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.”
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
