NZAF deputy chair Simon Robb is working to convince members that the NZAF Board has an open mind over proposals to impose race- and HIV- based board quotas. "This is not a sham, we have an absolute open mind on this," says Simon Robb, deputy chair of the New Zealand AIDS Foundation board. He's talking about the controversial governance change proposals which are about to be discussed with – but not voted on by – Foundation members in a series of regional hui. The changes, proposed by the board as a significant step toward recognising the Maori version of the Treaty of Waitangi, will see a 50% Maori quota imposed on the make-up of the board at all times, although Robb dislikes the use of the term "quota". "I don't see this as a quota, I see it as participation at the governance level," he says. "And its not a race-based quota. I never used the word quota, I've been quoted as using it, but I haven't. I've also never said the 50/50 split is a legal requirement, what I said is we have a legal requirement to make sense of the Maori version of the Treaty and this is just one option we're proposing – come back with any other options you may have or concerns you may have." Discussion surrounding the proposals have been heated, both inside the walls of the Foundation and outside, spilling over most visibly into the GayNZ.com message forums. Despite the ominous rumblings, Robb seems convinced that the board won't face much opposition to their proposals at the coming hui. But what if they do? Would they dump it? "It's something that we would look into," he says. "We would absolutely consider that as being something material that we would need to take into account in terms of whether or not we should continue to move forward. But at this point in time, we don't anticipate that to be the case." THE MATHEMATICS OF AGREEMENT According to the current Constitution, the Board's only obligation to members is that it consult on any proposals it may have. Just as a parliamentary select committee is not obligated to take on board suggestions from the public, the NZAF board is equally able to ignore its members if it wants to. “The full board are able to change the constitution, so long as they have a minimum of 75% endorsement around the board table, but we are required to consult,” Robb explains. “And that's why we're consulting now.” Getting the board to agree with each other on proposals would seem much easier than getting a consensus out of hundreds of members. The current board size of seven would make it easy to resolve any deadlocks too, but part of the change proposal will increase the board's size to eight members, in order to accommodate the 50% Maori quota. How will deadlocks be resolved in such a scenario? “I've been on the board coming up two and half years, and we've actually never had a split decision, it's always been unanimous,” Robb says. “It's very much a board based on consensus decision-making. My experience has been that split decisions just don't happen, because we thrash things out until we come to a decision.” Sounds rather like a jury. But, with apologies to Henry Fonda, surely there needs to be a contingency in place should the Eight Angry Men fail to agree on whatever business is before the board at a particular time? This appears to be an issue that the board haven't really thought through. “The point you make is valid, no doubt we will turn our minds to that and look at a way forward,” says Robb. “One way of managing that would be for the chair to have a casting vote.” Currently, the chair is the newly-appointed Dr Clive Aspin. The governance change proposal announcement coincided with his appointment, but Robb says this is just a coincidence. Others, like former chair Michael Stevens, don't see it that way. He claims that Aspin had made Treaty issues a standing item on the Board's agenda last year. Getting a response from Aspin is difficult at the moment, as he is out of the country, and has been for much of the time since the firestorm around the proposals erupted. MANAGING THE FALLOUT Robb insists, however, that he hasn't been left carrying the can for Aspin. "It was me that really said, let's get onto this," he says. "We had facilitated meetings around how best we should respect the Maori version of the Treaty in the Constitution and I quite clearly remember saying, ok folks, let's just get on and do it, and put a proposal out there, and let's see what feedback we get." He also denies that the whole thing has been Aspin's idea. “It wasn't Clive, it was me acting as a catalyst to say let's just continue the momentum,” he says. “With his commitment to being out of the country, and his relatively high profile, I said to Clive I'm very happy to help share this responsibility with you as deputy chair, and some of that is having a relationship with the media. It's also a clear signal on behalf of the board that we share this decision, it isn't a decision made by any one person on the board.” Regardless of who lit the blue touch paper, the only remaining decision is whether to stand clear, or embrace the madness and watch the fireworks, which have already seen shots across the bow from the deputy leader of the National Party, who rubbished the proposals as “utterly stupid” and “PC gone too far”. Robb, naturally, disagrees. He acknowledges that the Foundation has now been opened up to political criticism in an election year, but doesn't consider that to be significant. “I don't think that will have an effect,” he says. “We will manage that issue by talking to those people we need to talk to, to ensure that any misinformation or misunderstanding around what we're proposing to do is addressed so people clearly understand what we're proposing to do.” Engaging with politicians? “No, I just think its important for us to engage with stakeholders. I don't see at this point in time politicians being our stakeholder here. Of course, they can put in a submission if they wish, but it's not something that we would actively seek. I don't see that Gerry Brownlee's comments are such that they require a deliberate response from the Foundation. I do note that, with the greatest respect to Gerry, that they're based on misinformation.” KEEPING PR WORK IN-HOUSE The problem is, there are many Foundation