ngati Awa through NAGHL.

The Strategic Documents 2013-2018 states: “The Mataatua Fisheries Collective is an unincorporated joint venture between iwi in the Mataatua to lease fish quota to maximise returns. The collective pays Mataatua Quota ACE Holdings Limited a commission to undertake the leasing on its behalf.”

Mr Pryor is listed as a director of Mataatua Quota ACE Holdings Limited on the Companies Office website.

According to the website Ngati Awa, Ngai Tai, Ngati Whare, Ngai Te Rangi, Ngati Manawa and Whakatohea have a 16 per cent share each in Mataatua Quota ACE Holdings Limited. The remaining shareholding of 4 per cent belongs to an Opotiki accountants, in a trust account.

Mr Pryor declares his interest in Mataatua Quota ACE Holdings in the NAGHL Strategic Documents 2013-2018 as is dictated by the TRONA conflict of interest policy.

But I cannot help but feel a little uneasy because while the interest has been declared, on the face of things, it still looks as though Mr Pryor is able to gain contracts for his other companies because he of his position on the NAGHL board. 

So I sent an email to Sir Gardiner and NAGHL chief executive Enid Ratahi-Pryor.

The email reads:

Tena korua,

I am writing a post for the Tu Mai Te Toki blog around the Ngati Awa Group Holdings Ltd Strategic Documents 2013-2018 and I have a few questions that I am seeking the answers to. I intend to publish the blog post on Saturday morning and would really appreciate a response so that I am able to present a fair outline.

The questions are as follow:

-          You say in NAGHL’s strategic documents 2013-2018: “Whilst some under-performed the majority did very well, contributing to the growth in the value of Ngati Awa commercial base by 43 per cent.” Could you please explain how the value of Ngati Awa’s commercial base has risen by 43 per cent?

-          You also in NAGHL’s strategic documents 2013-2018: “The strategic direction requires a commercial infrastructure with the capacity and capability to deliver the goals and objectives outlined within this document. The Board is reviewing its current infrastructure and has already made changes to ensure that Ngati Awa Group Holdings is fit for purpose and capable of meeting shareholder expectations over the next five to 10 years.” Could you please outline the changes that have already been made?

-          Are there any concerns that Graham Pryor is a director of NAGHL and also Mataatua Quota ACE Holdings Limited?

Nga mihi

 

Unfortunately, I did not get a response and I am left feeling a little bit disheartened by this.

Coincidentally, advertisements were placed in the Whakatane Beacon this week calling for registrations of interest for one director position to NAGHL.

Previously, and according to the Strategic Documents 2013-2018, the NAGHL board was made up of Sir Gardiner, Mr Pryor, Joe Mason, Brian Tunui and Waaka Vercoe.

I do not know who is standing down but here is the thing - Ngati Awa is in the hole and, now more than ever, we need strong leaders.

We need leaders with vision and tenacity who are not afraid to speak up. We need leaders who are going to do their best for all of their people and make good decisions. We need leaders who are dynamic and are going to grow the tribe so that we can achieve the big picture – the vision we all shared in Ko Ngati Te Toki.

We need leaders who are going to lead us.

And as you are all aware the election process is underway.

So far there have been five changes to the board with Serenah Nicholson representing Ngati Awa ki Poneke, Tuwhakairiora (Conn) O’Brien at Te Pahipoto, Marcia Wahopango at Te Patuwai, Paul Quinn at Ngai Tamapare and Alfred Morrison at Ngai Tamawera.

As well, there are elections within Ngati Hokopu ki Wairaka, Ngati Hokopu ki Hokowhitu, Ngati Awa ki Tamaki Makaurau, Ngai Taiwhakaea and Ngai Tamaoki.

It is great there have been discussions in many of the whanau about who could be and should be their hapu representative on the TRONA board. Equally it is fantastic that there are so many people who feel they have something to give the iwi and we should be proud that we have plenty of aspiring leaders.

But we must always remember that it is not simply good enough to assume the position without taking responsibility.

You are there to represent the people and your responsibility is to them.

