Tū Mai Te Toki: Maori

Showing posts with label Maori. Show all posts

Thursday, 5 December 2013

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?

Sunday, 24 February 2013

Information is power

Once again I am a little bit late with this post but I wanted to take my time so that my approach is measured and considered.

As you are aware I was meant to talk about the Ngati Hokopu hapu meeting after it was announced that the chief executive of Te Runanga o Ngati Awa (TRONA) would attend and answer questions.

Enid Ratahi-Pryor had said she would like to attend the meeting to “decipher” and “demystify” information coming out of the runanga.

However because it was the first meeting of the year it was felt there was too much business to get through so Ngati Hokopu requested Mrs Ratahi-Pryor attend another meeting at a later date.

That meeting is to be held at Wairaka Marae on March 6 at 6pm.

Therefore this week’s post will not be about what was discussed at the Ngati Hokopu hapu meeting; rather I would like to take some time to talk about the TRONA board meeting held at Te Manuka Tutahi last week.

It is the first board meeting that I have attended and I left feeling even more despondent.

I have a number of concerns but today I will highlight one area and that is: Ngati Awa’s financial arm will not be able to give the full annual grant to the runanga this year after heavy losses by its carbon credit investment.

Every year Ngati Awa Group Holdings (NAGHL) gives TRONA $1.5 million to fund the tribal operations.

However the group’s accountant, Murray Haines, told the TRONA board that NAGHL would only be able to give $400,000 from operating cash flows this year.

“An estimated $1.1m of the obligation funding will need to come from reserves due to the Carbon impact.”

Mr Haines said the tribe’s investment in carbon credits had recorded a year-to-date loss of $809,000.

“It is expected that the total for this financial year will be $1.9m. In the review by PriceWaterhouseCoopers it was concluded that an inflation adjusted carbon price of $25 per term was required. The current price is $2.35.”

The investment has already cost the tribe $2.2m in previous years and now the Runanga is considering whether to write the asset off.

“Writing off 100 per cent is the worst-case scenario. When I say write off it means that instead of keeping it as an asset we make it a cost,” Mr Haines said.

The report also highlighted that a net loss of $939,000 is being predicted with an expectation that the return on investments of 1.2 per cent instead of the budgeted 3.5 per cent.

On a positive note Mr Haines was able to say that an agreement with GoNet had been reached where the internet service provider would pay for the shares acquired from the tribe.

Mr Haines had claimed at last year’s AGM that the tribe had sold the shares for nothing but last week he outlined a plan for GoNet directors to pay $300,000 for the shares. The first instalment is due in April.

In addition Mrs Ratahi-Pryor had declared earlier in the meeting that the organisation had achieved a cash-neutral position. In other words the amount of money coming into the organisation was the same as what would be going out for this year.

The board gave Mrs Ratahi-Pryor a round of applause when she announced the achievement however only one member raised concerns about having to take money from the reserves to fund the runanga’s operations when it was outlined by Mr Haines.

When Mr Haines started his financial report four members left the table but as he went along hapu representative Regina O’Brien made it clear that she disapproved of having to take money from the tribe’s reserves.

She said she was deeply concerned that TRONA would have to use money from the reserves for operations.

Her point was noted but board chairman Te Kei Merito decided to move the meeting on and the situation wasn't discussed any further.

Meanwhile during the meeting Mrs Ratahi-Pryor said a reporter from the New Zealand Herald had obtained a copy of an audit report that had been commissioned from the international accounting firm, PriceWaterhouseCoopers .

Mrs Ratahi-Pryor suggested the board pass a motion to embargo the meeting report until the next hui. The board voted and passed a resolution for all of those in the public gallery to hand the meeting report back before they left.

During Mr Haines presentation Mrs Ratahi-Pryor approached me and asked me to return the report immediately. There were four other people in the public gallery but I was the only person approached.

I declined and said I would return the report before I left the meeting.

The move to restrict information deeply concerns me. As an uri of Ngati Awa I believe it is my right to receive information about the runanga and its subsidiaries.

Add to that there is no legal requirement of embargo. It is a request not to publish the information before a certain date, that is all, and in this case the date is two months away at the board next meeting on April 26.

After much consideration I have obviously decided to ignore the request not to publish information from the report and have chosen to share it with you.

My reasons are simple.

In the past three years the runanga have lost $5.2m in failed investments and from what I can tell from attending the board meeting is that we stand to potentially write-off another asset. In addition we are also losing money despite the chief executive’s assertion that the runanga is cash-neutral.

And even though it maybe the hapu representatives’ responsibilities to report back to the people this is too important to leave up to chance that you might attend your own hapu meeting and then hear a fair report of the goings-on at the runanga. The internet has the ability to reach so many more people and I am determined to share whatever information I find out.

What you choose to do with that information is up to you.

Thursday, 14 February 2013

The house that Wepiha built

In my ignorance I wanted to hate the Mataatua wharenui.

Resurrected on the old Telecom site in Whakatane it felt like an intruder in my neighbourhood but that was before I understood.

