The Strategic Plan review checked 38 items. 13 of these were rated red – including on the goals, owners, and how progress is tracked (#4). Most of the Trust's income comes from a few Government agency contracts (#2), and the Strategic Plan does not yet say how that will change, or the detail that connects the goals to resourcing and implementation. Strengthening these first enables the KPIs in Top Rec 5 to then measure the progress against the Plan.
Governance Aromatawai · August 2026
Ngāti Tauira Trust
Insights Dashboard
Te Tirohanga Whānui | Summary
Ngāti Tauira Trust has a committed board, a shared kaupapa and strong delivery, but governance structures have not kept pace with growth. The work ahead is to put in place the structures (e.g. measures, roles and relationships) that enable the board to make stronger decisions, based on evidence, and share the work more widely.
There are many strengths identified with the board. Many of the matters to address were also raised by trustees in the survey and interviews. There are only three red flags.
Most of the matters to address are straightforward improvements and will serve the board for years to come, making governance easier and more effective.
Whare Tupuna | Eight Dimensions
Ngā Mana Pakari | Strengths
✔Kaupapa respect
✔Financial management & controls
✔Board packs & agendas
✔Operational capacity & resilience
✔Board discussions & participation
✔Constitution / Trust Deed
✔Strategic alignment
✔Whānau/member/community support
✔Board committees & working groups
✔Board attendance & quorum
✔Governance responsibilities
✔Trustee development & training
✔Risk management processes
Ngā Take Matua | Red Flags
⚑ #1Succession planning
⚑ #2Financial sustainability
⚑ #3Partnerships
Ngā Take Matua | Other Matters to Address
#4Strategic plan & direction
#5KPI setting & monitoring
#6Board reporting & performance tracking
#7Board skills matrix
#8Stakeholder involvement
#9Values & tikanga
#10Board annual plan
#11Board Charter & governance policies
#12Trustee induction
#13Action follow-up between hui
Kupu Tohutohu|Top Recommendations
1Strengthen the Strategic Plan (goals, owners, implementation, sustainability)
2Fill in an Annual Board Calendar
3Develop a Board Secretary role description and reporting line
4Clarify one Chair role description with delegated authorities
5Build a KPI framework and a board dashboard
6Agree a clear Manager performance review approach
7Focus on current and future board succession
8Name board leads for key partnerships
9Set up a marae representatives' forum
10Write a policy on trustee and staff whānau links
Ngā Mana Pakari | Strengths▾
The board is united behind its kaupapa, its financial reporting is strong and its board pack has improved fast. These are the practices to keep while the board builds the rest.
We found 23 strengths overall. The most significant are set out below.
- Kaupapa respect▾
- Every trustee puts the kaupapa first.
- In the interviews, trustees named the kaupapa as the reason the board exists without being asked, and in very similar words.
- Financial management & controls▾
- Financial reporting to the board is strong and ready for decisions.
- The February 2026 board pack carries budgets against actuals, written commentary on variances, the balance sheet and monthly trends.
- The Audit-Finance-Risk Committee reports to the board through the agenda.
- Board packs & agendas▾
- The board pack is much stronger than it was a year ago.
- Since the board adopted BoardPro (an online board-pack platform), each pack has a consistent index, timed agenda items, recorded resolutions, an interests register and an action list.
- Operational capacity & resilience▾
- The Trust delivers its programmes well, and its funders say so.
- Several Government agencies have made it a preferred provider (one they choose first for contracts), agencies give strong feedback on its contract reporting, and staff training is now delivered in-house.
- Board discussions & participation▾
- Trustees have their hard conversations openly, at the table, and finish them.
- The survey and the interviews both describe direct discussion, with community, financial, cultural and rangatahi experience all heard.
- Constitution / Trust Deed▾
- The Trust Deed is a thorough founding document grounded in kaupapa Māori.
- 25 of the 33 items we check in a trust deed are in place, including trustee powers, financial procedures and the disclosure of conflicts of interest.
- Strategic alignment▾
- The board agrees on where the Trust is going.
- The Strategic Plan sets out a vision, mission, values and priorities that trustees share, and it names marae and iwi members as the people the Trust serves.
- Whānau/member/community support▾
- The Trust represents the iwi of Ngāti Tauira and has grown its iwi database significantly.
- Trustees reported whānau are positive about the way the organisation is viewed amongst iwi members and the community.
- Board committees & working groups▾
- The Audit-Finance-Risk Committee has clear terms of reference, meets bi-monthly, and reports to the board on a reliable schedule.
- Board attendance & quorum▾
- All board meetings in the past year reached quorum, and attendance is consistently strong.
- Governance responsibilities▾
- The Chair is already leading change on gaps the board has named itself, including KPIs (measures of performance) and how the board reviews the Manager.
- Trustee development & training▾
- Several trustees have completed Institute of Directors training, and the board brings community, financial, cultural and rangatahi experience.
- Risk management processes▾
- The Manager prepares a yearly risk plan, risk is reported to the board regularly, and the Audit-Finance-Risk Committee oversees it.
Ngā Take Matua | Matters to Address13▾
We identified 13 Matters to Address across the eight governance dimensions we assessed. Three of them are Red Flags, which should be prioritised, and they are listed first. Click on each one to read more detail.
Matters to Address – Areas where the Aromatawai indicates a gap, weakness, inconsistency or unresolved matter that warrants board attention.
Red Flags – A smaller subset where the finding suggests material governance risk, significant exposure, or something requiring timely action.
What the tags mean
#3The Matter's number. Recommendations that respond to it will show its tag.
⚑ #1A Red Flag: one of the few Matters that needs timely action. Open it to read why it is a Red Flag.
Tekoteko – LeadershipThe Whare Tupuna governance dimension that the Matter relates to.
s42G-1Evidence for three questions in the Charities Act review at the end of the dashboard.
⚑ Red Flags
⚑ #1Succession planning▾
Pou Tuarongo – Future-Proofing s42G-1
The board has no succession plan for the Chair, deputy Chair or the wider board. There is currently no deputy Chair and no named successor for the Chair, and the seventh seat on the board is empty. The Board Charter covers succession for the Manager and the Chair only, and nothing describes how the board finds and grows future trustees.
Why it is a Red FlagIf the Chair stepped down tomorrow, the board would have no deputy to step in and no process to follow, and 6 trustees already carry the work of 7. The Board Charter review, the survey and the interviews all point to the same gap. Appointing a deputy Chair is a step the board can take within weeks.
⚑ #2Financial sustainability▾
Maihi – Performance s42G-2s42G-3
Most of the Trust's income comes from a handful of Government agency contracts. The Strategic Plan does not set out how the Trust will widen its sources of income. Trustees indicated that this risk has not yet been properly discussed at board meetings.
Why it is a Red FlagIf one large contract ended or changed, the Trust could lose a large share of its income at once, along with the services that income pays for. The agencies decide when contracts are renewed, so the board needs its plan before the next contract round.
⚑ #3Partnerships▾
Mahau – Relationships s42G-2
The Trust's governance-level external relationships sit almost entirely with the Manager. Relationships with marae, hapū, other iwi, the Council and Government agencies are held by one person. Trustees also hold significant relationships in their personal capacities, but the board has not yet discussed bridging them for the Trust's kaupapa.
Why it is a Red FlagIf the Manager left or was unavailable, the Trust's key partnerships would have no one at board level who holds them. The board and the Manager already agree that the board should lead these relationships at governance level, so the board can act on this straight away.
Other Matters to Address
#4Strategic plan & direction▾
Tāhuhu – Strategy s42G-2
The Strategic Plan sets a clear direction but does not yet say how the Trust will get there. None of the priorities has SMART goals (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound) or a named owner. The Strategic Plan review rated 13 of its 38 items red, most of them on measures, ownership, resourcing and sequencing.
#5KPI setting & monitoring▾
Maihi – Performance s42G-1s42G-2
The board has no agreed KPIs (key performance indicators, the measures that show whether the strategy is progressing) and no dashboard to track them. Board members raised it in the interviews, and the Strategic Plan and board pack reviews both rated it red. Without shared measures, the board and the Manager each judge performance in their own way.
#6Board reporting & performance tracking▾
Maihi – Performance s42G-1
The board and the Manager have not agreed what information the board needs to govern. There is no shared view of what the board should see, in how much detail or how often. The board receives a lot of operational information, and both sides end up asking for different things.
#7Board skills matrix▾
Tekoteko – Leadership s42G-1
The board has no skills matrix (a table of the skills the board has and the skills it needs). Several trustees have requested this because they feel there are skills gaps that need addressing. Without a skills matrix, filling the board's empty seventh seat and planning wider succession rely on guesswork.
#8Stakeholder involvement▾
Mahau – Relationships s42G-2
Marae and iwi members have no direct way to bring their voice to the board. They reach the board only through staff. Board members noted that their own communication with marae and iwi members, and the way of involving them in strategy, both needed strengthening.
#9Values & tikanga▾
Tūāpapa – Foundations s42G-2
No kaumātua or tikanga adviser is currently in place to support the board, with the role being empty for some time. Board members mentioned they feel this leaves the board exposed in formal events and in board meetings where tikanga and te reo are thin. One trustee is currently carrying the tikanga work alone.
#10Board annual plan▾
Pou Tūhono – Systems s42G-1
The board does not have a clear calendar of its upcoming activity. Several trustees mentioned board meeting dates were not booked in advance, and several key matters have been missed because they were not in an annual plan the board could follow.
#11Board Charter & governance policies▾
Tūāpapa – Foundations s42G-1s42G-3
There is no policy or process around managing board-staff issues or a tikanga-based dispute resolution process. This is important given several trustees have whānau in the staff, and the board has had to manage several issues brought by staff members. Some trustees have been caught in the middle, and others raised this as an area of concern. The relationships are not the issue, but having no agreed process is.
#12Trustee induction▾
Pou Tuarongo – Future-Proofing s42G-1
Induction for new trustees only involves one introductory meeting. The Board Charter lists the documents a new trustee receives, but trustees mentioned this isn't always provided, and nothing sets out how a new trustee is supported after that.
