They have much in common.
They’re all Maori owned and controlled health and social service providers.
They’re all predominantly government funded.
And they’re a blueprint for nepotism.
Consider these facts. The Chief Executive of Waipareira Trust is John Tamihere. The Chief Operating Officer is his wife Awerangi Tamihere.
Labour MP Willie Jackson used to be the Chief Executive of MUMA, following in the footsteps of his mother Dame June Jackson. When he returned to Parliament in 2017 his wife Tania Rangiheuea succeeded him.
Meanwhile in Dunedin Te Kaika was set up with the support of uber wealthy South Island iwi Ngai Tahu. The chair of the board is Donna Matahaere-Atariki. The Chief Executive is her son Matt Matahaere. The General Manager of Social Services is her daughter Winnie Matahaere.
Hmm.
Were the wives and children really the best people for those roles in an open and contestable recruitment process? To paraphrase Oscar Wild one might be acceptable and two a coincidence, but three - really?
What’s worse is that all three organisations are facing scrutiny for a series of either alleged financial irregularities, human resources issues or in the case of Te Kaika, both.
The matters surrounding the Waipareira Trust have been well canvassed. It was investigated for bankrolling political campaigns when, by law, its charitable status expressly forbids that activity.
The Charities Registration Board has subsequently advised the Trust it will be deregistered. That action is subject to court proceedings.
Waipareira’s associated entity, the Whanau Ora Commissioning Agency of which John Tamihere was also CEO and his wife again the COO, lost its contract with the government this year.
In the last week a podcast featuring The Good Oil’s Cameron Slater with trade unionist and sometime political adviser Matt McCarten has exposed alleged bullying by Tania Rangiheuea at MUMA. A report into her behaviour was allegedly written by the then chair of the MUMA board. But Willie Jackson, now an MP and with no official position at MUMA, has somehow – according to McCarten – arranged for that board chair to not only lose the position but also a seat on the board as well. The report into Jackson’s wife’s behaviour has disappeared.
Meanwhile McCarten, as a trade unionist, has agreed to represent disgruntled MUMA employees who feel they’ve been bullied by Ms Rangiheuea.
Jackson is chair of the Nga Whare Waatea Marae where MUMA is based. So Jackson has trespassed McCarten from the Marae because he says his presence there is a “repeated breach of tikanga and Kaupapa Maori.”
Yet the Marae is the landlord, not the employer and it’s against the law to ban a union representative from a workplace. Both the Labour leader Chris Hipkins and parliament’s Speaker have been advised of Jackson’s behaviour yet no action has been taken.
More significantly no mainstream media has covered the story. The Platform did last week when Michael Laws interviewed McCarten. Consequently The Platform received a letter threatening legal action from MUMA’s lawyers Chapman Tripp. The Platform is likely to ignore it - and so it should.
This is a matter of considerable public interest and mainstream media should have reported it by now. That they haven’t is cowardly.
In Dunedin the Otago Daily Times has produced the country’s best pieces of investigative journalism this year with a front page splash – that’s after the obligatory Harvey Norman wrap-around – with the headline “Trouble in the Village.”
In short, the ODT says a year-long investigation into Te Kaika has uncovered “a slew of disgruntled former staff members, allegations of misconduct and personal grievance payouts.”
The report, over 4 broadsheet pages, reports how the charity behind Te Kaika, Otakou Health Limited (OHL) has breached its own constitution and is being investigated by the Department of Internal Affairs over unsecured interest-free loans to the board chairwoman and her CEO son.
Ms Matahaere-Atariki is quoted as saying she was “surprised by questions around the finances and the general scrutiny on Te Kaika’s operations.”
She has no reason to be surprised. Te Kaika’s annual revenue is $14 million, most of it paid by the government. The ODT has uncovered much evidence that the money is not being spent wisely. Eventually OHL hired a public relations firm which said no more answers would be forthcoming and complained about the ODT’s “persistence.”
It is surely time for the government to hold serious inquiries into these Maori health and social service providers. How efficient are they? How many others are there with issues like the ones outlined here?