supporters who would agree with Brownlee a hundred percent – perhaps for the first time in their lives, and with loved ones turning in their graves – which in itself says something about the level of controversy generated. But if the Board was only concerned about engaging with stakeholders, why the press release about the changes, the composition of which has raised questions of its own, following revelations that the board paid an external PR company, which employed board member Jeremy Lambert, to write it. This is not something we should be concerned about either, says Robb, even though the Foundation already employs a highly skilled and respected communications co-ordinator, Steve Attwood. “There's nothing sinister there,” Robb insists. “We decided that we wanted to take ownership on these press releases to speed up the process. Jeremy was having to balance his responsibilities as a board member vis a vis his paid employment, and as a board we decided that it's only appropriate that his employer is remunerated for doing that in work time." Perhaps board members are now wishing they did ask Attwood to write their press release for them. After all, he did work for the Department of Conservation during the public relations hell that was the Cave Creek disaster. Without his help, the board seems to have created one of their own. THE FIRST OF A NUMBER OF CHANGES? The ambiguous wording of the proposals aren't helping to allay fears, either. Some have wondered whether the governance changes are the first steps toward allocating NZAF funding by race as well, something which Robb has emphatically denied. However, the proposal paper sent to members states that the 50% Maori board quota “may be the first of a number of treaty-related initiatives that the Board investigates in order to discharge its legal obligations in relation to the constitution.” Robb says the board has not discussed any further initiatives, and that the statement is merely something of a safeguard. “People say the Treaty is a living document, so in two years' time, five years' time, ten year's time, you just never know what the Foundation may consider to be appropriate at the governance level, so there's always a possibility that in the future another step may be required.” The board has been keen to emphasise that along with a 50% Maori quota, two places will also be reserved for HIV+ people, but the wording of the proposed constitutional change is greyer than a donkey. While the first part of the change specifically outlines the intention that “50% of the Board are Maori”, the second part describes the HIV+ positions as “a minimum of two members have the criteria detailed as ‘knowledge and experience of the communities most affected by the HIV epidemic in New Zealand'”. Based on the above wording, those two positions need not even be filled by gay men, let alone HIV+ people. Why the ambiguity, when the clause relating to Maori board members is so specific? “That's the wording used in the current constitution," Robb says. "Common sense would suggest more often than not those positions will be people living with HIV, and that's how it's been interpreted to date." PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS Things can change, though. It's only recently that an NZAF board has decided to interpret a decade-long constitutional commitment to the Treaty as a 50% Maori board quota. What guarantees is the HIV+ and gay community being left with here? “Going through the consultation process it may turn out that your point is made by others, and people might say this seems to be ambiguous, even though its in the current constitution,” says Robb. “It's not as sharp as it could be, I accept that, but we inherited that wording so we're keeping with it at the moment, but with an open mind to how best it could be worded if people came up with an alternative.” It all comes back to skill sets though, says Robb, and we mustn't forget that skills are the primary criteria for employment of board members. However, if the proposals go through – whatever the board's feelings about the use of the term – a race-based quota will have been enacted. How exactly will this work in a practical sense? Four of the seven current board members are Maori, meaning the board's 50% is already filled. Will the extra eighth board member, which the changes require the Foundation to include, have to be non-Maori? "Common sense would suggest that it could be Maori or non-Maori. It depends," Robb says. "If the wording is finalised as 50% Maori and we've got that, then I think we could look for Maori or non-Maori. It's a minimum benchmark." But isn't part of recognising the Treaty a recognition of partnership between Maori and non-Maori? It seems the board's proposals to include race in the employment criteria only work one way. “That's the advantage of the consultation process,” is Robb's response. “All those nuances are likely to be fleshed out in the submissions we receive. People will think of issues and scenarios we haven't thought of, and will add value in terms of our ability to think more widely on these issues. We're really looking forward to having that feedback, because we'll end up with a proposal that is well suited to the needs of governance and the Maori version of the Treaty." With all the work that members are being expected to do to tidy up the woolliness of the board's proposals, one can't help but come back to the words of MP Gerry Brownlee, much as it induces nausea to do so. The AIDS Foundation is dedicated to helping prevent an illness which has claimed and continues to claim many lives. At a time when HIV infection rates are at their highest level ever in New Zealand, it's hard not to look at the ill will, ambiguous board statements, frightened NZAF staff, and thousands of journalist's words generated on the governance changes so far and not think: "is this really all worth it?" Viewed through a narrow right-wing lens, it could seem to a National/NZ First-run government that an organisation that can't keep focussed on its primary goals isn't worthy of the taxpayer funds that keep it afloat. If decisions like that were to be made, any arguments over unverified "legal requirements" would be utterly meaningless. Chris Banks - 4th July 2005