#13Action follow-up between hui▾
Pou Tūhono – Systems s42G-1
There is no structured way to record and follow up on action items agreed at board hui. The board pack records decisions and keeps an action list, but there is no routine for checking progress between hui.
Questions for your board
- Does this match what you see?
- Is there context we have missed, or a document that would change a finding?
- Is the Board already working on any of these?
Kupu Tohutohu|Top Recommendations
These top recommendations are shown in the order we believe the board should prioritise them. Click each recommendation to read a short summary, and click again for the full detail. Each one shows its governance dimension, a suggested timeframe and some reference tags.
What the tags mean
First 90 daysThe timeframe we suggest the board starts actioning the recommendation.
Tekoteko – LeadershipThe Whare Tupuna dimension of governance that the recommendation relates to.
#3 ⚑ #1The recommendation responds to this Matter or Red Flag. Clicking on the tag takes you to it.
s42G-1Evidence for three questions in the Charities Act Review (s42G) at the end of this dashboard.
Rec 12Each of the 12 recommendations (the Top 10 and 2 Suggestions) carries a number inside its Whare Tupuna dimension. Clicking the tag takes you to the recommendation within that governance dimension.
Some of these tags only show in the expanded view of the recommendation when clicked.
1
Strengthen the Strategic Plan (goals, owners, implementation, sustainability)
▾
Turn each priority in the Strategic Plan into SMART goals (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound), each with a named owner. Then further deepen the plan to connect it to implementation and sustainability beyond existing contracts. The board would then be able to see whether the strategy is progressing.
Why this matters
Recommended actions
- Write SMART goals (clear, measurable goals with a date) for each strategic priority for the next twelve months (within the Tauira Tāngata, Tauira Whenua, Tauira Mahi pou).
- Add 5, 10 and 20-year horizons, so near-term goals (pae tata) sit apart from long-term direction (pae tawhiti).
- Name an owner for every goal: a board lead, the Manager, or both.
- Confirm a plan for widening income, and have the board and the Manager adopt it together. For example, this could be further tendering for contracts, or new kinds of income.
- Add more detail to the Strategic Plan, noting the document review of the Strategic Plan.
- Add a plan-on-a-page (the whole strategy on one sheet) that staff, whānau, marae, partners and funders can use.
- Te Whare Hukahuka is able to assist the board through a robust Strategy Refresh process.
Proposed board resolution
The Board will adopt SMART goals (clear, measurable goals with a date), each with a named owner for each strategic priority, and a plan for widening the Trust's sources of income, within three months.
2
Fill in an Annual Board Calendar
▾
Finish the Annual Board Calendar the board has started, so it shows every governance milestone for the year, including a regular check of open actions. The board would plan its work ahead instead of reacting to the next deadline.
Why this matters
The board has started an Annual Board Calendar, but it is not yet filled in (#10). In the interviews, trustees asked for an annual calendar more than for any other kind of board support. There is no routine for following up actions between hui (#13), and the board pack shows no schedule for reviewing policies. A full calendar also gives later work its dates: the checks on KPIs (measures of performance) in Top Rec 5 and the yearly strategy review in Top Rec 1.
Recommended actions
- Map the full year on one page: strategy, finance, audit and kaupapa milestones, plus legal deadlines.
- Add the policy review cycle, so each quarter reviews a set group of policies.
- Add a monthly check of open actions from the action list, so agreed actions are followed up between hui.
- Share the calendar with staff, so their planning lines up with the board's.
Proposed board resolution
The Board will approve a completed Annual Board Calendar for the year, including a monthly check of open actions and a policy review cycle, within three months.
3
Develop a Board Secretary role description and reporting line
▾
Write a one-page position description for the Board Secretary, decide who the role reports to, and record how the role is filled. The board would know who keeps its minutes, records and filings, and to whom that person answers.
Why this matters
The Board Charter mentions the Board Secretary once, as the person who sends documents to new trustees. The Trust Deed does not require the role to be independent of the Manager, which could blur and complicate reporting. Trustees shared several different views on how the Board Secretary role worked, and nothing written settles which one the board actually uses. The detail around the full list of responsibilities is not clear.
Recommended actions
- Draft a one-page position description covering meeting support, minute-taking, compliance filings, records and support for new trustees.
- Decide the reporting line: to the board, to the Manager, or a mix. Any of the three can work if it is written down and agreed.
- Decide how the role is filled (open advertisement or appointment from within) and record the decision in the Board Charter.
- Add the description to the Board Charter in the same round of changes as Top Rec 4 (the Chair's role and delegated authorities).
Proposed board resolution
The Board delegates to the Chair and Manager to develop a Board Secretary position description that will confirm the role's reporting line and how it is filled. Once approved by the board, it will be added to the Board Charter.
4
Clarify one Chair role description with delegated authorities
▾
Bring the Chair's role into one position description, and write down what the Chair and the Manager may decide without the full board. Everyone would know who can decide what on behalf of the board, and urgent decisions between hui would have a clear, agreed process.
Why this matters
The Board Charter refers to the Chair's role in five different sections but never in one place. It says nothing about what the Chair may decide between meetings, and it sets no spending limits for the Manager. The Board Charter review rated the Chair's delegated authorities red. The Chair is regularly having operational discussions with the Manager. A deputy Chair (Top Rec 7) also needs to know what the Chair's role is before stepping into it.
Recommended actions
- Gather the Chair's role from sections 8, 11, 12, 16 and 17 of the Board Charter into one position description.
- Add a list of what the Chair may decide between meetings (urgent decisions, media), with limits.
- Add a delegations schedule for the Manager (a list of what the Manager may approve, with dollar limits) covering spending, contracts and what must come back to the board.
- Fold in the Board Secretary description from Top Rec 3, so the Board Charter is updated in one round of changes.
Proposed board resolution
The Board will adopt a consolidated position description for the Chair, and a delegations schedule for the Chair and Manager, that sets out what they may each decide without the full board, and add these to the Board Charter by [xxx date].
5
Build a KPI framework and a board dashboard
▾
Agree with the Manager a set of KPIs (key performance indicators) to show whether the strategy is progressing. Then show them as a one-page dashboard. The board and the Manager can then judge performance off the same set of measures, and the board would regularly see the progress on its strategy.
Why this matters
The board has no agreed KPIs, the measures that show whether the strategy is progressing (#5), and the board and the Manager have not agreed what information the board needs to govern (#6). Board members raised the missing KPIs in the interviews, and two of the four document reviews rated them red. Without shared measures, the board's only way to judge performance is the Manager's written reports.
Recommended actions
- Set KPIs (measures of performance) for each strategic goal in Top Rec 1, across cultural, community, financial, operational and partner outcomes, and link each one to a strategic pou (Tauira Tāngata, Tauira Whenua, Tauira Mahi). Te Whare Hukahuka can support the board to develop Board-Ready Indicators.
- Check that each measure reflects the board's 'Tika-Pono-Aroha' values framework, so the dashboard shows the kaupapa as well as the numbers.
- Show the measures as a traffic-light dashboard, updated monthly, with one line of explanation under each measure.
- Draw the data from systems the Trust already has (contract reports, Xero, management reports) before building anything new.
- Agree with the Manager what the board needs to see, in how much detail and how often.
Proposed board resolution
The Board and Manager will agree a set of KPIs (measures of performance) for each strategic goal, and a one-page report of them for every board hui by [xxx date].
6
Agree a clear Manager performance review approach
▾
Replace the current quarterly and annual reviews of the Manager with one annual review, agreed with the Manager and based on the KPIs (measures of performance) from Top Rec 5. The review would support the Manager's growth as well as hold the Manager to account.
Why this matters
The board currently reviews the Manager every quarter and then again annually. The purpose of each review is not clear to those we interviewed. The Manager experiences these reviews as checking up on them rather than as supportive. Without agreed KPIs, or measures of performance (#5), the board and Manager are judging performance in different ways. A fair performance review needs the measures from Top Rec 5 (a KPI framework and board dashboard), so the change to the review comes after it.
Recommended actions
- Ensure there are clear KPIs that the board and Manager both agree to for the next year.
- Move from quarterly and annual reviews to one annual review of the Manager, using the one-page board dashboard of KPIs from Top Rec 5.
- Hold a monthly one-on-one between the Chair and the Manager, with a written agenda and recorded decisions.
- As part of Top Rec 5, agree how the Manager's review weighs growth (new contracts and partnership agreements signed) against outcomes for whānau.
Proposed board resolution
The Board and the Manager will agree, within six months, to hold a single annual performance review that uses the KPIs (measures of performance) from Top Rec 5 as the basis for performance.
7
Focus on current and future board succession
▾
Appoint a deputy Chair, build a board skills matrix (a table of the skills the board has and the skills it needs), and fill the seventh seat with someone who brings the skills that the board lacks. This allows the board to have someone ready to step in if the Chair leaves, and means future trustees would be found and supported before they are needed.
Why this matters
The board has no succession plan and no deputy Chair, and no one is named to follow the Chair (#1). The seventh seat on the board is also empty. Without a skills matrix (#7), filling that seat relies on guesswork. Matter #1 is a Red Flag, because the board would have no one ready and no process to follow if the Chair stepped down. Appointing a deputy Chair is a step the board can take within weeks.
Recommended actions
- Appoint a deputy Chair first. It is the quickest step available, and it means someone is ready if the Chair steps down.
- Build a skills matrix (a table of the skills the board has and the skills it needs; Te Whare Hukahuka can provide a template), and recruit the seventh trustee against the gaps it shows.
- Recruit after Top Rec 4 (the Chair's role and delegated authorities), so new trustees join with clear roles in place.
- Hold a kōrero, following tikanga, about when long-serving trustees step down and how new trustees come on, honouring their service while keeping continuity.
- Open a development pathway for rangatahi, for example through the Ka Eke Poutama programme, run by Te Whare Hukahuka.
Proposed board resolution
The Board will appoint a deputy Chair from its trustees at its next hui. The Board will complete a skills matrix of key skills it has and needs by [xxx date], and use it in recruiting for the seventh trustee seat within six months.