Are there worthwhile results being reported for the money paid, especially in social services like addiction counselling and domestic violence support?
Any publicly funded organization, Maori or otherwise, where blatant favouritism is observed in senior management appointments needs to be closely scrutinized.
When the nepotism is accompanied by reports of staff grievances, financial impropriety and underwhelming delivery results then the case for government intervention is strong.
But has this government got the courage for such intervention?
Sadly, no.
Peter Williams was a writer and broadcaster for half a century. Now watching from the sidelines. Peter blogs regularly on Peter’s Substack - where this article was sourced.
And they’re a blueprint for nepotism.
Consider these facts. The Chief Executive of Waipareira Trust is John Tamihere. The Chief Operating Officer is his wife Awerangi Tamihere.
Labour MP Willie Jackson used to be the Chief Executive of MUMA, following in the footsteps of his mother Dame June Jackson. When he returned to Parliament in 2017 his wife Tania Rangiheuea succeeded him.
Meanwhile in Dunedin Te Kaika was set up with the support of uber wealthy South Island iwi Ngai Tahu. The chair of the board is Donna Matahaere-Atariki. The Chief Executive is her son Matt Matahaere. The General Manager of Social Services is her daughter Winnie Matahaere.
Hmm.
Were the wives and children really the best people for those roles in an open and contestable recruitment process? To paraphrase Oscar Wild one might be acceptable and two a coincidence, but three - really?
What’s worse is that all three organisations are facing scrutiny for a series of either alleged financial irregularities, human resources issues or in the case of Te Kaika, both.
The matters surrounding the Waipareira Trust have been well canvassed. It was investigated for bankrolling political campaigns when, by law, its charitable status expressly forbids that activity.
The Charities Registration Board has subsequently advised the Trust it will be deregistered. That action is subject to court proceedings.
Waipareira’s associated entity, the Whanau Ora Commissioning Agency of which John Tamihere was also CEO and his wife again the COO, lost its contract with the government this year.
In the last week a podcast featuring The Good Oil’s Cameron Slater with trade unionist and sometime political adviser Matt McCarten has exposed alleged bullying by Tania Rangiheuea at MUMA. A report into her behaviour was allegedly written by the then chair of the MUMA board. But Willie Jackson, now an MP and with no official position at MUMA, has somehow – according to McCarten – arranged for that board chair to not only lose the position but also a seat on the board as well. The report into Jackson’s wife’s behaviour has disappeared.
Meanwhile McCarten, as a trade unionist, has agreed to represent disgruntled MUMA employees who feel they’ve been bullied by Ms Rangiheuea.
Jackson is chair of the Nga Whare Waatea Marae where MUMA is based. So Jackson has trespassed McCarten from the Marae because he says his presence there is a “repeated breach of tikanga and Kaupapa Maori.”
Yet the Marae is the landlord, not the employer and it’s against the law to ban a union representative from a workplace. Both the Labour leader Chris Hipkins and parliament’s Speaker have been advised of Jackson’s behaviour yet no action has been taken.
More significantly no mainstream media has covered the story. The Platform did last week when Michael Laws interviewed McCarten. Consequently The Platform received a letter threatening legal action from MUMA’s lawyers Chapman Tripp. The Platform is likely to ignore it - and so it should.
This is a matter of considerable public interest and mainstream media should have reported it by now. That they haven’t is cowardly.
In Dunedin the Otago Daily Times has produced the country’s best pieces of investigative journalism this year with a front page splash – that’s after the obligatory Harvey Norman wrap-around – with the headline “Trouble in the Village.”
In short, the ODT says a year-long investigation into Te Kaika has uncovered “a slew of disgruntled former staff members, allegations of misconduct and personal grievance payouts.”
The report, over 4 broadsheet pages, reports how the charity behind Te Kaika, Otakou Health Limited (OHL) has breached its own constitution and is being investigated by the Department of Internal Affairs over unsecured interest-free loans to the board chairwoman and her CEO son.
Ms Matahaere-Atariki is quoted as saying she was “surprised by questions around the finances and the general scrutiny on Te Kaika’s operations.”