Standing in the dark on the 17th of September, 2011, I listened to the voices intoning the ancient karakia as the house was unveiled for the second time and I was completely unprepared for the wave of emotion that was about to hit.

I remember stepping from the darkness into the light and the majestic beauty as it swept over me. I looked up at the carved versions of the tipuna that link all of the people of the Mataatua waka and finally understood why the house was built and the reason it was so important that Ngati Awa got it back.

And so it is with great sadness that I approach the subject of this post.

The return of Mataatua wharenui should have been a great triumph; it should have been a reason for Ngati Awa to be proud, it should have given us the momentum to create a revenue that may have been able sustain our people.

Instead the wharenui has become a battle-ground and the scars are still raw.

Many of you may know my cousin William Stewart. With a background in tourism he was a consultant employed by the runanga to help get the visitor experience at the wharenui up and running.

And while there are going to be those of you who will question my ability to remain unbiased in a subject that I have a heavy connection to one side, I ask that you bear with me and listen to my cousin’s story as best as I can tell it so that hopefully you will be able to see the point I am trying to make.

According to William the brief, from the board to the consultants, was to build a world-class tourism product using the wharenui so that it could generate income to maintain itself.

The runanga had already spent at least $6 million on restoring and establishing the wharenui at the Te Manuka Tutahi site and according to an interview on Maori Television’s Te Kaea with runanga chief executive Enid Rātahi-Pryor the wharenui cost the tribe almost $170,000 to operate last year.

With this in mind it had already been identified by the board that the Mataatua wharenui would have to be able to sustain itself so that it did not draw on iwi funds any further.

The runanga committed almost $1 million in a bid to achieve this and using some of the best technology available the light show, Hiko, was created to tell some of our most significant stories. Imagine the Wairere waterfall spilling from the windows in the whare to illustrate the tale of the landmarks that guided Toroa and the Mataatua waka to the land that would become Whakatane.

It was outstanding and the hopes were that it would draw that all important Tourist dollar.

In the past Whakatane has struggled to compete with places like Rotorua and Tauranga as a tourist destination but with a world class cultural experience to complement Whakatane’s already iconic White Island Tours there was every chance that those looking for an authentic New Zealand experience may want to take the path less trod.

And the key to it being successful, my cousin always said, was the Maori notion of manākitanga.

So guides were selected, trained and then employed on a casual basis to institute that belief. When they officially opened for business in June 2012 my cousin believed they had created a world-class product and this was reinforced by a number of New Zealand tourism leaders who heaped accolades on the product.

However a mere three months later, Mrs Rātahi-Pryor announced the runanga was reviewing the “commercial expectations” of the wharenui in this article.

She was reported as saying that the visitor numbers had not been what had been predicted.

“Consultants don’t always get it right and in this case the projections were a bit optimistic.

“We were trying to be financially prudent by placing a financial model over Mataatua.

“Unfortunately, a commercial framework over a whare taonga simply doesn’t work.”

As the only Whakatane-based consultant, William felt he was left with no other option than to submit a public right of reply in this article.

In the end the experience was never cancelled and Mrs Rātahi-Pryor claimed at the AGM that the Whakatane Beacon had got it wrong but the public fall-out ensured that William would not continue with his role at the wharenui and two of the guides were without a job.

There was also a change in focus.

Rather than concentrating on attracting overseas tourists, Mrs Rātahi-Pryor said there had been a gradual increase in the number of community organisations visiting the wharenui and gave the impression that this would become the target market despite the experience winning a national award as seen in this article.

However because he believed in the product that he helped create William offered the runanga a compromise and I hope to tell you about it tomorrow in part two of this post.

But for now I want to leave you with a comment that had been left on a previous post. The author of the comment chose to remain anonymous but I was so impressed with their words that I wanted to share it with you, just in case you hadn’t seen it.

“Kia Ora Karla

“It is with interest, we have found ourselves becoming avid readers of your weekly posts, since the inception of the Tu Mai Te Toki blog, It is a relief to know that many individuals both near and abroad are recognising the incompetency of our Iwi leaders and we as a collective unit, are seeking answers to a number of irrational judgements and decisions which have occurred over recent years.

“If we can take a step back and fully explore the times and reasons as to why the Mataatua Whare was built then perhaps we are able to gain some perspective and strive to seek positive outcomes for a more unified and prosperous Iwi, spiritually, culturally, physically, financially etc.

“Lets begin to break this down where we can form a foundation for us to work upon..and start to look at this issue logically...some common motives or reasons why any person would build a house, is to provide shelter and security for their family unit and loved ones. This house will become a sanctuary, a place of nuture, growth and rest, a physical setting where families can share, laugh, learn, cry, teach, and enjoy one another, a physical safe haven from negative external influences, conflict and hostilities.