8
Name board leads for key partnerships
▾
Name a trustee to lead each major partnership at governance level, with the Manager retaining the relationship at an operational level. This would mean the Trust's key relationships no longer depend on the Manager alone.
Why this matters
The Trust's relationships with the three marae, hapū, other iwi, the Council and Government agencies sit almost entirely with the Manager and staff (#3). If the Manager left or was unavailable, the key partnerships would have no one person at board level who holds them. Trustees also hold significant relationships in their personal capacities, which the board has not yet discussed bringing to the Trust's kaupapa.
Recommended actions
- Name certain trustees as the leads for each major partnership, starting with relationships they may already have. Key relationships being held by the Manager alone are a Red Flag (#3), so this step should not wait for the rest of the Top 10.
- Write a relationship plan with mana whenua over the year, given that a new Government contract the Trust holds is asking for one.
- Meet partner boards at a dinner or a formal hui once or twice a year.
- As part of Top Rec 5 (the KPI framework), change the board's partnerships measure so it looks at the quality of relationships, not only the number of written agreements (MOUs) signed.
Proposed board resolution
The Board will name a trustee to lead each of the Trust's key partnerships within three months, and will then receive a report from each lead at least twice a year.
9
Set up a marae representatives' forum
▾
Set up a forum with one representative from each of the three marae that reports to the board at every hui. Marae and iwi members would have a direct way to bring their voice to the board, and the board's strategy would be shaped by the people the Trust serves.
Why this matters
Marae and iwi members reach the board only through staff (#8). In the survey, board members rated communication with the three marae and iwi members, and their involvement in strategy, as the lowest of all. The Trust's documents do not establish a place for marae in its governance processes.
Recommended actions
- In the first six months, talk with all three marae about how a forum could work.
- Bring together a representative from each marae into a board sub-committee.
- Add a standing agenda item, "Feedback from the marae representatives' forum", so the forum's advice always reaches the board.
- Hold a yearly strategy wānanga where the marae feedback shapes the plan directly.
- Name the trustee leads for key partnerships first (Top Rec 8), so trustees are ready to lead the forum when it starts.
Proposed board resolution
The Board will invite all three marae to help design a marae representatives' forum within six months, and will consider a proposal for the forum within twelve months.
10
Write a policy on trustee and staff whānau links
▾
Add to the Board Charter how the board manages whānau links between trustees and staff, and add a tikanga-based way to settle disputes to the Trust Deed. The board would have an agreed process to follow when an issue or dispute is raised.
Why this matters
Several trustees have whānau on the staff, which is common and not a problem in itself (#11). The board has no written or agreed process for how these relationships are managed, particularly when disputes or issues are raised. Trustees themselves raised this as a concern. The Board Charter has no provisions relating to whānau on staff, and the Trust Deed has no tikanga-based dispute resolution process.
Recommended actions
- Add provisions to the Board Charter around whānau on staff and whānau on the board, covering how they are declared and when a link needs extra care or process, such as a trustee stepping out of a decision.
- Add a tikanga-based dispute resolution process to the Trust Deed.
- Record the main whānau links between trustees and staff members in the interests register.
- At present, a member of the Manager Employment committee with a whānau link steps out of all committee work during the meeting. Consider changing this so that a member in this position would only step out for that one decision.
- Make the Board Charter changes in the same round as Top Rec 3 (the Board Secretary role) and Top Rec 4 (the Chair's role).
Proposed board resolution
The Board will adopt a policy for the Board Charter on whānau links between trustees and staff by [xxx date]. The Board will seek advice on adding a tikanga-based dispute resolution process to the Trust Deed.
Kupu Āwhina | Suggestions
Further suggestions that sit alongside the Top 10. Click each one to expand the full detail.
11
Utilise the Tika-Pono-Aroha framework to test major decisions
▾
Check major decisions against the board's Tika-Pono-Aroha values framework before the board agrees to them. There are clear explanations of how the framework can be used, but not yet a regular practice of aligning it to board decisions. The values the board holds would show in the decisions it makes.
Why this matters
The board has an agreed Tika-Pono-Aroha values framework, which was developed with input from the marae and iwi members. These values seem to sit in the background when decisions are made. The Strategic Plan also names an iwi-specific kaupapa Māori framework. The board has the ability to use these more when making major board decisions. The clarity is already there, so it can start at any hui.
Recommended actions
- Ask three questions of each major decision: Is it tika (right)? Is it pono (true to our kaupapa)? Is it aroha (caring for our people and whenua)? Refer to the descriptions in the framework.
- Agree when the board uses Tika-Pono-Aroha (for decisions) and whether major decisions also need to be assessed against the 'Tauira Tāngata, Tauira Whenua, Tauira Mahi' kaupapa Māori framework in the Strategic Plan.
- Develop a strategic Decision-Making Framework to assess new initiatives through a common set of factors, as part of refreshing the Strategic Plan. Te Whare Hukahuka can assist the board with this.
Proposed board resolution
The Board will adopt a standard test for its major decisions, based on its values framework, asking whether each decision is tika (right), pono (true to our kaupapa) and aroha (caring for our people and whenua), starting at its next hui.
12
Restore a kaumātua or tikanga adviser for the board
▾
Define what a kaumātua or tikanga adviser would do for the board, then find the right person and agree whether the role is an adviser, a committee member or a trustee. Board hui would have tikanga support again, and one trustee would no longer carry this work alone.
Why this matters
No kaumātua or tikanga adviser is currently in place to support the board (#9). Board members said the gap leaves the board exposed at formal events and in board hui where tikanga and te reo are thin. The role has previously been unclear, and needs careful kōrero before it moves, so it sits as a Suggestion.
Recommended actions
- Define the role before naming a person: opening and closing hui with karakia and mihi, kaupapa advice, and care of tikanga and whanaungatanga.
- Look beyond the people the board already knows, in case there are others well suited for the role.
- Request that each of the marae put forward several names of kaumātua.
- Agree where the role sits (adviser, committee member or board member), because each carries different authority and time.
- Set a date for filling the role.
- Consider involving the kaumātua role in the marae representatives' forum when it is established to help provide direction and safety.
Proposed board resolution
The Board will establish a kaumātua or tikanga adviser role, and will confirm a process for filling it within six months.
Whare Tupuna Framework
The Whare Tupuna governance framework looks at your governance across eight governance dimensions of mana. Governance is more than oversight and compliance. It is about lifting the mana of your kaupapa and your organisation over time.
The eight governance dimensions of the Whare Tupuna are set out here. Click on each dimension to see more information about it.
The governance dimensions are colour coded with their overall rating.
clear strengthneeds attentioncritical issue
Whare Tupuna | Dimensions
Tūāpapa
|
Foundations
The board's mana is emerging. The Trust Deed is strong and trustees share the Trust's values. The board seeks more tikanga support, and an agreed process for managing staff relationships.
▾
Tūāpapa represent the foundations that guide your board's decisions and behaviour – including the kaupapa, values, tikanga, policies and core documents that anchor everything above. They are the load-bearing beliefs that remain over time and shape how your board operates into the future.
This dimension reflects Mana Whenua – mana built from drawing on tūpuna-led guidance that serves the present and will outlast any one board to safeguard the future.
“Whatungarongaro te tangata, toitū te whenua.” • People pass on, but the land remains.
The foundations you help strengthen endure beyond your time on the board.
Tūāpapa lens
Western lens
Foundations are documents to be authored, ratified and audited.
Kaupapa lens
Foundations are living tikanga that shape how decisions are made and how the board carries the kaupapa between hui and over time.
Overview
The board's mana is emerging. The Trust Deed is thorough and trustees share the kaupapa. Tikanga support and whānau processes still to strengthen.
The Trust Deed covers most of what a founding document should, and every trustee puts the kaupapa first. The board has no kaumātua or tikanga adviser (#9) and no agreed process for whānau links between trustees and staff (#11).
Governance themes
Strengths
Constitution / Trust Deed▾
The Trust Deed is a thorough founding document grounded in kaupapa Māori, with 25 of the 33 items we check in a trust deed in place.
Legal compliance & accountability▾
Financial controls, external audit, the conflicts of interest register and the Trust Deed's rules for the AGM are in place and used.
Areas to strengthen
Kaupapa Māori framework▾
The Strategic Plan names a kaupapa Māori framework, and the board also holds Tika-Pono-Aroha. Nothing yet says which framework guides which kind of decision.
Policy implementation & review▾
The board's policies exist, but no schedule shows when each one is reviewed. BoardPro (the board's online board-pack platform) can keep that schedule.
Matters to Address
#9
Values & tikanga▾
No kaumātua or tikanga adviser is currently in place to support the board, with the role being empty for some time. Board members mentioned they feel this leaves the board exposed in formal events and in board meetings where tikanga and te reo are thin. One trustee is currently carrying the tikanga work alone.
#11
Board Charter & governance policies▾
There is no policy or process around managing board-staff issues or a tikanga-based dispute resolution process. This is important given several trustees have whānau in the staff, and the board has had to manage several issues brought by staff members. Some trustees have been caught in the middle, and others raised this as an area of concern. The relationships are not the issue, but having no agreed process is.
Recommendations to improve your Tūāpapa
Write a policy on trustee and staff whānau links
▾
Add to the Board Charter how the board manages whānau links between trustees and staff, and add a tikanga-based way to settle disputes to the Trust Deed. The board would have an agreed process to follow when an issue or dispute is raised.
Why this matters
Several trustees have whānau on the staff, which is common and not a problem in itself (#11). The board has no written or agreed process for how these relationships are managed, particularly when disputes or issues are raised. Trustees themselves raised this as a concern. The Board Charter has no provisions relating to whānau on staff, and the Trust Deed has no tikanga-based dispute resolution process.
Recommended actions
- Add provisions to the Board Charter around whānau on staff and whānau on the board, covering how they are declared and when a link needs extra care or process, such as a trustee stepping out of a decision.
- Add a tikanga-based dispute resolution process to the Trust Deed.
- Record the main whānau links between trustees and staff members in the interests register.
