Matapura Ellison, Kati Huirapa Runaka ki Puketeraki chairman, says that “in keeping with our manawhenua responsibilities we give a high priority to being involved with and supporting the efforts of the Otago Natural History Trust” (ODT 21/6/11). Let’s look at what that means.
According to the website http://www.unctad.org/trade_env/test1/meetings/tk2/Maori%20Concepts.pdf
Mana whenua is the mana that the gods planted within Papa-túã-nuku (Mother Earth) to give her the power to produce the bounties of nature. A person or tribe who `possesses' land is said to hold or be the mana whenua of the area and hence has the power and authority to produce a livelihood for the family and the tribe from this land and its natural resources.
Every effort is made to protect and uphold mana whenua, not only from loss of `possession' of the land, but also from despoliation by careless exploitation. Mana whenua is a gift from the gods and always remains with the tribe of an area. The imposition of European title, for example, cannot remove mana whenua from a tribe.
The Resource Management Act interprets mana whenua as meaning 'customary authority exercised by an iwi or hapú in an identified area'. This falls far short of the real meaning by not incorporating any reference to its spiritual basis.
So manawhenua is a serious issue to Maori, even though it has no statutory authority – it’s not a legal term. Manawhenua responsibilities are generated by custom, and how an iwi chooses to observe that custom, rather than by law or regulation.
What seems odd is that Kati Huirapa weren’t particularly concerned about manawhenua over the Orokonui Valley when it was sold to Europeans in the 19th century, or when it was simply a water catchment for the local psychiatric hospital, or farmland, or even ordinary conservation land administered by the Department of Conservation. The Runaka’s own records show no traditional or historic references to the valley, suggesting it was of no particular significance to the iwi in times past.
So why has the issue of manawhenua suddenly arisen? Simply because the valley is now worth something to Kati Huirapa – it’s a well-publicised wildlife sanctuary, attracting thousands of visitors, where the iwi can promote their own interests at no cost to themselves. It’s also a place where the iwi can exercise power it didn’t have until now – power to demand privileges in return for support for the species translocations that DoC won’t allow without iwi consent.
Without Runaka support, it’s possible that Orokonui would never fulfil its promise as safe habitat for threatened species and for the restoration of something close to a pre-European ecosystem. That rather suggests that “manawhenua responsibilities” are being exercised against, rather than for, the Otago Natural History Trust and Orokonui Ecosanctuary.