She has no reason to be surprised. Te Kaika’s annual revenue is $14 million, most of it paid by the government. The ODT has uncovered much evidence that the money is not being spent wisely. Eventually OHL hired a public relations firm which said no more answers would be forthcoming and complained about the ODT’s “persistence.”
It is surely time for the government to hold serious inquiries into these Maori health and social service providers. How efficient are they? How many others are there with issues like the ones outlined here?
Are there worthwhile results being reported for the money paid, especially in social services like addiction counselling and domestic violence support?
Any publicly funded organization, Maori or otherwise, where blatant favouritism is observed in senior management appointments needs to be closely scrutinized.
When the nepotism is accompanied by reports of staff grievances, financial impropriety and underwhelming delivery results then the case for government intervention is strong.
But has this government got the courage for such intervention?
Sadly, no.
Peter Williams was a writer and broadcaster for half a century. Now watching from the sidelines. Peter blogs regularly on Peter’s Substack - where this article was sourced.
7 comments:
I agree Peter, there needs to be more light shone on all this money that goes specifically to maori organizations of various types. And, more importantly what is the benefit for the investment.
With Maori featured highly in all our statistics i would suggest its NOT working
Welcome to co-governance. These are only the health boards. We won't get into the topic of the Mahuta family.
By Maori - For Maori, what else do you need to know, perhaps aside from appreciating that the 'collection and distribution' is very selective and dripping in Tikanga.
Never mind taking a step back, as in contemplating where the money comes from first? Like accountability, such are just pakeha concepts - for we've accepted we're seeking to decolonise and build a Maori nation per Te Tiriti. What possibly could be wrong with that?
Well, in many societies one hires their relatives--or you would lose face. Really not much different than U Auckland (or college) buddies hiring each other. Loads of nepotism in NZ: just look at any Kiwi organisation or university. Or, ask any immigrant who is not part of the insider class.
Agree, the government could fix this by dismantling the whole crooked, corrupt structure but it will not. They claimed to have gotten rid of the Maori Health Authority but it seems quite evident that its tentacles are quite capable of existing and operating without the body. Just try navigating your local hospital, the notices say it all - predominantly in a language the majority do not understand.
My "take" on NZ History is that -
- on the 7th February 1840, in Waitangi, Maori Chiefs came together, following consultation with British 'entities' and agreed to sign a Treaty with The British crown, in the "hope" they could take a fledging Nation forward and unite the various Tribes across the land, reducing future wars and deprivation upon Maoridom.
Years later, once Universities gained "strength" and those educated in such domains, read data on society around them and decided that an element called - "Socialism" was to prevail and to ensure that, that word spread, then 'educated' those they thought worthy of such learning -
- Africa, various people from Tribes on both East & West Coast and in South Africa, interesting to note who was educated at the University of Moscow
- South America
- Central America
- America - look at who/whom within the African/American domain received such exposure
- Canada - ditto as above
- Mexico, of recent years
and - New Zealand, in years from long ago, to now, it is obvious just who within Maoridom have received the same exposure.
Lets start with the Jackson Family.
Also look at who/whom within NZ Pakeha society (& Govt) have aided & abetted these small steps, the maneuvering (Waitangi Tribunal), the various signings of Land back to Maoridom, on the basis on "a long past, but prejudicial history", that said Treaty 'did no serve Maori'.
It is interesting that when Labour, under Ardern, "handed full control" of NZ Health to Maori, just how many Kiwis sat in silence.
Also how both Jackson & Tamihere, both former MP's, then, one again now, best mates on a radio show have been able to 'stitch' together (obviously with Legal Counsel input) systems that are designed to benefit the "few", not the "many".
Just like Ngai Tahu have done.
Instead of looking for more tax money to spend, our Govt could save a lot of taxpayers money by having the backbone to closely audit all the health trusts that receive our money, Close them down one by one as they are investigated, then maybe let them continue if they prove they can do what they are paid to do. Some would call it racist but I would call it good business practice
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.