- At present, a member of the Manager Employment committee with a whānau link steps out of all committee work during the meeting. Consider changing this so that a member in this position would only step out for that one decision.
- Make the Board Charter changes in the same round as Top Rec 3 (the Board Secretary role) and Top Rec 4 (the Chair's role).
Proposed board resolution
The Board will adopt a policy for the Board Charter on whānau links between trustees and staff by [xxx date]. The Board will seek advice on adding a tikanga-based dispute resolution process to the Trust Deed.
Utilise the Tika-Pono-Aroha framework to test major decisions
▾
Check major decisions against the board's Tika-Pono-Aroha values framework before the board agrees to them. There are clear explanations of how the framework can be used, but not yet a regular practice of aligning it to board decisions. The values the board holds would show in the decisions it makes.
Why this matters
The board has an agreed Tika-Pono-Aroha values framework, which was developed with input from the marae and iwi members. These values seem to sit in the background when decisions are made. The Strategic Plan also names an iwi-specific kaupapa Māori framework. The board has the ability to use these more when making major board decisions. The clarity is already there, so it can start at any hui.
Recommended actions
- Ask three questions of each major decision: Is it tika (right)? Is it pono (true to our kaupapa)? Is it aroha (caring for our people and whenua)? Refer to the descriptions in the framework.
- Agree when the board uses Tika-Pono-Aroha (for decisions) and whether major decisions also need to be assessed against the 'Tauira Tāngata, Tauira Whenua, Tauira Mahi' kaupapa Māori framework in the Strategic Plan.
- Develop a strategic Decision-Making Framework to assess new initiatives through a common set of factors, as part of refreshing the Strategic Plan. Te Whare Hukahuka can assist the board with this.
Proposed board resolution
The Board will adopt a standard test for its major decisions, based on its values framework, asking whether each decision is tika (right), pono (true to our kaupapa) and aroha (caring for our people and whenua), starting at its next hui.
Restore a kaumātua or tikanga adviser for the board
▾
Define what a kaumātua or tikanga adviser would do for the board, then find the right person and agree whether the role is an adviser, a committee member or a trustee. Board hui would have tikanga support again, and one trustee would no longer carry this work alone.
Why this matters
No kaumātua or tikanga adviser is currently in place to support the board (#9). Board members said the gap leaves the board exposed at formal events and in board hui where tikanga and te reo are thin. The role has previously been unclear, and needs careful kōrero before it moves, so it sits as a Suggestion.
Recommended actions
- Define the role before naming a person: opening and closing hui with karakia and mihi, kaupapa advice, and care of tikanga and whanaungatanga.
- Look beyond the people the board already knows, in case there are others well suited for the role.
- Request that each of the marae put forward several names of kaumātua.
- Agree where the role sits (adviser, committee member or board member), because each carries different authority and time.
- Set a date for filling the role.
- Consider involving the kaumātua role in the marae representatives' forum when it is established to help provide direction and safety.
Proposed board resolution
The Board will establish a kaumātua or tikanga adviser role, and will confirm a process for filling it within six months.
Board Documents – Tūāpapa
Trust Deed / Kawenata
A thorough founding document grounded in kaupapa Māori
2562
▾For a detailed analysis, refer to the 'Tuhinga | Document Review' section below.
Governance Manual / Board Charter – 🟡 Strong on compliance, with gaps in role clarity
962
▾For a detailed analysis, refer to the 'Tuhinga | Document Review' section below.
Tekoteko
|
Leadership
The board's mana is emerging. The Chair is leading change and trustees bring strong experience. The written roles have not caught up. Some key roles and delegations are not yet written down. A board skills matrix still needs to be created.
▾
Tekoteko is the carved figurehead that represents the leadership at the peak of the whare. In governance, it includes having solid governance roles, collective responsibility, board composition and oversight of organisational functions. Rather than focusing on status and control, strong governance is about enabling those that you represent so they can thrive and keep your kaupapa alive.
This dimension reflects Mana Tuku Iho – mana vested in the people who lead that compels us to act in ways that honour those before us, for the benefit of the collective.
“Mā mua ka kite a muri, mā muri ka ora a mua.” • Those who lead give sight to those who follow; those who follow give life to those who lead.
When the Chair and experienced members share what they see, and the Board in turn supports its leaders, leadership stays strong and passes well from one Board to the next.
Tekoteko lens
Western lens
Leadership is held by separate role-holders bound by position descriptions and delegations.
Kaupapa lens
Leadership is shared – the Chair, the trustees, kaumātua and the wider hapū each carry mana for different parts of the kaupapa.
Overview
The board's mana is emerging. Leadership is well respected and is already naming what needs to change. The roles and the skills planning still need writing down.
Trustees bring strong experience, and the Chair is pushing for KPIs and a new approach to reviewing the Manager. The Chair's role, the Board Secretary role and what each role may decide alone are not yet written down in full, and there is no skills matrix, a table of the skills the board has and needs (#7).
Governance themes
Strengths
Governance responsibilities▾
The Chair is already leading change on gaps the board has named itself, including KPIs (measures of performance) and how the board reviews the Manager.
Trustee development & training▾
Several trustees have completed Institute of Directors training, and the board brings community, financial, cultural and rangatahi experience.
Areas to strengthen
Role descriptions▾
The Chair's role is spread across five sections of the Board Charter, and the Board Secretary role is mentioned only once. Neither role has a single position description.
Delegated authorities▾
The Board Charter does not say what the Chair may decide between meetings, and it sets no spending limits for the Manager.
Board understanding of roles▾
Trustees hold different views about the Board Secretary role and who it reports to.
Trustee preparation▾
Different views were shared around how board members prepare for meetings. Some come well prepared, others less so. There are no clear expectations set around this.
Matters to Address
#7
Board skills matrix▾
The board has no skills matrix (a table of the skills the board has and the skills it needs). Several trustees have requested this because they feel there are skills gaps that need addressing. Without a skills matrix, filling the board's empty seventh seat and planning wider succession rely on guesswork.
Recommendations to improve your Tekoteko
Develop a Board Secretary role description and reporting line
▾
Write a one-page position description for the Board Secretary, decide who the role reports to, and record how the role is filled. The board would know who keeps its minutes, records and filings, and to whom that person answers.
Why this matters
The Board Charter mentions the Board Secretary once, as the person who sends documents to new trustees. The Trust Deed does not require the role to be independent of the Manager, which could blur and complicate reporting. Trustees shared several different views on how the Board Secretary role worked, and nothing written settles which one the board actually uses. The detail around the full list of responsibilities is not clear.
Recommended actions
- Draft a one-page position description covering meeting support, minute-taking, compliance filings, records and support for new trustees.
- Decide the reporting line: to the board, to the Manager, or a mix. Any of the three can work if it is written down and agreed.
- Decide how the role is filled (open advertisement or appointment from within) and record the decision in the Board Charter.
- Add the description to the Board Charter in the same round of changes as Top Rec 4 (the Chair's role and delegated authorities).
Proposed board resolution
The Board delegates to the Chair and Manager to develop a Board Secretary position description that will confirm the role's reporting line and how it is filled. Once approved by the board, it will be added to the Board Charter.
Clarify one Chair role description with delegated authorities
▾
Bring the Chair's role into one position description, and write down what the Chair and the Manager may decide without the full board. Everyone would know who can decide what on behalf of the board, and urgent decisions between hui would have a clear, agreed process.
Why this matters
The Board Charter refers to the Chair's role in five different sections but never in one place. It says nothing about what the Chair may decide between meetings, and it sets no spending limits for the Manager. The Board Charter review rated the Chair's delegated authorities red. The Chair is regularly having operational discussions with the Manager. A deputy Chair (Top Rec 7) also needs to know what the Chair's role is before stepping into it.
Recommended actions
- Gather the Chair's role from sections 8, 11, 12, 16 and 17 of the Board Charter into one position description.
- Add a list of what the Chair may decide between meetings (urgent decisions, media), with limits.
- Add a delegations schedule for the Manager (a list of what the Manager may approve, with dollar limits) covering spending, contracts and what must come back to the board.
- Fold in the Board Secretary description from Top Rec 3, so the Board Charter is updated in one round of changes.
Proposed board resolution
The Board will adopt a consolidated position description for the Chair, and a delegations schedule for the Chair and Manager, that sets out what they may each decide without the full board, and add these to the Board Charter by [xxx date].
Board Documents – Tekoteko
Board member role description
Assessed in Charter review
Chairperson position description
Assessed in Charter review
Chairperson delegated authorities
Assessed in Charter review
Board Secretary position description
Assessed in Charter review
Board skills / gaps matrix
Assessed in Charter review
Pou Tokomanawa
|
Cohesion
The board's mana is evident. Board members work well together and respect the kaupapa.
▾
Pou Tokomanawa is the central support pillar of the whare – representing how well your board functions together as a collective. This includes how decisions are made, how disagreement is held, and how trust and cohesion is built and maintained.
This dimension reflects Mana Tangata – recognising the inherent mana of individuals and the collective. This mana moves people and kaupapa forward, with each shared decision compounding to generate momentum.
“Hoea ngātahitia ki ko atu.” • Paddling together takes us all further.
Paddling together enables stronger collective board leadership.
Overview
The board's mana is evident. The board works well together, is honest with itself and resolves any disagreement at the table.
Discussion is direct, and trustees bring community, financial, cultural and rangatahi experience. The personality profiles that board members completed suggest the board could give more thought to how its decisions affect whānau and staff.
Governance themes
Strengths
Board culture & wellbeing▾
Trustees describe a board that works well together and is committed to the kaupapa.
Board attendance & quorum▾
All board meetings in the past year reached quorum, and attendance is consistently strong.
Board discussions & participation▾
Trustees have their hard conversations openly, at the table, and finish them, with community, financial, cultural and rangatahi experience all heard.
Kaupapa respect▾
Every trustee puts the kaupapa first and names it as the reason the board exists.
Conflict resolution approach▾
When trustees disagree, they work it through at the table and finish the conversation.
