Monday, October 19, 2009

Ngai Tahu elections

Thank you anon for the challenge in the comments

Anonymous said...

"I have been disappointed that there has been very little information from yourself or Richard on what is happening re elections. While folks on BB criticise Makaawhio, which held a direct vote, no examination has been carried out on the other Runanga who are engaged in the process.

For some Runanga, like Oraka Aparima, there was simply no contest. Other Runanga there is clearly shenagins going on. Waewae held the postal vote months ago using a mailout list which excluded almost all the Tuahiwi members.

Taumutu held no postal ballot and were not even going to hold interviews before re-appointing their Rep. Talk about pre-determination...

Otakou takes the prize so far. They had enough numbers to hold a postal ballot but the names were not quite right. So the Chair re-opened nominations and guess what the father in law of the Chair and a couple of others put their names forward. And then they held a ballot run from the runanga database and low and behold enough of the "right kind of people" are now on the apppointment committee.

And now, it seems that the Chair of the Runanga wants to be the Rep and the other applicants have been told they are wasting their time in going through the process.

And who is the Chair and the Rep in waiting, let me think ... ex CEO Tahu Potiki. Until he clears up the question of the alleged double payout when he was CEO he has a damn cheek.

I am surprised that Edward would allow himself to be involved in such shenanigans - to participate on an appointment committee when your son-in-law is a candidate is pretty damn dodgy.

It is clear that BBs mates are trying to arrange a change at the table to bring in the same trouble makers who were making headlines earlier this year.

There motives are definately suspect and the modus operandi of how they intend to get into power speaks for itself."

October 19, 2009 11:31 AM

Marty Mars said...

"It is hard to know where to begin.

On one hand i think the elections are just a load of rubbish. The same people doing the same thing for the same reasons. No democracy, no fairness.

Two have finalised their election and 16 have yet to. There are 11 weeks until 2010 - the maths doesn't add up.

i have heard of kaumatua not being included, taken off, changed and adjusted. All without proper process.

When we register as Ngai Tahu our whakapapa is recorded. Most runaka have asked for members who think they whakapapa to them, to get in touch with them - this is just a joke. We have already registered and it is the runaka's responsibility to write and contact us to vote - not the other way round. My runaka haven't contacted me and the only one that has - had a kaumatua that we weren't descended from as one of our tupuna.

Who owns this? The runaka asked that TRONT leave it up to them. TRONT's duty is to it's members who are the members on the roll at TRONT.

I have reread the comments from all of the hui regarding this election process.

My thoughts at this stage are -

1. It is not a fair or democratic process.

2. The responsibility for enrollment and ability to cast a vote should be the runakas but they have abdicated their responsibility and now no-one looks after members.

3. The electrol college approach is flawed and part of the reason for the low interest.

4. Each runaka has set up their own criteria and process - they are not all equal or equivilant.

5. The process whereby if a runaka has the same nominations as places and therefore it just puts people in, without election or debate, is not democracy or giving people choice.

Trying to get information is difficult. No ones wants to put their head up because the whole thing is so bogus that that they will be tarred with the brush.

I am not giving up but i think what will be will be and the results from this flawed process will become very evident quickly - and then we can fix it. Maybe at hui a tau someone will raise the questions.

Our mana has not been enhanced by this."

What do you think?

Do you care?

Footnote - Go here to read Richard Parata's latest insight to the Ngai Tahu Elections

Taster..."The following is a submission to a Runanga I where I have voting rights. It is a formal dispute - allowed under the Runanga constitution- about their electoral process. So far I have not had a reply. The points I raise are applicable to other Runanga elections. It is my view that any Runanga who do not run a democratic process have no right to sit at the Tront table."


Anonymous said...

Kia ora Marty

Now this is a discussion worth having. There is a couple of points I would make. The first is that members have to both register and establish which Papatipu Runanga they belong to - that is their duty.

The changes in kaumatua names linked to Papatipu Runanga is only a concern because it was being carried out in secret while Tahu was in charge. Good on TRoNT for putting the lists up. I think the Papatipu Runanga have to take responsibility for the lists and answer to their members and the internet is one way to do this.

The greatest challenge to the iwi is the apathy. However, I see that over 20% of Papaptipu Runanga members have participated when given the chance to do so. This compares favorably to local body election participation.

Interesting information re Waewae. It is funny that the folks of Tuahiwi have not complained about that.

At the local level I know my runanga got lots of support from TRONT. I think it is okay that each PR has a process of its own as long as it is not a sham.

I don't know how these characters think they will be seen as legitimate and I agree with anon (1) that people like Edward would be more careful.

kia kaha
na Hoani

Marty Mars said...

Kia ora anon

Yes when members register they indicate the tupuna that they whakapapa to and thus their papatipu runaka. But why do they have to do that twice? If it has already been done, why ask for it to be done again? The reason is that the lists held within TRONT are different from the lists held at each runaka. That is not the way it should be.