Next time I want to explore the Strategic Documents 2013-2018 a little more. I will try and not leave the next post for too long this time.

Ma te wa.

How many more?

Another head has rolled at Te Runanga o Ngati Awa.

After more than 27 years Jim Davies has ended his tenure with the Ngati Awa Farm committee following a request for him to resign.

Te Runanga o Ngati Awa (TRONA) chief executive Enid Ratahi-Pryor requested Mr Davies resign in a letter dated May 22.

“I am writing to advise you that the board of Ngati Awa Group Holdings Ltd (NAGHL), in its capacity as shareholder of Ngati Awa Farms Limited, has passed a resolution to remove you as a director of Ngati Awa Farms Ltd…

“I have been asked to seek your resignation as a director of Ngati Awa Farms (Rangitaiki) Ltd and as a member of the Board of the NGati Awa Farms (RangiTaiki) Joint venture. It would be much appreciated if you could let me have those resignations by return.”

When asked whether Mr Davies was forced to resign from his post, Mrs Ratahi-Pryor replied: “A resignation is exactly that a resignation.”

She refused to answer why Mr Davies had been asked to resign. However Mr Davies said the request was made following a phone conversation in which he was scolded for his role in a story that had appeared in the Whakatane Beacon.

Mr Davies had provided the Beacon with a copy of an internal document that was written by Mrs Ratahi-Pryor for the NAGHL chairman, Wira Gardiner.

The document outlined an option in the Companies act that would allow NAGHL to request that CO2 New Zealand Management Company to demonstrate fair value for a $3.8 million contract.

“Under that section if a company enters a transaction in which a director is interested, the transaction may be avoided at any time before the expiration of three months after the transaction is disclosed to all the shareholders.”

The document when on to outline the conflict of intereste issue involving NAGHL board member Graham Pryor where he was also a director of CO2 New Zealand Management Company at the time that the deal was instigated.

“Consequently, if Graham Pryor was an interested director at the time and the transaction has not yet been disclosed to the Runanga as the shareholder in (NAGHL), it may be possible to avoid the transaction unless CO2 New Zealand can establish that the company has received fair value,” Mrs Ratahi-Pryor said in the document.

Despite the price of carbon credits dropping from $27 to less than $3, the option was not taken up by NAGHL.

Mr Davies said he felt compelled to make a public stand because of the responsibility he felt to the iwi.

He outlined his concerns in a report that he had hoped to give at the next farm committee meeting to be held on June 4.

In it Mr Davies says the farm committee concerns were taken to a NAGHL meeting on August 16, 2012, however the report was ruled out of order by Mr Gardiner.

The report was then emailed to TRONA chairman Te Kei Merito, who acknowledged receipt of it a week later and gave an assurance it would go back to NAGHL. Mr Davies was set to give his report next week.

However Mr Davies handed in his resignation last week.

“After 27 enjoyable, interesting and rewarding years at Ngati Awa farm, I formally hand in my resignation from the boards of Ngati Awa, Ngakauroa and Tumurau farms as requested," he wrote.

“No doubt this action may take care of some of your immediate problems. However the questions on truth, transparency and accountability in the CO2 Ngati Awa still remain unanswered.”

Now this raises the question of: why was Mr Davies forced to stand down and yet Mr Pryor is still a director on NAGHL and the chairman of the investments committee?

Revelations of a chairman

The man in charge of growing Ngati Awa’s $110 million assets was adamant that he has done nothing wrong despite rubberstamping a deal with his mate's company worth $3.8 million.

“I am not prepared to stand down from NAGHL (Ngati Awa Group Holdings Ltd) because firstly I am here to protect the commerciality of NAGHL,” he said.

Called to report to the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa (TRONA) board after revelations that NAGHL had paid $3.8 million to a carbon credit company without prior necessary approvals, Ta Wira Gardiner’s argument was persuasive.

He said that Graham Pryor was not a director of NAGHL at the time the contract with CO2 New Zealand Management Company was instigated. In fact, according to Sir Gardiner in the interest of succession planning, Mr Pryor had only been invited to join the tribe’s investment committee.