Trustee dissent▾
Strong opinions exist on the board, but board members seem to express and receive these respectfully. Dissent is minuted but is reported to not affect collective decision-making.
Confidentiality & trust▾
Trust around the table is high, which explains why the Chair, Secretary and Manager have gone so long without written delegations.
Areas to strengthen
Board decision-making▾
In the personality profiles that board members completed for this review, most prefer to weigh the logic of a decision first and settle things quickly. Fewer think first about how a decision will affect people.
Board meeting effectiveness▾
Board meetings cover a range of items, with some areas to strengthen around measurement and risk management.
Internal board communication▾
Board members communicate well and meetings are positive. Some conversations the board wants to have are only happening at the committee level or between the Chair and Manager.
No Matters to Address were identified in this dimension. The focus here is on keeping and sharpening what already works.
Pou Tūhono
|
Systems
The board's mana is constrained. New systems such as BoardPro and the Audit-Finance-Risk Committee are working, but the board has no annual plan to follow, and actions are not followed up between hui.
▾
Pou Tūhono represent the systems and structures that support good governance: the processes, the meeting rhythm, the information, and the tools that let the board govern reliably. Strong Pou Tūhono help ensure people don't burn out and hold the kaupapa steady over time.
This dimension reflects Mana Tōpū – mana generated from turning collective intent into clear structure and processes that carry the mauri of the kaupapa and those within it.
“Mā tini, mā mano, ka rapa te whai.” • A great number working together will achieve what a few cannot.
Many hands make light work. So too do many systems that carry the work of the board.
Overview
The board's mana is constrained. The systems have improved significantly over the past year, but without an annual plan key matters are being missed.
BoardPro and the Audit-Finance-Risk Committee are recent changes that are working, and conflicts of interest are handled well. The board has no clear annual plan, so meeting dates are not booked ahead and key matters are missed (#10), and there is no routine for following up actions between hui (#13). Health & Safety also needs its own place in the Board Charter.
Governance themes
Strengths
Governance structure effectiveness▾
The board's systems have improved quickly over the past year, with BoardPro and the Audit-Finance-Risk Committee both working.
Board committees & working groups▾
The Audit-Finance-Risk Committee has clear terms of reference, meets bi-monthly, and reports to the board on a reliable schedule.
Board packs & agendas▾
Every board pack on BoardPro has a consistent index, timed agenda items, recorded resolutions, an interests register and an action list.
Conflicts of interest▾
Trustees regularly step out of a decision when they have an interest in it, and the board keeps an interests register.
Access to governance documents▾
BoardPro gives trustees one place for every board pack, with consistent document filing.
Areas to strengthen
Health & Safety processes▾
Health & Safety appears only as one line in the Board Charter, with nothing on how the board oversees Health & Safety risk.
Board administration▾
The board pack records decisions and keeps an action list. The Board Secretary's duties for records and filings are not yet written down.
Matters to Address
#13
Action follow-up between hui▾
There is no structured way to record and follow up on action items agreed at board hui. The board pack records decisions and keeps an action list, but there is no routine for checking progress between hui.
#10
Board annual plan▾
The board does not have a clear calendar of its upcoming activity. Several trustees mentioned board meeting dates were not booked in advance, and several key matters have been missed because they were not in an annual plan the board could follow.
Recommendations to improve your Pou Tūhono
Fill in an Annual Board Calendar
▾
Finish the Annual Board Calendar the board has started, so it shows every governance milestone for the year, including a regular check of open actions. The board would plan its work ahead instead of reacting to the next deadline.
Why this matters
The board has started an Annual Board Calendar, but it is not yet filled in (#10). In the interviews, trustees asked for an annual calendar more than for any other kind of board support. There is no routine for following up actions between hui (#13), and the board pack shows no schedule for reviewing policies. A full calendar also gives later work its dates: the checks on KPIs (measures of performance) in Top Rec 5 and the yearly strategy review in Top Rec 1.
Recommended actions
- Map the full year on one page: strategy, finance, audit and kaupapa milestones, plus legal deadlines.
- Add the policy review cycle, so each quarter reviews a set group of policies.
- Add a monthly check of open actions from the action list, so agreed actions are followed up between hui.
- Share the calendar with staff, so their planning lines up with the board's.
Proposed board resolution
The Board will approve a completed Annual Board Calendar for the year, including a monthly check of open actions and a policy review cycle, within three months.
Board Documents – Pou Tūhono
Board Pack (February 2026)
Ready for decisions, and much stronger than a year ago
1271
▾For a detailed analysis, refer to the 'Tuhinga | Document Review' section below.
Board Workplan / Annual Calendar
Self-assessed – not used
Tāhuhu
|
Strategy
The board's mana is emerging. The board shares a clear direction. The Strategic Plan has a number of gaps, and does not yet say how the Trust will get there.
▾
Tāhuhu is the ridgepole that elevates the kaupapa. This reflects the backbone of the strategy, to provide clear direction and a sense of priorities.
This dimension reflects Mana Āheinga – mana that comes from deciding our own aspirations, and charting our own path forward. True kaupapa contribute to building the hope, aspirations, capabilities and empowerment of the collective, so that in turn they can elevate the mana of the kaupapa.
“Ko te pae tawhiti, whāia kia tata. Ko te pae tata, whakamaua kia tina.” • Seek out the distant horizon so that it may draw near. Hold fast to what is close, so that it endures.
Strategic clarity over the short and long term helps ensure a stepped approach to success.
Overview
The board's mana is emerging. The board agrees on where it is going, but the Strategic Plan does not yet say how it will get there.
Vision, values and priorities are set out and culturally grounded, and the Strategic Plan names who the Trust serves. SMART goals (clear, measurable goals with a date), owners and a way to track progress are the next step (#4).
Governance themes
Strengths
Strategic alignment▾
The board agrees on where the Trust is going, and the Strategic Plan names marae and iwi members as the people the Trust serves.
Strategic thinking & discussion▾
Strategy discussions at the board table turn naturally to outcomes for mokopuna.
Areas to strengthen
Strategic priorities & focus▾
The Strategic Plan sets six goals. Reducing them to 3 or 4 priority areas for the first twelve months would sharpen the board's focus.
Strategy breadth▾
The Strategic Plan does not yet set out a business model or how the Trust will widen its income (#2).
Strategic review & renewal▾
The Strategic Plan does not describe how progress is monitored or when the plan is reviewed.
Matters to Address
#4
Strategic plan & direction▾
The Strategic Plan sets a clear direction but does not yet say how the Trust will get there. None of the priorities has SMART goals (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound) or a named owner. The Strategic Plan review rated 13 of its 38 items red, most of them on measures, ownership, resourcing and sequencing.
Recommendations to improve your Tāhuhu
Strengthen the Strategic Plan (goals, owners, implementation, sustainability)
▾
Turn each priority in the Strategic Plan into SMART goals (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound), each with a named owner. Then further deepen the plan to connect it to implementation and sustainability beyond existing contracts. The board would then be able to see whether the strategy is progressing.
Why this matters
The Strategic Plan review checked 38 items. 13 of these were rated red – including on the goals, owners, and how progress is tracked (#4). Most of the Trust's income comes from a few Government agency contracts (#2), and the Strategic Plan does not yet say how that will change, or the detail that connects the goals to resourcing and implementation. Strengthening these first enables the KPIs in Top Rec 5 to then measure the progress against the Plan.
Recommended actions
- Write SMART goals (clear, measurable goals with a date) for each strategic priority for the next twelve months (within the Tauira Tāngata, Tauira Whenua, Tauira Mahi pou).
- Add 5, 10 and 20-year horizons, so near-term goals (pae tata) sit apart from long-term direction (pae tawhiti).
- Name an owner for every goal: a board lead, the Manager, or both.
- Confirm a plan for widening income, and have the board and the Manager adopt it together. For example, this could be further tendering for contracts, or new kinds of income.
- Add more detail to the Strategic Plan, noting the document review of the Strategic Plan.
- Add a plan-on-a-page (the whole strategy on one sheet) that staff, whānau, marae, partners and funders can use.
- Te Whare Hukahuka is able to assist the board through a robust Strategy Refresh process.
Proposed board resolution
The Board will adopt SMART goals (clear, measurable goals with a date), each with a named owner for each strategic priority, and a plan for widening the Trust's sources of income, within three months.
Board Documents – Tāhuhu
Strategic Plan
A clear direction without the goals and measures to steer by
131213
▾For a detailed analysis, refer to the 'Tuhinga | Document Review' section below.
Strategic Direction Document
Self-assessed – acceptable
Strategic Direction & Planning policy
Assessed in Charter review
Maihi
|
Performance
The board's mana is constrained. The Trust is delivering well, but the board has no agreed measures to oversee that delivery, and its income depends on a few contracts.
▾
Maihi represent the bargeboards of the whare – that connect the Tāhuhu to the Tūāpapa as the arms that turn your strategy into action. This represents the management systems, the operational rhythms and having the right people.
This dimension reflects Mana Whakahaere – mana that comes from turning leadership decisions into disciplined action to ensure the performance of a kaupapa.
“Ko te Amorangi ki mua, ko te Hāpai ō ki muri. Te tūturutanga mahi pono o te Māori mana motuhake.” • Guided by visionary leadership and well provisioned. This is what upholds true Māori self-determination.
Connecting the leadership with well-managed resources allows the kaupapa to deliver on its promise to its people.
Maihi lens
Western lens
Performance is defined by outputs, contract targets and financial ratios – what can be counted and compared.
Kaupapa lens
Performance is impact for the communities the kaupapa serves – moments that matter, mauri, and progress on intergenerational outcomes.
Overview
The board's mana is constrained. The Trust delivers its services well, but the board lacks meaningful measurements, some reporting is unclear and its future funding is limited and at risk.
Programme delivery and financial reporting are strong. Maihi (Performance) is rated red for two reasons. Most of the Trust's income comes from a few contracts, which is a Red Flag (#2). The board also has no agreed KPIs (measures of performance) (#5) and no agreement on what information it needs to see (#6).