The changes in kaumatua being listed as tupuna in each runaka have occured up to present day. i rang one of my runaka and after chatting to the contact person they indicated that this exact thing had occured to them, recently and they were very unhappy about it... as you would be.

We have approximately 43,000 registered Ngai Tahu. How many eligible voters will vote? How many voted for the putea?

Let's really crank up this discussion. I'll give it a day or so before I send an email to each runaka :)

Anonymous said...

Have posted on my blog an initial view about how the elections are going on.

One of the points I tried to include in the criteria for eligibility to be a Tront Representative - was that potential Representatives would not be eligible because of criminal records or "bankruptcy" or commercial incompetence- It never got any traction - perhaps because some sitting at the Tront table might have felt a little uncomfortable!

My point in raising this is that a relation of mine moving to Australia and as is common, a police check is required.

This is a very normal procedure that NT should adopt.

I know that there are Tront Reps who have "records" and those who are putting themselves forward for election.

My point is that we need to have Tront Representatives with an unblemished background- Ngai Tahu Shareholders deserve it.

Any pointers to those who might not be eligible to the above - send me an email at Nothing frivolous-I need evidence. Confidentially assured.


Anonymous said...

Kia ora Marty, why is Richard advocating Ngai Tahu should be an Aryan race suggesting police checks! and what is he attempting to achieve.

Is he an active marae person?

To the sensible Tribal member he's nothing but a wining critic interfering in a process already democratically endorsed.

It also appears to me that he waits to the process has been run then wines and criticizes that proper process.

I actually inquired who he was today then alarmed that this guy was a failed company director referenced out.

Marty Mars said...

Kia ora koutou

I'm sensing the argument is heating up.

Richard puts his name to his views and for that he deserves respect. We may or may not agree with his views and that is a different story. Richard has a comprehensive background on his blog. Good on him. There is no point going down that road. But by the same token, if points are made that allude to individuals and their backgrounds well, that then opens up the case for certain retaliation.

But we have gone down this road in the past and it leads to the same place - nowwhere, except for us being weaker.

Get angry, get emotional, get worked up - I do. And write down what you want but smack the argument out of the park - not your opponent. That way it's a double win!

kia kaha

Anonymous said...

Kia ora koutou

To discuss democracy and iwi matters in the same breath seems to be looking for some answer not yet designed in any iwi forum.

One persons democracy is another's tyranny - ever tried to work out how USA politics work? Here I think all we want is to have an open and transparent process.

If there are folks who are trying to "game the system" then they need to be exposed. I don't see how we can avoid family relationships in these processes but if it is the case that the Chair ran the process and then put his or her name forward then that is not good. And having brothers, sisters and or father's in law has to be dodgy.

As for who is engaged at the marae level, not that many members of NTW are. If Anon has something to say about Richard I don't get the point unless Richard has his name down to be a Rep.

Marty Mars said...

I don't agree wtih doing all the checks on someone who wants to stand. Let the person try to stand and convince others, their whanau, their friends to support them. People know what background, all the mistakes and brushes with the law, that they have had. And if they don't know then let the candidate tell them. If they hide - it will come out. I'd trust someone who has made mistakes and paid for them before someone who says that they haven't. Of course some mistakes are too much but the people will decide that.

The key is too give people the ability to have an influence. At the moment there is little ability to create any effect.

Anonymous said...

I am with you Marty - better to have a known "sinner" than one who has yet to be caught or exposed.

There is some standards Representatives must meet from a Trustee or Company director perspective and that is not unique to TRONT.

There has been allegations that certain former employees, directors and contractors have been ripping us all off and no-one has provided us with answers - and now the allegations are that these same people are attempting to manipulate the elections and in some cases get themselves elected.

I think there is something unhealthy about a former CEO (and indeed other recent employees)seeking election to TRONT. People seeking elections to the table with axes to grind at a personal level are not going to act in the best interests of us all.

Anonymous said...

I agree "there is something unhealthy about a former CEO (and indeed other recent employees)seeking election to TRONT. People seeking elections to the table with axes to grind at a personal level are not going to act in the best interests of us all" but what can be done. It's up to the papatipu and they are run by the bullies. Look at the problems in March 09, nothing really came out of that.

Anonymous said...

Dear Richard,

I think you do a good job but I can't agree on two things. Your Board criteria seems to miss the point, just because someone has been convicted of anything does not mean they would be a poor Director. Just because they have been adjudged bankrupt does not mean they would be a poor Director. There are other means that would serve as better tools to weed out undesirables rather than a blanket classification. Under your system Te Whiti O Rongomai could not be a Director and neither could Donald Trump. You are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

You are not happy about some of the devious ways that people have operated in the past but how do you intend to address this? Strangely by operating deviously yourself. That is asking people to furnish you with information that you can use against these people. Further churning the dirt.

Is there a better method than this to get the result you want?

Kia Kaha