“And if there is an area that I should be accountable and disciplined then it is as we got into period of uncertainty I should have been a lot stronger and apologise for that.”

But Sir Gardiner backed his skills as a chairman of a corporate organisation.

“I’m prepared to stack my reputation against anyone in the country except for maybe Fonterra.”

In regards to the latest revelations around the carbon credit investment, Sir Gardiner said there had been no wrong-doing.

Sir Gardiner said Mr Pryor had been part of the Central North Island (CNI) settlement representing Tuwharetoa and was made a director of CO2 New Zealand Management Company as a result.

He said when he became aware of the potential conflict of interest he required Mr Pryor to resign as a director of the company.

It was a compelling argument and rather than facing any further questions Sir Gardiner was commended by board chairman Te Kei Merito.

But let’s recap.

A report to the audit committee outlined the incident. In the report it was stated that Mr Pryor had received legal advice which was addressed to the NAGHL board.

The legal advice raised serious issues concerning the suitability of the investment and contract for Ngati Awa. Mr Pryor did not pass on the advice.

In addition the report also stated that based on advice from Mr Pryor, Sir Gardiner approved the $3.8 million deal with C02 New Zealand Management Company without gaining approval from the NAGHL board or the TRONA one.

“The director (Mr Pryor) advised the chairman that the board had some time approved the contract. There is no documentary evidence (minutes or other record) to evidence apart from a “heads of agreement” with CO2 that had been signed much earlier and pror to due diligence and legal review,” the report noted

It was also discussed that there has been poor documentation in regard to services provided in lieu of repayment of a loan balance. The loan was not disclosed in the report.

Furthermore, it seems attention from this blog and certain media outlets have got the former civil servant a little hot under the collar.

In full swing of his statement to the board Sir Gardiner said he was concerned that information was being leaked because of posts on this blog, stories in the beacon and a news report on Maori Television’s Te Kaea.

Sir Gardiner said the information was coming from the TRONA board and that if the leaks continued he would have to implement restrictions.

“We are legally required to provide you with quarterly reports but if it is going to result in danger then we may not to be so open.”

Sir Gardiner also issued a challenge at the TRONA board meeting, which was held last Friday at Te Manuka Tutahi marae in Whakatane, that he would be willing to sit down and talk with anyone who had the manners to put their inquiries to him.

Additionally, to combat the “negative” media Sir Gardiner said he would like place half page advertisements in the newspapers explaining the failed investments to the “shareholders”- that is the tribal members.

“But not with the Beacon. I do not like the Beacon. I do not want to support any newspaper which always focuses on the negative.”

So here are my problems with Sir Gardiner’s statements at the TRONA board meeting last week.

Firstly if Mr Pryor was not part of NAGHL when the decision to invest $3.8 million with C02 New Zealand Management Company then why did he receive the legal advice? And why has Mr Pryor not been reprimanded for not passing on that crucial advice?

Rather Mr Pryor was made a director of NAGHL and also the chairman of the investment’s committee following the investment.

Secondly, why did Sir Gardiner not check that there had been the necessary approvals before committing the $3.8 million? I mean that is a lot of money, particularly on the back of losing $5.2 million through the failed golf course with Birnie Capital and the internet service provider company, Go Net.

Thirdly, what did the Beacon get wrong? And more interestingly does Sir Gardiner dispute the latest story to feature in the Beacon about there being an out-clause for the carbon investment?

And lastly, I would like to take Sir Gardiner up on his offer to sit down and explain things. I stand by every factual statement that I have made on this blog and I would like to know if Sir Gardiner can do the same for the assertions he made to the board at last week’s meeting. If anyone can give me a contact number, I would be happy to give him a call and set up a time.

Next time I will return to the subject that I had already said I would discuss in this post and that is the change in directors on the audit committee.

Ma te wa.

Taking back the power

The chairman of Ngati Awa’s financial arm approved a $3.8 million contract with a carbon management company without gaining his board’s approval first.