Governance themes
Strengths
Financial management & controls▾
Budgets against actuals, written commentary on variances, the balance sheet and monthly trends reach every board hui.
Audit & financial reporting▾
External audit is in place, and the Audit-Finance-Risk Committee oversees the Trust's finances.
Operational capacity & resilience▾
Several Government agencies have approved the Trust as a preferred provider for contracts, with delivery on grants being reported as strong, and regular staff training delivered in-house.
Areas to strengthen
Governance vs operations▾
There are no clear delegated authorities for the Manager or Chair, and the Chair and Manager are regularly having operational discussions, and this is causing some confusion and frustration.
Board–management relationship▾
The board reviews the Manager every quarter and again each year, and the purpose of each review is not clear. The Manager appears to experience the reviews more as checking up than as support.
Action follow-through▾
Actions agreed at board hui are not followed up in a set way between meetings (#13).
Matters to Address
⚑ #2
Financial sustainability▾
Most of the Trust's income comes from a handful of Government agency contracts. The Strategic Plan does not set out how the Trust will widen its sources of income. Trustees indicated that this risk has not yet been properly discussed at board meetings.
Why it is a Red FlagIf one large contract ended or changed, the Trust could lose a large share of its income at once, along with the services that income pays for. The agencies decide when contracts are renewed, so the board needs its plan before the next contract round.
#5
KPI setting & monitoring▾
The board has no agreed KPIs (key performance indicators, the measures that show whether the strategy is progressing) and no dashboard to track them. Board members raised it in the interviews, and the Strategic Plan and board pack reviews both rated it red. Without shared measures, the board and the Manager each judge performance in their own way.
#6
Board reporting & performance tracking▾
The board and the Manager have not agreed what information the board needs to govern. There is no shared view of what the board should see, in how much detail or how often. The board receives a lot of operational information, and both sides end up asking for different things.
Recommendations to improve your Maihi
Build a KPI framework and a board dashboard
▾
Agree with the Manager a set of KPIs (key performance indicators) to show whether the strategy is progressing. Then show them as a one-page dashboard. The board and the Manager can then judge performance off the same set of measures, and the board would regularly see the progress on its strategy.
Why this matters
The board has no agreed KPIs, the measures that show whether the strategy is progressing (#5), and the board and the Manager have not agreed what information the board needs to govern (#6). Board members raised the missing KPIs in the interviews, and two of the four document reviews rated them red. Without shared measures, the board's only way to judge performance is the Manager's written reports.
Recommended actions
- Set KPIs (measures of performance) for each strategic goal in Top Rec 1, across cultural, community, financial, operational and partner outcomes, and link each one to a strategic pou (Tauira Tāngata, Tauira Whenua, Tauira Mahi). Te Whare Hukahuka can support the board to develop Board-Ready Indicators.
- Check that each measure reflects the board's 'Tika-Pono-Aroha' values framework, so the dashboard shows the kaupapa as well as the numbers.
- Show the measures as a traffic-light dashboard, updated monthly, with one line of explanation under each measure.
- Draw the data from systems the Trust already has (contract reports, Xero, management reports) before building anything new.
- Agree with the Manager what the board needs to see, in how much detail and how often.
Proposed board resolution
The Board and Manager will agree a set of KPIs (measures of performance) for each strategic goal, and a one-page report of them for every board hui by [xxx date].
Agree a clear Manager performance review approach
▾
Replace the current quarterly and annual reviews of the Manager with one annual review, agreed with the Manager and based on the KPIs (measures of performance) from Top Rec 5. The review would support the Manager's growth as well as hold the Manager to account.
Why this matters
The board currently reviews the Manager every quarter and then again annually. The purpose of each review is not clear to those we interviewed. The Manager experiences these reviews as checking up on them rather than as supportive. Without agreed KPIs, or measures of performance (#5), the board and Manager are judging performance in different ways. A fair performance review needs the measures from Top Rec 5 (a KPI framework and board dashboard), so the change to the review comes after it.
Recommended actions
- Ensure there are clear KPIs that the board and Manager both agree to for the next year.
- Move from quarterly and annual reviews to one annual review of the Manager, using the one-page board dashboard of KPIs from Top Rec 5.
- Hold a monthly one-on-one between the Chair and the Manager, with a written agenda and recorded decisions.
- As part of Top Rec 5, agree how the Manager's review weighs growth (new contracts and partnership agreements signed) against outcomes for whānau.
Proposed board resolution
The Board and the Manager will agree, within six months, to hold a single annual performance review that uses the KPIs (measures of performance) from Top Rec 5 as the basis for performance.
Board Documents – Maihi
Annual Budget (approved)
Not provided
Manager delegated authorities
Assessed in Charter review
Annual / Operational Plan
Self-assessed – acceptable
Organisation KPIs
Not provided
Financial Management policy
Assessed in Charter review
Financial snapshot / budget updates
Self-assessed – well used
Reimbursement of expenses policy
Assessed in Charter review
Pou Tuarongo
|
Future-Proofing
The board's mana is emerging. Risk management processes are in place, with some improvements needed. Succession and support for new trustees are the most serious gaps.
▾
Pou Tuarongo represents the back wall of the whare – how you protect your kaupapa over time, including disciplined risk management, compliance, succession and information transfer. Everything you put in place today shapes how your organisation and kaupapa grows intergenerationally.
This dimension reflects Mana Mokopuna – mana generated from protecting kaupapa across generations and replenishing the energy that sustains it.
“Ko te piko o te māhuri, tērā te tupu o te rākau.” • The way the sapling is nurtured will determine how the tree will grow.
Actively nurturing your future is the way to protect your kaupapa over time.
Overview
The board's mana is emerging. While risk management processes are in place, board succession is a gap that needs action.
Risk is planned and reported, and the Audit-Finance-Risk Committee oversees it. The board has no succession plan or deputy Chair, which is a Red Flag (#1). Induction for new trustees also only involves one introductory meeting (#12).
Governance themes
Strengths
Risk management processes▾
The Manager prepares a yearly risk plan, risk is reported to the board regularly, and the Audit-Finance-Risk Committee oversees it.
Areas to strengthen
Risk discussions▾
The Manager reports on risks at board meetings through a basic Risk Register, but the board doesn't have a standing item to discuss the risks of most concern to them.
Risk discomfort▾
Several board members expressed concern with risks affecting the organisation and a desire to discuss this more. The Audit-Finance-Risk Committee discusses risks regularly, meaning some of these discussions can be elevated to a full board.
Rangatahi involvement▾
Trustees spoke with enthusiasm about bringing rangatahi (young people) onto the board over time. The board has not yet decided to start.
Matters to Address
⚑ #1
Succession planning▾
The board has no succession plan for the Chair, deputy Chair or the wider board. There is currently no deputy Chair and no named successor for the Chair, and the seventh seat on the board is empty. The Board Charter covers succession for the Manager and the Chair only, and nothing describes how the board finds and grows future trustees.
Why it is a Red FlagIf the Chair stepped down tomorrow, the board would have no deputy to step in and no process to follow, and 6 trustees already carry the work of 7. The Board Charter review, the survey and the interviews all point to the same gap. Appointing a deputy Chair is a step the board can take within weeks.
#12
Trustee induction▾
Induction for new trustees only involves one introductory meeting. The Board Charter lists the documents a new trustee receives, but trustees mentioned this isn't always provided, and nothing sets out how a new trustee is supported after that.
Recommendations to improve your Pou Tuarongo
Focus on current and future board succession
▾
Appoint a deputy Chair, build a board skills matrix (a table of the skills the board has and the skills it needs), and fill the seventh seat with someone who brings the skills that the board lacks. This allows the board to have someone ready to step in if the Chair leaves, and means future trustees would be found and supported before they are needed.
Why this matters
The board has no succession plan and no deputy Chair, and no one is named to follow the Chair (#1). The seventh seat on the board is also empty. Without a skills matrix (#7), filling that seat relies on guesswork. Matter #1 is a Red Flag, because the board would have no one ready and no process to follow if the Chair stepped down. Appointing a deputy Chair is a step the board can take within weeks.
Recommended actions
- Appoint a deputy Chair first. It is the quickest step available, and it means someone is ready if the Chair steps down.
- Build a skills matrix (a table of the skills the board has and the skills it needs; Te Whare Hukahuka can provide a template), and recruit the seventh trustee against the gaps it shows.
- Recruit after Top Rec 4 (the Chair's role and delegated authorities), so new trustees join with clear roles in place.
- Hold a kōrero, following tikanga, about when long-serving trustees step down and how new trustees come on, honouring their service while keeping continuity.
- Open a development pathway for rangatahi, for example through the Ka Eke Poutama programme, run by Te Whare Hukahuka.
Proposed board resolution
The Board will appoint a deputy Chair from its trustees at its next hui. The Board will complete a skills matrix of key skills it has and needs by [xxx date], and use it in recruiting for the seventh trustee seat within six months.
Board Documents – Pou Tuarongo
Risk Management policy
Assessed in Charter review
Risk Register
Assessed in Board Pack review
Succession planning process
Assessed in Charter review
Board member induction process
Assessed in Charter review
Mahau
|
Relationships
The board's mana is constrained. The relationships exist. The board's place in them, and the voice of marae and iwi members, are the work ahead.
▾
Mahau is the front porch: the threshold between the organisation and its external stakeholder relationships. This includes marae, iwi and mana whenua, funders, Government agencies, partners and the communities the kaupapa exists to serve. Strong governance weaves these groups together to strengthen the kaupapa, with open dialogue, accountability and shared purpose.
This dimension reflects Mana Tauutuutu – mana exchanged through strong and enduring relationships that provide the mauri to keep a kaupapa alive.
“Whiria te muka tangata.” • Weave the people together.
Weaving together your different stakeholders will strengthen your kaupapa.
Mahau lens
Western lens
Relationships rest on MOUs and stakeholder agreements, drafted and tracked as documents.
Kaupapa lens
Relationships are based on whakapapa, whanaungatanga and reciprocal mana – they are tended over time, not transacted.
Overview
The board's mana is constrained. Relationships are present but are not strongly held or led by the board.