“Bearing this in mind, It is truly my belief that these were the exact motives and reasons the Mataatua Wharenui was erected and built by our tipuna, Wepiha. Remembering that during this time, Maori were facing the effects of colonisation, the injustices and cruelty endured by many generations enforced by external parties, tribal warfare where often, loss of life was inevitable and sickness which had horrific consequences as you have stated above. Wepiha, realising without a doubt in his mind that these events would have a severe negative impact on his people, went about to construct this amazingly carved whare to provide a calm setting amongst the chaotic disorder for the people of Mataatua, where amongst the adversity, whakapapa would sumount and bind his people together ensuring unity and strength in troubled times.

“A whare built to create unity and strength for the people of Mataatua who had suffered immensely due to external forces.

“So observing the progressive journey of the Mataatua Whare, the history the story, the tears, the hurt, the betrayal, the battle endured to ensure this whare was returned to the people of Mataatua, and how it is valued and treated today, I cannot seem to comprehend the justification and the absolute abysmal exploitation our Iwi leaders have elected to utilise and treat this whare. Unconsciously it seems our Iwi leaders have failed to remember the very reasons and motives why this whare was built in the beginning, instead opting for financial opportunities at the expense of the fundamental aspects to which the whare was constructed.

“I fail to see unity, I fail to see strength, I fail to see equality as an Iwi.....but what I can see is the oppressor and the dictator now has a brown face.”

Thursday, 24 January 2013

Learning to fish

Ok so to recap – since 2009 Ngati Awa have lost $5.2 million in two separate investments.

Now fast forward to the present day and in the last year seven people were made redundant from their jobs with Te Runanga o Ngati Awa, the chief executive role changed hands three times, our asset base has dropped from $111m to $110m and the return on our assets was 2 per-cent.

Not exactly a glowing annual report really and at the AGM our leaders tried to put the poor performance down to the tough economic times.

They said it’s to do with the GFC, that’s Global Fiscal Crisis to those fortunate enough to not have heard the term before, and that America is about to hit the financial “Cliff”. They said the recession has taken its toll and businesses are struggling all across the world. They said they have been here since the beginning and if someone else thinks they can do a better job then let them.

Well, let’s be honest now that is simply rhetoric used to confuse people. What I really want to know is what is going on in Te Runanga o Ngati Awa?

This week I sent the chief executive of the runanga and its financial, Enid Rātahi-Pryor, an email. I thought if I was going to talk about the runanga in such a public forum then I should at least seek the opinion of our leaders.

I wanted to start with the chief executive because she was the one that made the bold statement that the role of NAGHL, the financial arm of the runanga, was to create wealth not jobs.

Her response to my email outlined a plan to attend as many hapu meetings that she could “in an effort to help decipher and demystify Runanga information and accounts”.

She said she was putting a request forward to attend the my own hapu meeting at Wairaka Marae, to be held next month, via the representative in an effort to respond to concerns expressed in this blog.

“I will have written responses and reference documents to all of the questions that you seek answers to below for presentation at any hapu hui of the 22 hapu of Ngati Awa. By the end of February a full response to all of your questions will be made available to the hapu representatives for dissemination to hapu members,” she said.

And while Mrs Ratahi-Pryor must be commended for her desire to attend the hapu meetings and provide answers, her response made it clear I would not have the information for this blog post.

So, in preparation, I scanned the internet and the annual reports to see what information I could find in regards to the role of the runanga and its financial arm. And to be honest there was very little to be found.

On the runanga’s website it quotes chairman Te Kei Merito outlining the tribe’s aspirational goals.

“We have achieved much over the past years, however there is still much to do – we need to continue to build on the legacy left by our tipuna, and past leaders. Vision Ngāti Awa is an important part of this process. This project collates all the different aspirations and visions of ngā uri o Ngāti Awa into one unified vision.”

But haven’t we heard all of this before, the aspirational goals have long since been identified, what I really want to know is how are we going to achieve it.

And therein lays the problem. As far as I can see the roles of each organisation do not seem to be clearly labelled and there do not seem to be any obvious plans about how we are going to grow the iwi. I could not find any mention of business plans, or of a social development strategy and it seems that our leaders are more concerned about where their offices are to be located than they are about future development.

If we do not have clear strategies and plans going forward we will starve the economic growth of the iwi. Simply put if we do not invest in development, we will not grow and if we do not grow, we will not be able to sustain our people.

At the moment the increase in our assets since we signed the treaty settlement has been mostly natural. Think increasing land values, bonds and fixed-term interest accounts.

And this concerns me because the runanga’s goal shouldn’t just be about money, numbers or asset values, it should be about the well-being of our people.

We should be using our tribal assets to grow our economic base with an eye to providing jobs for our Ngati Awa uri so that they can live in our tribal rohe.

It is as the old adage says: Give a man a fish you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed for a lifetime.

What we need is ideas to create wealth and build jobs at the same time, not investments in whimsical golf courses or forays into internet technology.

This will come if we can develop strategies that suit us as a people and I am hoping that Mrs Rātahi-Pryor will come to the Ngati Hokopu hui next month armed with some ideas on how we can do this.

Next week I will talk about the Mataatua Wharenui and almost $200,000 spent on consultants to investigate an option of putting in a gondola from behind Te Manuka Tutahi marae to Kapu-te-Rangi.

Search This Blog