Outlined in an Audit Committee report, the incident was described as “a serious breach in the organisation’s internal controls”.

The report had been based on an audit by the international accounting firm, PriceWaterhouseCoopers, that was commissioned to review the financial reports of Te Runanga o Ngati Awa (TRONA) and Ngati Awa Group Holdings Ltd (NAGHL).

“This is in regard to the (NAGHL) chairman and a NAGHL director not following prescribed processes for investment decisions and not obtaining the required NAGHL board approval,” the report noted.

NAGHL is the subsidiary which takes care of the tribe’s financial assets. It is governed by a five-person board and chaired by formal civil servant Wira Gardiner.

According to the report Sir Gardiner and NAGHL director Graham Pryor executed the $3.8 million contract with CO2 New Zealand Management Company without first taking it to the NAGHl board for approval.

At the time Mr Pryor was also a director of the carbon management company that had received the contract.

“The director advised the chairman that the board had some time approved the contract. There is no documentary evidence (minutes or other record) to evidence apart from a “heads of agreement” with CO2 that had been signed much earlier and pror to due diligence and legal review.”

In addition Mr Pryor also failed to pass on legal advice received by him but addressed to the board. The advice, which was about the situation, raised serious issues concerning the suitability of the investment and contract for Ngati Awa.

It was also noted that there has been poor documentation in regard to services provided in lieu of repayment of a loan balance. The loan was not disclosed in the report.

As a result the Audit Committee requested a policy around conflicts of interest be drafted. The report was presented to the Te Runanga o Ngati Awa board at the meeting in November.

At the board meeting in February the chief executive of Te Runanga o Ngati Awa, Enid Ratahi-Pryor, presented the Conflict of Interest policy.

Mrs Rātahi-Pryor said the runanga was in danger because it didn’t have a policy around this area. She asked the board to approve it in principle and she would return at the next meeting with feedback.

“The runanga does not have a policy and this places the runanga at risk.”

She also said that she had commissioned her own independent report.

“I’m surprised about PWC, that they didn’t go down to these levels and identify places where changes could be made… I’m concerned that there was a $900,000 budget blowout in previous years.

“Rogue spending is quite easy by the CEO but we just need to know how they get through the systems. I know how they got through the systems.”

It was also noted by Nga Maihi representative Regina O’Brien that the board had failed to discuss the report in any comprehensive manner at the previous meeting.

“The audit report got five minutes because we were in a hurry to go to lunch.”

Her point was backed by Poroporo kaumatua and board member Joe Mason, who acknowledged that the report had raised important points.

“The audit committee meeting report needs to be considered by the board. It is important document and it deserves consideration by the board. There is no harm however in a special meeting to have a look at the document.

“There are some important recommendations in the document. There is no harm, if there is a special take, of calling a special meeting.”

The board elected to discuss the report at a workshop to be held at a later date.

Ok, with all that explained the big questions for me are: is Graham Pryor still a director of NAGHL? And what processes are there so that individuals cannot spend tribal money without first gaining approval?

This makes it two more questions for Mrs Ratahi-Pryor to answer at the meeting with Ngati Hokopu to be held at Wairaka Marae tonight.

Which brings us to the meeting and I have to commend Mrs Ratahi-Pryor for wanting to come.

I have already posed several questions through this blog and I can assure there will be many from others in the crowd tonight. Some will be uncomfortable.

There are not many who would stand in the face of criticism and offer to explain how it went so bad. I think it goes a long way that Mrs Ratahi-Pryor is willing to come and answer our questions kanohi ki te kanohi.

I also applaud her decision to conduct her own audit. Obviously she is also concerned about some of the tribe’s expenditure.

And clearly the terms of reference for the audit by PWC did not include the decisions around investments or any of the processes around it, it just looked at the financial recordings.

But it must also be remembered Mrs Ratahi-Pryor was a board member and a director on NAGHL when a lot of this spending was going on – if she didn’t know what was going on, what hope do we have?

We are the people and I reckon it’s time we took back the power.