The Trust's relationships with marae, iwi, agencies and partners are valuable, but at governance level they sit almost entirely with the Manager (#3). Marae and iwi members currently have no direct way to speak to the board (#8).
Governance themes
Strengths
Whānau/member/community support▾
The Trust represents the iwi of Ngāti Tauira and has grown its iwi database significantly. Trustees reported whānau are positive about the way the organisation is viewed amongst iwi members and the community.
Areas to strengthen
Mana whenua relationships▾
The Manager does have a bi-monthly meeting with other iwi organisations. A new Government contract on behalf of the marae expects a written relationship plan with marae. How those relationships will be held, and by whom, is not yet written down.
Matters to Address
⚑ #3
Partnerships▾
The Trust's governance-level external relationships sit almost entirely with the Manager. Relationships with marae, hapū, other iwi, the Council and Government agencies are held by one person. Trustees also hold significant relationships in their personal capacities, but the board has not yet discussed bridging them for the Trust's kaupapa.
Why it is a Red FlagIf the Manager left or was unavailable, the Trust's key partnerships would have no one at board level who holds them. The board and the Manager already agree that the board should lead these relationships at governance level, so the board can act on this straight away.
#8
Stakeholder involvement▾
Marae and iwi members have no direct way to bring their voice to the board. They reach the board only through staff. Board members noted that their own communication with marae and iwi members, and the way of involving them in strategy, both needed strengthening.
Recommendations to improve your Mahau
Name board leads for key partnerships
▾
Name a trustee to lead each major partnership at governance level, with the Manager retaining the relationship at an operational level. This would mean the Trust's key relationships no longer depend on the Manager alone.
Why this matters
The Trust's relationships with the three marae, hapū, other iwi, the Council and Government agencies sit almost entirely with the Manager and staff (#3). If the Manager left or was unavailable, the key partnerships would have no one person at board level who holds them. Trustees also hold significant relationships in their personal capacities, which the board has not yet discussed bringing to the Trust's kaupapa.
Recommended actions
- Name certain trustees as the leads for each major partnership, starting with relationships they may already have. Key relationships being held by the Manager alone are a Red Flag (#3), so this step should not wait for the rest of the Top 10.
- Write a relationship plan with mana whenua over the year, given that a new Government contract the Trust holds is asking for one.
- Meet partner boards at a dinner or a formal hui once or twice a year.
- As part of Top Rec 5 (the KPI framework), change the board's partnerships measure so it looks at the quality of relationships, not only the number of written agreements (MOUs) signed.
Proposed board resolution
The Board will name a trustee to lead each of the Trust's key partnerships within three months, and will then receive a report from each lead at least twice a year.
Set up a marae representatives' forum
▾
Set up a forum with one representative from each of the three marae that reports to the board at every hui. Marae and iwi members would have a direct way to bring their voice to the board, and the board's strategy would be shaped by the people the Trust serves.
Why this matters
Marae and iwi members reach the board only through staff (#8). In the survey, board members rated communication with the three marae and iwi members, and their involvement in strategy, as the lowest of all. The Trust's documents do not establish a place for marae in its governance processes.
Recommended actions
- In the first six months, talk with all three marae about how a forum could work.
- Bring together a representative from each marae into a board sub-committee.
- Add a standing agenda item, "Feedback from the marae representatives' forum", so the forum's advice always reaches the board.
- Hold a yearly strategy wānanga where the marae feedback shapes the plan directly.
- Name the trustee leads for key partnerships first (Top Rec 8), so trustees are ready to lead the forum when it starts.
Proposed board resolution
The Board will invite all three marae to help design a marae representatives' forum within six months, and will consider a proposal for the forum within twelve months.
Board Documents – Mahau
Media & Communications policy
Assessed in Charter review
Appendix
Te Tukanga Aromatawai | Our Process
This Aromatawai is a kaupapa-Māori governance assessment that clarifies for your board what is working, what is not, and what could elevate the mana and effectiveness of your board.Eight people completed a diagnostic survey and personality profiles, Te Whare Hukahuka reviewed 4 board documents, and held 5 1-1 interviews. Click to read the full process.
This Aromatawai is a kaupapa-Māori governance assessment that clarifies for your board what is working, what is not, and what to do next to strengthen the mana and effectiveness of your board.
It draws on hundreds of data points and perspectives. It looks at your governance structures and processes, and also at the relationships, the leadership dynamics, cultural integration and the experience of your board members.
It draws on three sources: a full review of four board documents (the Trust Deed, the Board Charter, the February 2026 board pack and the Strategic Plan), a board self-assessment survey completed by 8 board and management members, and one-on-one interviews with 5 trustees.
The dashboard also shows evidence tags to support a structured review of governance procedures against the new considerations required by s42G of the Charities Act 2005.
A note on this page: Ngāti Tauira Trust is a fictional organisation, created by Te Whare Hukahuka as a working example of our Aromatawai process. Every finding here is invented. Everything you see in this dashboard reflects what a real board would receive.
We hope this visual dashboard provides a useful example that reflects the depth of analysis, cultural nuance and professional presentation of our Governance Aromatawai.
Whaiaro | Personality Profiles
Board members, the Manager and the Board Secretary used the 16Personalities online test, which gives a four-letter type in the style of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), to find their personality type. We reviewed 8 personality profiles to understand how the board's different working styles fit together. These provide a light guide to working styles, rather than a verdict on anyone.
Each card below describes a personality type. The names on a card are the people whose 16Personalities test gave that type. Each card describes the type, not the person. 8 people completed a personality profile: the 6 trustees, the Manager and the Board Secretary. 6 of the 8 profiles are Thinking and Judging types (people who weigh the logic of a decision first and like to settle things and move on). They point to a decisive board that is strong on strategy, with fewer people whose first instinct is how a decision lands with people.
Decisive strategic thinkers: ENTJ, INTJ, ESTJ (6 of 8)
Keita, Te Huia, Janice, Rawiri, Tawera, Carl
Strengths of this cluster
- Strategic thinking and long-range direction
- Comfort making a decision and moving on
- Comfort with complexity and with hard conversations
Risks to navigate
- May put efficiency ahead of relationships
- May assume others are following the same reasoning
- Talk can concentrate in a few voices unless someone deliberately opens the floor
People-first voices: ENFJ, ENFP (2 of 8)
Darlene, Marley
Strengths of this cluster
- Reading the room, including what is not being said
- Keeping values and kaupapa in the conversation
- Naming what the group is avoiding
Risks to navigate
- Can end up carrying much of the group's attention to relationships
- With only 2 such profiles, attention to how decisions land rests on few people
Overall insights: In the personality survey, the Chair and the Manager both have Thinking and Judging profiles. People with these profiles weigh the logic of a decision first and like to settle things quickly. That helps the Chair and the Manager set direction together. It also means both may focus on the task before the working relationship, so a regular one-on-one between them would help.
Of the 8 people who did the survey, only 2 are Feeling types, who think first about how a decision affects people. None is a Sensing type, the kind of person who notices practical, day-to-day detail. The board may need to make a point of asking how its decisions will land with whānau and staff.
Look for people-first working styles when filling board seats
▾
Context
A personality profile was completed by eight people: the 6 trustees, the Manager and the Board Secretary. 6 of them are Thinking and Judging types (people who weigh the logic of a decision first and like to settle things quickly). They are strong on strategy, decisions and follow-through. Only two personalities around the board table bring a first instinct for how decisions actually land with people, serve those behind the kaupapa, or what whānau are experiencing day to day.
Purpose
To add voices whose first instinct is people rather than plans, alongside the board's strong core of strategy and delivery.
Practical ideas
- When looking at recruitment for the seventh board seat (and wider succession) (Top Rec 7), give weight to Sensing and Feeling types such as ISFJ, INFJ and ESFJ when choosing between candidates. Treat it as a preference, not a hard test or decision point.
- Asking a short kōrero about their working style during the recruitment interviews is usually enough to see where a candidate leans.
Cost of inaction
Attention to how decisions land with people keeps resting on a few trustees, and the people-first voices stay outnumbered three to one.
Tuhinga | Document Review▾
Te Whare Hukahuka reviewed 4 of your governance documents in full and rated them: the Trust Deed, the Board Charter, the February 2026 board pack and the Strategic Plan. Click a document below to open its checklist and our review.
59
Complete
31
Partial
18
Gaps
The wider checklist below covers the rest of the board's governance documents. Where Te Whare Hukahuka has reviewed a document, the status is ours. Where we have not, the status shows the board's own self-assessment, which we will check together. The Annual Budget was not within the scope of this review.
Tūāpapa|Foundations
Trust Deed / Kawenata
A thorough founding document grounded in kaupapa Māori
2562
Reviewed
▾
The Ngāti Tauira Trust Deed is a thorough, well-structured founding document, grounded in kaupapa Māori and focused on community wellbeing.
The specific strengths and gaps are noted below.
25 items complete – These give the board a sound, kaupapa-grounded base for how the Trust is governed.
6 items partial – Spelling these out in full would make decision-making, roles and succession clearer for the board.
2 gaps – Adding these would protect the board and the Trust's charitable purpose when hard decisions arise.
Present and well-articulated
The Trust Deed clearly sets out:
Partial – present but under-specified
Several governance processes are mentioned but not fully spelled out:
Not evident
Two governance controls usually found in a trust deed are not in this one. They may exist in separate policies or in practice, but the Trust Deed does not set them out.
Recommendations
Add the two missing protections
We recommend the board adds two protections to the Trust Deed in one round of amendments: thresholds for substantial transactions (what size of decision needs what level of agreement) and a tikanga-based way to settle disputes. Top Rec 10 (a policy on trustee and staff whānau links) includes adding this dispute process, because disputes between whānau are the most likely kind.
Set the level of agreement for different decisions
Set out which decisions need a simple majority, which need a larger majority (a special resolution), and which need every trustee to agree, especially for property, major contracts and borrowing.
Add a review provision
The board could add a formal review of the Trust Deed every five years, so the document stays matched to how the Trust works.
Client follow-up prompts
Does the Trust already use a process, formal or led by tikanga, to resolve disputes that the Trust Deed could write down?
Does the Trust keep any record of the people it serves that could start a member register?
Governance Manual / Board Charter – 🟡 Strong on compliance, with gaps in role clarity
962
Reviewed
▾
The Board Charter is well structured across 26 sections, and it is strongest on compliance, with conflicts of interest, financial controls, risk and meeting procedures all covered well.
The specific strengths and gaps are noted below.
9 items complete – These give the board strong, well-written rules for compliance and for how it runs.
6 items partial – Spelling these out would make roles, responsibilities and decision-making clearer for the board and the Manager.
2 gaps – Adding these would let the board act between meetings with confidence and plan for the skills it will need.
For compliance
Five core compliance policies. Most are covered well, with their own sections on risk, conflicts of interest and financial management.
For role clarity
Seven items on position descriptions, delegated authorities, committee terms of reference and communications. Committees and communications are covered well. Descriptions of each role and lists of delegated authorities are the gap.
For continuity
Five items on how the board keeps itself going over time. Induction, performance assessment and strategic planning are well developed. Succession covers the Manager and the Chair, but not the wider board.
Recommendations
Bring the Chair's role together
We recommend the board gathers the Chair's role from sections 8, 11, 12, 16 and 17 of the Board Charter into one position description, with a short list of when the Chair may act between meetings. Top Rec 4 covers this work.
Write the Board Secretary description and the Manager's delegations schedule
Extend succession beyond the Manager and the Chair
The board could add succession for the wider board, starting from a simple skills self-assessment at the next hui. Top Rec 7 (deputy Chair and board succession) covers this work.
Give Health & Safety its own section
The board could add a short section on who reports on Health & Safety, how often and what the board expects to see, or point clearly to the policy that covers it.
Client follow-up prompts
Does the Trust hold a separate Health & Safety policy outside the Board Charter, for example among the operational policies section 1.3 refers to?
Is there a delegations schedule or financial authority document for the Manager alongside the Board Charter?
Has the board discussed delegated authorities for the Chair, or does the informal approach still suit the Trust's size?
Tekoteko|Leadership
Board member role description
Assessed in Charter review
Chairperson position description
Assessed in Charter review
Chairperson delegated authorities
Assessed in Charter review
Board Secretary position description
Assessed in Charter review
Board skills / gaps matrix
Assessed in Charter review
Pou Tūhono|Systems
Board Pack (February 2026)
Ready for decisions, and much stronger than a year ago
1271
Reviewed
▾
The February 2026 board pack is thorough and ready for decisions, with a timed agenda, full financial reports with commentary and recorded resolutions.
The specific strengths and gaps are noted below.
12 items complete – These give trustees what they need to make decisions at each board hui.
7 items partial – Completing these would link the board's decisions to its strategy and keep risks and policy reviews in front of the board.
1 gap – Adding this would put the strategy's goals in front of the board at every hui, once the Strategic Plan has them.
Strategic matters
Reports are detailed, written by named managers, and cover cultural, whenua, financial, workforce and stakeholder matters. Strategic work is happening, but the pack does not yet report it against set goals.
Administrative & compliance matters
Financial reporting is a clear strength, with consolidated and cost-centre profit and loss, the balance sheet, monthly trends and written commentary. The Audit-Finance-Risk Committee reports through the agenda. A Risk Register and a schedule for reviewing policies are not visible in the pack.
Presentation & structure
The pack is well organised on BoardPro, with a consistent index, agenda structure and document filing. Reports follow a consistent pattern, with executive summaries and each item labelled as for decision or for information.
Recommendations
Link the pack to the strategy
Once Top Rec 1 gives each strategic priority its SMART goals (clear, measurable goals with a date), put a one-page summary of them at the front of every pack, and mark each agenda item with the priority it serves.
Show the Risk Register at each hui
The board could see a one-page summary of the Risk Register at each hui, even when the Audit-Finance-Risk Committee holds the full register.
Draft resolutions before the meeting
The board could ask that every decision item arrives with a draft resolution attached.
Client follow-up prompts
Does the Audit-Finance-Risk Committee keep the Risk Register separately, and could a summary go in the pack?
Would the board like to make drafted resolutions its standard practice?
Board Workplan / Annual Calendar
Self-assessed – not used
Tāhuhu|Strategy
Strategic Plan
A clear direction without the goals and measures to steer by
131213
Reviewed
▾
The Strategic Plan is culturally grounded, rooted in the iwi and Trust's whakapapa and centred on Ngāti Tauira iwi members. It gives the board a high level sense of where it is going and why, but lacks an implementation and resourcing pathway.
The specific strengths and gaps are noted below.
This review checks whether the Strategic Plan is complete and whether the board uses it. It does not judge whether the direction is right. Te Whare Hukahuka's separate Strategy Review process would look at that in depth.
13 items complete – These give the board a shared, culturally grounded direction to build on.
12 items partial – Sharpening these would let the board turn its direction into goals it can track.
13 gaps – Adding these would give the board the measures, owners and order of work it needs to steer by the plan.
Strategic Plan components
Most of the basic parts of a strategic plan are present. The gaps are in measures and monitoring, the parts that let a board track whether the strategy is working.
Strategic alignment and coherence
Vision, mission, values and goals tell one consistent story. The gap is the link between what the board intends and how the work gets done.
Strategic depth and architecture
These items show the depth of a mature strategy. This plan sets a direction, has strong cultural foundations, and a framework based around Tauira Tāngata, Tauira Whenua, Tauira Mahi. The items below are the work to further deepen the plan.
Presentation and structure
The plan is culturally rich and well grounded in history and stakeholder analysis. A reader cannot yet see the whole strategy at a glance, or how it moves from goals to action over time.
Recommendations
Write key outcomes as SMART goals
We recommend the board writes each key outcome as a SMART goal (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound). Top Rec 1 covers this work.
Set success measures and owners for every priority
Agree KPIs (measures of performance) for each priority, name who is accountable, and say how often progress is checked.
Show the order of the work
Set out which work comes first, then put the whole strategy on a plan-on-a-page that the board, staff, whānau, marae and funders can all use.
Focus the plan on fewer priorities
The board could consider reducing the plan's six goals to 3 or 4 priority areas for the next twelve months.
Client follow-up prompts
Are there operational or business plans under this strategy that assign responsibilities, timelines and budgets?
Does the board review progress against these goals once a year?
Has the board considered reducing the six goals to three or four priority areas for the first twelve months?
Strategic Direction Document
Self-assessed – acceptable
Strategic Direction & Planning policy
Assessed in Charter review
Maihi|Performance
Annual Budget (approved)
Not provided
Manager delegated authorities
Assessed in Charter review
Annual / Operational Plan
Self-assessed – acceptable
Organisation KPIs
Not provided
Financial Management policy
Assessed in Charter review
Financial snapshot / budget updates
Self-assessed – well used
Reimbursement of expenses policy
Assessed in Charter review
Pou Tuarongo|Future-Proofing
Risk Management policy
Assessed in Charter review
Risk Register
Assessed in Board Pack review
Succession planning process
Assessed in Charter review
Board member induction process
Assessed in Charter review
Mahau|Relationships
Media & Communications policy
Assessed in Charter review
Tūtohu Ture | Charities Act Review (s42G)
Every registered charity must review its governance procedures at least every 3 years, under section 42G of the Charities Act 2005. This section answers the 3 questions section 42G asks, and offers a resolution the board can adopt to record its review. Click to read the summary review.
This dashboard includes a review of Ngāti Tauira Trust's governance procedures against the three considerations required by section 42G of the Charities Act 2005.
Section 42G requires every registered charity to review its governance procedures at least every three years. The review considers whether those procedures are fit for purpose, whether they help the charity achieve its charitable purpose, and whether they help it comply with the Charities Act.
1Are Ngāti Tauira Trust's governance procedures fit for purpose?
Largely fit for purpose, with improvements possible
Key evidence and matters to address
The Trust Deed is thorough, the Board Charter covers compliance well, and board packs on BoardPro are ready for decisions. The Audit-Finance-Risk Committee oversees finance and risk.
The Chair and the Manager have no written delegated authorities. The Board Secretary role is not defined. There is no succession plan, no deputy Chair and no skills matrix. Induction for new trustees only involves one introductory meeting.
2Do Ngāti Tauira Trust's governance procedures assist it to achieve its charitable purpose?
Yes, but their effectiveness is limited in several areas
Key evidence and matters to address
The board shares its kaupapa and its direction, the Strategic Plan names the people the Trust serves, and the Trust delivers its programmes well.
The Strategic Plan has no measurable goals or KPIs to track progress. Marae and iwi members have no direct voice to the board. Key relationships sit with the Manager alone. Most income comes from a few Government contracts.
3Do Ngāti Tauira Trust's governance procedures assist it to comply with the Charities Act?
Governance arrangements largely support compliance, with matters to strengthen
Key evidence and matters to address
Financial controls, external audit, the conflicts of interest register and the Trust Deed's rules for the AGM are in place and used.
The Board Secretary's duties for records and filings are not written down. The board pack shows no schedule for reviewing policies. The Trust Deed has no review date and no rules for approving very large transactions.
Board resolution
We recommend that your board approves and minutes the following resolution as retained evidence of its s42G review.
Governance review completedAugust 2026
Review methodologyTe Whare Hukahuka Governance Aromatawai: document review, board self-assessment survey and one-on-one interviews
Governance procedures reviewedTrust Deed, governance policies and procedures, board structures and committees, delegations, decision-making, strategy and monitoring, risk and financial oversight, conflicts of interest, induction, succession and other governance practices.
Recommended Board resolutionThe Board receives this Governance Aromatawai as a governance review for the purposes of s42G of the Charities Act 2005. It notes the findings against the three statutory considerations above, and adopts the identified recommendations.
Date received by Board__________
Next review due no later than__________
NOTE: Your board is not required to submit the evidence of the review to Charities Services as part of compliance, but it is required to retain records of the review.
To print a summary of the Charities Act s42G review, click here.